Horary Readings Round 7 - Questions

[Ronia]

The trouble with Reception is that it depends on whose explanation you are looking at. Reception is one of the oldest forms of relationship between two planets but the definitions of it have changed over time. The Hellenistic Astrologers certainly allowed for circumstances where one planet was in the domicile of another and the two were in signs connected by a major aspect - for example Jupiter in Scorpio and Mars in Aquarius. which would be seen as mitigating the negative effects of the square and building a stronger more favourable (than if the dignity of Mars was not involved) relationship between them. They only bothered with sign, so the degrees were immaterial and it didn't matter whether there was application, separation or no degree aspect at all.

Yes, that's what I was refering to. Connection between signs not necessarily by degree aspect.

They also allowed for 'exchange of domiciles' as being mutually beneficial because the two planets are supporting each other. The did not require an aspect but one would be preferable - a bit like Lilly's allowing mutual reception to perfect a matter.

Which is why I wonder if a mutual reception would lead to perfection...

The term 'Reception' though wasn't used (though the examples clearly show that this is what was meant). Reception as a term is medieval and there you get some tightening up. Reception, even mutual reception, requires an applying aspect and the two planets to be in orb. Medieval Astrologers also allowed mutual reception through lesser dignities, as did Lilly. It's not clear at all whether the Hellenistic Astrologers allowed exaltation, Triplicity, Bounds or Decans to be involved - and it's most likely that they only kept to Domiciles - as their expression attests.

I thought Lilly allowed a perfection without an aspect although I find his writing a bit wobbly on the subject.

Within a Horary question, I think mutual reception by Sign. as per Lilly, is strong evidence for perfection of the matter but an applying aspect would be even better. For Reception, I'd want the applying aspect in horary because we are usually dealing with future events, not past ones (though if you do get a question involving past actions you might consider Reception with separating aspects - though that's a personal opinion.

No doubt an applying aspect would be perfection itself but in the chart there is none. I haven't had mutual reception horaries before and have zero experience with how they play out.

I've not come across that distinction being made in horary, though I haven't yet read some of the medieval texts (too many texts, not enough time LOL). However I have come across something in Hellenistic Astrology (which appears to predate Horary) which might help. Jupiter in Sagittarius and Mercury in Virgo (for example) might well be seen as a positive aspect because of the involvement of Jupiter, and because it involves exchange of domiciles, it would be boosted still further. It would certainly be stronger than Mercury in Virgo and Venus in Libra, which does involve a benefic but has no aspect to join them together, the same with your Venus in Libra and Mars in Scorpio.

Yes, that is why when reading this artilce I wondered if mutual reception + planets in signs which are technically in an aspect (though square) would count even if the planets themselves have already separated from the exact aspect by degree.

I'll just check my understanding of Bonatti first and then get back to you

Thank you. It's a bit odd though... I can't imagine myself rejecting the Moon in this case. Theory should meet with real life somewhere along the road, I'd think.

There is, of course, anoher possible scenario where Bonatti may turn out right: judging by the degrees, the Moon has passed only two since the first chart I cast on the matter and this is the second year of this whole odyssey (so degree equals a year). If I take into consideration this same first chart, there are 12 more degrees for the Moon to travel to perfect and if it means 12 years, I may very well reject the man having in mind our age and the fact he's much older than me. LOL But, aside from the funny part, I asked if there will be development till the end of this year.

 

[Minderwiz]

Y
Which is why I wonder if a mutual reception would lead to perfection...



I thought Lilly allowed a perfection without an aspect although I find his writing a bit wobbly on the subject.

Lilly and his contempories certainly used mutual reception from all dignities and indeed mixed dignities. But you're right Lilly is not so clear when he says

'the use of this is much, so many times when as the effecting of the matter is denied by the aspects, or when the significators have no aspect to each other, or when it seems very doubtful what is promised by square or oppostion, the thing is brought to pass, and without any great trouble and suddenly to the content of both parties'

Clearly no aspect needs to be involved but this statement follows him talking about mutual reception by triplicity, terms, or face. To be fair he does say that the strongest form is by houses (as in domiciles). So a fast reading could conclude that the matter could be perfected through a mutual reception by face, with no aspect at all!! Clearly from his work, that is not what he meant.,

Reading a snippet of Masha'allah, as translated by Ben Dykes, shows that he (Masha'allah) only allows for mutual reception by domicile and exaltation (plus an aspect).

Arguably the Arab Astrologers became over tight and this was a weakness in their approach - Brennan theorises that there hard version of sect, including by hemisphere and gender of sign was one of the reasons sect fell out of use. So Lilly's rather weaker version might be a better model. That being said, I would go along with Mash'allah on Domiciles and Exaltations and only use the other dignities as additional certainty with trine of sextile aspects.

I'd really want to see them in a marriage chart because without mutual reception the couple could meet but it could lead to nothing.

Yes, that is why when reading this artilce I wondered if mutual reception + planets in signs which are technically in an aspect (though square) would count even if the planets themselves have already separated from the exact aspect by degree.

Presumably Lilly would answer 'Yes', Bonatti would answer 'No

Incidentally, I was looking through Barbara Dunn's book Horary Astrology Re-examined and she does a 17 page resume of various Astrologers's views on Reception, though she does not include Bonatti, despite him getting lots of space elsewhere in the book. It's not my favourite horary book but it is jam packed with sources, and I think here the key points are that Reception flourished under the Arabs (Bonatti I think heavily drew on them, especially Masha'allah in his Latin writings, and then began to decline, the Seventeenth Century brigade being the last developed version. By now only mutual reception by sign remains and even that is not really used in any organsied way. For example could you have a mutual reception between Sun in Pisces and Neptune or can Pluto in Capricorn receive Mercury into Scorpio?

PS on the Peregrine Saturn and Moon in Capricorn, The argument seems to be based on the analogy of a Peregrine planet to a homeless wanderer. If the planet's homeless then it can't receive a guest into the home it hasn't got. Seems to make sense but if Saturn is 'homeless' whose domicile does Capricorn become? Has it no domicile lord at all and the Moon is squatting in a disowned 'house'? To me a Peregrine planet is someone wandering abroad - outside their comfort zone. This does not stop them welcoming someone into their 'house' back home. Frawley explicitly argues for mutual reception for peregrine planets, so if they can have mutual reception they can have a guest at home who might try and do a little for them - it might not be much but it's more than nothing.

On the Detriment argument, Frawley gives an example of Moon in the detriment of Venus which he says means that whomsoever the Moon signifies has a clear enough view of the person/thing that Venus is and hates it. Now in this case the Moon is in it's own detriment (and Saturn's domicile). Frawley would interpret this as meaning that whomosever the Moon signifies (him) has a clear view of the person/thing that Saturn is (you) and loves/likes it. So 'hate' doesn't come into it here. Moon in Capricorn shows the opposite he likes/loves you. As Venus happens to be the triplicity ruler for both Earth and Water signs, there's actually a common shared purpose or interest in what Venus represents - you if we take Venus as conjunct the Ascendant, relationships if we take a natural signification of Venus. Perhaps not a guarantee but very persuasive.

 

[Ronia]

Lilly and his contempories certainly used mutual reception from all dignities and indeed mixed dignities. But you're right Lilly is not so clear when he says

'the use of this is much, so many times when as the effecting of the matter is denied by the aspects, or when the significators have no aspect to each other, or when it seems very doubtful what is promised by square or oppostion, the thing is brought to pass, and without any great trouble and suddenly to the content of both parties'

Clearly no aspect needs to be involved but this statement follows him talking about mutual reception by triplicity, terms, or face. To be fair he does say that the strongest form is by houses (as in domiciles). So a fast reading could conclude that the matter could be perfected through a mutual reception by face, with no aspect at all!! Clearly from his work, that is not what he meant.,

Precisely. I recall further in the book he gave some examples in which he once did consider reception, then an aspect, I don't remember that well anymore (I'd borrowed the book and don't have it to check) but I remember my overall impression was he allowed mutual reception to perfect by domicile (this is my case here) without an aspect but then when reading a chart I think he did look for an aspect... I really don't remember that well. Anyways, the case here is mutual reception by sign in square signs but separated square by degree. The chart's question expires at the end of this year, so I 'll be able to report facts: yes or no.

Reading a snippet of Masha'allah, as translated by Ben Dykes, shows that he (Masha'allah) only allows for mutual reception by domicile and exaltation (plus an aspect).

Plus an aspect for both or only for the exaltation? Although if it's only about mutual reception I don't see why not allow the smaller dignities... If it's just about getting an idea if A likes B, whatever B is, I do take them, I don't see any harm in it.

Arguably the Arab Astrologers became over tight and this was a weakness in their approach - Brennan theorises that there hard version of sect, including by hemisphere and gender of sign was one of the reasons sect fell out of use. So Lilly's rather weaker version might be a better model. That being said, I would go along with Mash'allah on Domiciles and Exaltations and only use the other dignities as additional certainty with trine of sextile aspects.

For perfection or in general?

BTW, I found on Google books nearly the whole "The Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars" by Sahl Ibn Bishr
http://books.google.ca/books?id=i9g-_JFVNJcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

If anyone wants to read it, I started, it's interesting.

I'd really want to see them in a marriage chart because without mutual reception the couple could meet but it could lead to nothing.

You mean even if there is a trine you'd still want a mutual reception in addition? What if the chart is supposed to answer "Will we marry?", then a trine would be clear "yes" and if they will marry, they couldn't just meet, no? Wouldn't it depend on the question?

Presumably Lilly would answer 'Yes', Bonatti would answer 'No

While I can see Bonatti's point on this one, I'm totally unconvinced on his theories regarding the dignified receiving planet.

Incidentally, I was looking through Barbara Dunn's book Horary Astrology Re-examined and she does a 17 page resume of various Astrologers's views on Reception, though she does not include Bonatti, despite him getting lots of space elsewhere in the book. It's not my favourite horary book but it is jam packed with sources, and I think here the key points are that Reception flourished under the Arabs (Bonatti I think heavily drew on them, especially Masha'allah in his Latin writings, and then began to decline, the Seventeenth Century brigade being the last developed version. By now only mutual reception by sign remains and even that is not really used in any organsied way. For example could you have a mutual reception between Sun in Pisces and Neptune or can Pluto in Capricorn receive Mercury into Scorpio?

But we don't use outers in horary... I'm afraid I don't understand your question. But, theoritically, if we assign dignities to the outers, one can have them, I guess. Sun in Pisces, neptune in Leo. The latter for the next 20ish years or so. LOL Only the houses will change, why not? Brings sense of stability to the matter. Besides, some like me, actually benefit from the Pluto/Saturn mutual reception in Capricorn/Scorpio, you know?

PS on the Peregrine Saturn and Moon in Capricorn, The argument seems to be based on the analogy of a Peregrine planet to a homeless wanderer. If the planet's homeless then it can't receive a guest into the home it hasn't got.

That's a bit of a nonsense to me. While there are certainly unfortunate people without a home out there, I don't think it's common enough to be even considered as a characteristic. May be a person without a family? but it has nothing to do with having guests.

Seems to make sense but if Saturn is 'homeless' whose domicile does Capricorn become? Has it no domicile lord at all and the Moon is squatting in a disowned 'house'?

I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me. Besides, we have "me" here, I'm Saturn. So we don't need to look far. I do have a home. LOL I even have a family though small. By no means do I feel rootless.

To me a Peregrine planet is someone wandering abroad - outside their comfort zone.

That's a bit risky. What is a comfort zone? It will be very different for different people with diffeent attitude towards change and certainly doesn't fit me. In fact, I would have said I went out of my comfort zone sending this letter back then but now I'm not doing anything to put me outside my comfort zone. I did it long ago, so this couldn't be it either.

This does not stop them welcoming someone into their 'house' back home.

This whole concept about "home" is bringing me shivers. LOL I prefer in romantic questions to take the old adagio "Home is where the heart is" which throws some light on a possible interpretation but again, I certify there is no way I'd reject the Moon at this point.

Frawley explicitly argues for mutual reception for peregrine planets, so if they can have mutual reception they can have a guest at home who might try and do a little for them - it might not be much but it's more than nothing.

I confess I didn't like Frawley's twists on reception and didn't even try to remember them. But I'm confused here, who can do little for whom? Saturn for the Moon or the other way around? The receiving (peregrine) or the applying (in detriment)?

On the Detriment argument, Frawley gives an example of Moon in the detriment of Venus which he says means that whomsoever the Moon signifies has a clear enough view of the person/thing that Venus is and hates it. Now in this case the Moon is in it's own detriment (and Saturn's domicile). Frawley would interpret this as meaning that whomosever the Moon signifies (him) has a clear view of the person/thing that Saturn is (you) and loves/likes it. So 'hate' doesn't come into it here. Moon in Capricorn shows the opposite he likes/loves you. As Venus happens to be the triplicity ruler for both Earth and Water signs, there's actually a common shared purpose or interest in what Venus represents - you if we take Venus as conjunct the Ascendant, relationships if we take a natural signification of Venus. Perhaps not a guarantee but very persuasive.

Here I don't even want to comment, Minderwiz. LOL I can only pray you're right. But as I'm thinking, wouldn't it mean that the Moon hates himself? Which would explain the 12th house placement... kind of.

 

[Ronia]

I am assuming your move was intended as a move to another country as you are using the ninth, as the house of the quesited. If you are intending the move as a permanent relocation, there's an argument that you should consider using the fourth - if you had, it would give you Mars as the ruler, and there's no major aspect between Jupiter and Mars, so you would end up with a 'No' answer.

Given your 'wanderlust', , I think the ninth is probably the better choice.

Jupiter in Gemini is in its Detriment, now given your comments in the Hellenistic thread, I'd say that is a pretty good description of your situation. The Sun is Virgo and Mercury is applying to a conjunction with it. Mercury happens to be Jupiter's ruler, but if Mercury gets to the Sun first, then it's conjunction will prohibit the square, be it good or bad.

Luckily Mercury is far enough away for that not to happen, so we are back to the square. The Sun is not strong in Virgo, it's Peregrine and in the Sign and Exaltation of Mercury and in The Triplicity, Terms and Face of Venus. It's also in the Detriment of Jupiter.

There's nothing in the dignities of Jupiter, that links it to the Sun, though as Virgo is intercepted in the ninth, that suggest a travel interest (as Mercury rules Jupiter and is in the ninth).

If this had been a 'romance' horary, I would not have been surprised at Jupiter's placement. But it's not - unless you are thinking that a move will improve your chances and that's a major factor in the decision). There's no exaltation planet in Gemini, so the other 'priorities' come from Triplicity (Saturn) Terms, (Venus) and Face (Mars). The latter is the significator of your 'home'. Saturn signifies income and resources (which seems appropriate) and Venus signifies career and romance (again appropriate). What's more both Sun and Jupiter are in the signs of Mercury and the Terms of Venus - so there is something of a commonality there.

It's not an overwhelming need to move but it does show that you're seriously considering it.

The Move itself (Sun), echoes both Wanderlust and career

Squares usually mean delays or obstacles that will be encountered but do suggest the move will come off, if you decide to go.


The only reservation I would have would be with the question itself. 'Will we move' is a question that's under your control, and therefore may not yield a sensible answer (though it looks like it in this case). The usual process is to ask a question that is either beyond your control....such as 'Will I get sufficient funds to finance the move' or 'Will my planned move be delayed'. or even 'Should I move'. Of course you might have just given me a summary of the question, or the conditional clause might have been in your mind but not stated.

Edited to add

The posting was delayed a few hours because of an internet failure

I was digging back in the thread and found this one http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=3484238&postcount=210. As you know the chart produced a positive result, we moved. So, the square did lead to perfection and, looking back, I must say I expected much more obstacles on the way. Or may be I'm becoming quite used to obstacles. LOL

 

[Minderwiz]

Precisely. I recall further in the book he gave some examples in which he once did consider reception, then an aspect, I don't remember that well anymore (I'd borrowed the book and don't have it to check) but I remember my overall impression was he allowed mutual reception to perfect by domicile (this is my case here) without an aspect but then when reading a chart I think he did look for an aspect... I really don't remember that well. Anyways, the case here is mutual reception by sign in square signs but separated square by degree. The chart's question expires at the end of this year, so I 'll be able to report facts: yes or no.

Do you remember which 'house' he was reading for? I can search it out. Knowing you it was either the seventh or the tenth

Plus an aspect for both or only for the exaltation? Although if it's only about mutual reception I don't see why not allow the smaller dignities... If it's just about getting an idea if A likes B, whatever B is, I do take them, I don't see any harm in it.

I think it was for both, it's Lilly that relaxed the rules. There's no problem with mutual reception through minor dignities and and applying aspect. You're right it does indeed help towards perfection. Without the aspect ally you get is what you said - A likes B and B likes A - but if it's Triplicity, Terms or Face it's not likely that liking is strong enough to bring anything to perfection. You might like that guy you see in the grocery store and he might like you but not enough for one of you to ask the other for a date. He's nice but you don't really fancy him as serious boyfriend material. That's the sort of 'liking' implied by the minor dignities without aspect.

For perfection or in general?

For perfection, though I might well suggest a la Lilly that without an aspect there is still a strong suggestion of perfection with the domicile mutual reception and a chance of perfection with the exaltation mutual reception or exaltation/domicile mixed reception. That is increasing caution with no aspect and weaker mutual receptions.

BTW, I found on Google books nearly the whole "The Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars" by Sahl Ibn Bishr

I have the Holden translation but that was a translation from the Latin and Sahl was a Jew working in Baghdad, in the 820s writing in Arabic. Holden argues that the Latin translation was fairly accurate but I think Dykes translation is from the Arabic. I like Sahl - he looks at interesting questions, like buying a slave girl

You mean even if there is a trine you'd still want a mutual reception in addition? What if the chart is supposed to answer "Will we marry?", then a trine would be clear "yes" and if they will marry, they couldn't just meet, no? Wouldn't it depend on the question?

Yes and indeed the querent(s). Asked by someone who is engaged about his/her intended the trine is sufficient to answer 'Yes'. Asked by a guy who is speculating about the girl next door, the trine might indicate a date but without reception I wouldn't given him a positive answer beyond 'she might go on a date with you if you ask but there's nothing to indicate at this stage that she's interested in marrying you?' And if his significator is in none of the dignities of her significator and I know we're talking about speculation - I'd conclude that he really doesn't have serious intentions beyond the speculation. Speculation might eventually lead to marriage through the date but there's no guarantee. They might just go out a couple of times and then call it a day.

But we don't use outers in horary... I'm afraid I don't understand your question. But, theoritically, if we assign dignities to the outers, one can have them, I guess. Sun in Pisces, neptune in Leo. The latter for the next 20ish years or so. LOL Only the houses will change, why not? Brings sense of stability to the matter. Besides, some like me, actually benefit from the Pluto/Saturn mutual reception in Capricorn/Scorpio, you know?

No my point was entirely speculative. The problem I was alluding to is on what basis does Neptune have rulership in Pisces? I think it comes down to affinity for most modern astrologers. Can you compare a rulership by affinity to a rulership that comes from an organised system of planetary domiciles? I don't think you can, what you have to do is come up with a new system of domiciles. That's not impossible but getting it agreed by a sufficiently large number of astrologers would be mighty difficult. If you succeeded then you have the basis for using the outer in Horary. As it stands with no rationale for domicile, exaltation, triplicity, terms and Face, you just can't do that.

That's a bit of a nonsense to me. While there are certainly unfortunate people without a home out there, I don't think it's common enough to be even considered as a characteristic. May be a person without a family? but it has nothing to do with having guests. ..........I'm afraid it doesn't make any sense to me. Besides, we have "me" here, I'm Saturn. So we don't need to look far. I do have a home. LOL I even have a family though small. By no means do I feel rootless.

My point was indeed to bring out the 'nonsense' of saying that Peregrine planets can't have reception.

Yes you do have a home but is it a permanent home yet? You don't have a job yet, and you're dependent to a significant extent on others to help you get them. What's more you want a relationship with the letter man but he's not yet responded. I think 'Peregrine' fits the bill as a description. I agree with Dykes, it doesn't mean that you're helpless and alone but it does mean that you have to rely on others for help, at least initially. Peregrine planets are not debilitated in the sense that they show incapacity.

That's a bit risky. What is a comfort zone? It will be very different for different people with diffeent attitude towards change and certainly doesn't fit me. In fact, I would have said I went out of my comfort zone sending this letter back then but now I'm not doing anything to put me outside my comfort zone. I did it long ago, so this couldn't be it either.

'Comfort zone' is indeed a relative term but then the significator being Peregrine is not relative. It shows that for the matter under consideration you are not in your comfort zone, that is able to effect things without support or help.

If it is letterman then it shows that you're not able to go off and see him at the moment, and tell him you want him. You're dependent on him responding to you in some way. You could use intermediaries - as you've already tried. You could write or email him, or he could decide that he really loves you and come running to you (Moon in Capricorn). Whichever it is, you can't make it happen by your own efforts at the moment. That might change in the future of course. but for the moment you're not in control of the situation and you're not comfortable with the situation as it is. You might 'accept' it but only in the sense that you're prepared to live with it till you can do something about it or he shows he's not interested.

I certify there is no way I'd reject the Moon at this point.

I don't see any real argument in horary terms for you rejecting the Moon, in this horary

 

[Ronia]

Do you remember which 'house' he was reading for? I can search it out. Knowing you it was either the seventh or the tenth

Lol No, it was just in one of the charts he gave as examples, besides he wasn't me and not necessarily focused on the 7th or 10th.

I think it was for both, it's Lilly that relaxed the rules. There's no problem with mutual reception through minor dignities and and applying aspect. You're right it does indeed help towards perfection. Without the aspect ally you get is what you said - A likes B and B likes A - but if it's Triplicity, Terms or Face it's not likely that liking is strong enough to bring anything to perfection. You might like that guy you see in the grocery store and he might like you but not enough for one of you to ask the other for a date. He's nice but you don't really fancy him as serious boyfriend material. That's the sort of 'liking' implied by the minor dignities without aspect.

Yes, I agree with the minor ones an aspect is necessary.

For perfection, though I might well suggest a la Lilly that without an aspect there is still a strong suggestion of perfection with the domicile mutual reception and a chance of perfection with the exaltation mutual reception or exaltation/domicile mixed reception. That is increasing caution with no aspect and weaker mutual receptions.

We shall see. The chart's question ends at the end of this year and is again about the letter man.

I have the Holden translation but that was a translation from the Latin and Sahl was a Jew working in Baghdad, in the 820s writing in Arabic. Holden argues that the Latin translation was fairly accurate but I think Dykes translation is from the Arabic. I like Sahl - he looks at interesting questions, like buying a slave girl

Very amusing indeed. I haven't read much but I find some interesting parts there.

Yes and indeed the querent(s). Asked by someone who is engaged about his/her intended the trine is sufficient to answer 'Yes'. Asked by a guy who is speculating about the girl next door, the trine might indicate a date but without reception I wouldn't given him a positive answer beyond 'she might go on a date with you if you ask but there's nothing to indicate at this stage that she's interested in marrying you?' And if his significator is in none of the dignities of her significator and I know we're talking about speculation - I'd conclude that he really doesn't have serious intentions beyond the speculation. Speculation might eventually lead to marriage through the date but there's no guarantee. They might just go out a couple of times and then call it a day.

Yes but first you said they may not even meet and to me a trine itself should produce a meeting... Or a sextile.

No my point was entirely speculative. The problem I was alluding to is on what basis does Neptune have rulership in Pisces? I think it comes down to affinity for most modern astrologers. Can you compare a rulership by affinity to a rulership that comes from an organised system of planetary domiciles? I don't think you can, what you have to do is come up with a new system of domiciles. That's not impossible but getting it agreed by a sufficiently large number of astrologers would be mighty difficult. If you succeeded then you have the basis for using the outer in Horary. As it stands with no rationale for domicile, exaltation, triplicity, terms and Face, you just can't do that.

We're going back to the discussion if the ancient would have included the outers had they known they were out there. And there is no way we could know the anser, or I can't speculate on their behalf. I can only assume that they wouldn't have ignored the outers without a good reason. As for systems, we can create systems about everything basically, and with the time (which the outers haven't had yet) it would be a small wonder if the system gets acknowledged. I mean, everything had a beginning when it wasn't widely accepted but today we take it for granted.

My point was indeed to bring out the 'nonsense' of saying that Peregrine planets can't have reception.

Ok, thank you.

Yes you do have a home but is it a permanent home yet?

Nothing is permanent in this life. Aside from the philosophical side, we can't know really. We can only feel and I feel good, despite the problems.

You don't have a job yet, and you're dependent to a significant extent on others to help you get them. What's more you want a relationship with the letter man but he's not yet responded. I think 'Peregrine' fits the bill as a description. I agree with Dykes, it doesn't mean that you're helpless and alone but it does mean that you have to rely on others for help, at least initially. Peregrine planets are not debilitated in the sense that they show incapacity.

I understand that, I was commenting on the rest with the homeless wanderer.

'Comfort zone' is indeed a relative term but then the significator being Peregrine is not relative. It shows that for the matter under consideration you are not in your comfort zone, that is able to effect things without support or help.

That's partly true. My comfort zone includes watching from behind the bushes though LOL, as Kim-Rogers Galagher once observed quite rightly. LOL Now, I know you;re not into Sun descriptions but in this article (which is hilarious!) she absolutely got many of the people I know, really: http://innerself.com/content/self-h...strology/relationships/5574-never-date-a.html

And this is the part I'm refering to:

"If so, you've found your match -- or, actually, they've found you. They'll continue finding you, too, no matter where you hide. Just look out back in those bushes. That's them in the black tights -- with the binoculars. Oh, it might seem a bit psychotic at first, but you'll get used to it. Keeping you in their sights is just Scorpio's way of saying, I Love You"

If it is letterman then it shows that you're not able to go off and see him at the moment, and tell him you want him.

That is not possible to happen at any moment with me.

You're dependent on him responding to you in some way. You could use intermediaries - as you've already tried. You could write or email him, or he could decide that he really loves you and come running to you (Moon in Capricorn).

True with the first, quite unbeliavable with the latter. But I understand what you're describing as "peregrine". My problem with this term is that it's often seen as directionless which is not the case and in the reception case didn't make sense to me which is why I discussed Bonatti and his requirements.

I don't see any real argument in horary terms for you rejecting the Moon, in this horary

I truly think this horary is just someone above having fun but we shall see.

 

[Minderwiz]

Yes but first you said they may not even meet and to me a trine itself should produce a meeting... Or a sextile.

Er....No

I'd really want to see them in a marriage chart because without mutual reception the couple could meet but it could lead to nothing.

The meeting might even go well but unless there's strong attraction it's quite possible that the romance may just fizzle out. They may even become firm friends for life but I'd be loathe to promise marriage unless there's evidence of strong attraction between them. Mutual reception offers that evidence and I would really want that by rulership or exaltation.

 

[Ronia]

I'm sorry Minderwiz, my bad, wasn't focused enough.

 

[Minderwiz]

 

[EyeAmEye]

Hi Minderwiz,
Hope you had a happy new year, or at the very least, a better one than mine

I'm wondering if I may bother you with my problems once again. Not entirely sure my question is suitable for a horary. It of course stems from my questions posed to you back in late May:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=177518&page=15

The situation has been back and forth over the past 7 months. I can PM you any additional info you may need over that period if it helps.

So, the question I really have at this point is whether or not this situation is worth pursuing or if I should move on and direct my attention elsewhere.

If you aren't doing any additional readings, thanks anyway, you've done more than anyone has a right to ask already