Juicy J. said:
First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo.
It would be better to say that mutual reception is a special type of reception with astrological reception being defined as "a planet that aspects one of its rulers". Any planet can receive another without being received in turn, and that is typically the way of it since mutual receptions aren't as common.
Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).
This is true, but Tsmall points out the reasoning behind this, since orbs of influence weren't really developed until later, but the idea of planets needing to see one another was always present. My understanding of generosity is different than yours. Generosities aren't in any way a bad thing, they're just less independent than mutual receptions. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the use of antiscia when considering reception, as it's not something I've ever seen mentioned before.
Also, the worst connection between two planets other then inconjunct (lack of major aspect and antision) is mutual debility or planets in each other sign of determint or fall (even if its a trine or sextile) such as moon in scorpio and venus in capricorn
I think this idea of "negative reception" would better be served in a discussion on pushing than in a discussion on reception. Reception is defined as a planet being in the dignities of another, being in the debilities of another is not reception and they don't really operate the same way.
tsmall said:
Er, what you are outlining here suggests that in order for there to be one way reception the receiving planet has to be in it's own domiclie. For example you give Sun in Gemini but that Mercury also needs to be in Gemini, or Sun in Pisces but with Jupiter in his own home of Sagittarius. One way reception simply means that planet A is in one of the dignities of planet B, and so is "received by" planet B. A planet in the domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face of another planet is said to be recieved by that planet.
A planet that is receiving another can be in any sign, just for clarification on this point. It's true that a planet can receive another planet in any of its dignities, but we start to drop off in efficiency very quickly about midway down the ladder. Reception is cool and all, and I would rather have it than not have it, but it doesn't do any good unless it's
perfect reception (see what they did there?) and this occurs by being in either one of the greater dignities (domicile or exaltation) and at least two of the lesser dignities (triplicity, term, and face). The idea here is in lesser dignities planets don't have full claim over a sign like they do in major dignities. Saturn is always in domicile in Capricorn and exalted in Libra, but it isn't always triplicity lord of Gemini, for example as it has to share that with Mercury.
There are other considerations that could bring these planets together even without a traditional aspect, such as sings that hear each other, and signs that command and obey. Toss in parallels in latitude and declination (so not just antiscia) and there are many ways that reception can help in dileneating a chart.
While it's true there are other ways that planets can interact with one another, putting the signs that hear one another and signs that command and obey one another on the same level as signs that see each other is a little shaky. Mostly because signs that hear one another or have a command/obey relationship have it as a one-on-one relationship where one sign will command only one other sign that it may already have an aspectual relationship with. Firmicus writes that Cancer hears Aries, but they already Square, or that Libra hears Cancer, but they already Square as well.
Juicy J. said:
Also, this is somewhat relative yes a generosity is a mutual reception and a mutual reception even a generosity is generally more favorable then an ordinary aspect but isn't as favorable for the houses/signs/affairs the planets lord over as a mutual reception with major aspect.
This is a good point to remember when working with receptions. They are all relative to one another in a hierarchy of special reception relationships. It becomes more of a "take what you can get" exercise.
Lets get one thing straight, when looking at receptions/dispostorships its generally not so good for the affairs of a house the more dispostorships it has
? A planet can only ever have one dispositor. I've never seen a traditional author hop through dispositors in the way that modern dispositor trees depict. "Look to this planet and its Lord" and that's as far as I've ever seen anyone go.