posted August 06, 2019 04:00 PM            

Regardless the language used by some astrologers (even in supposed texts) planets cannot be intercepted. Only an arc can be intercepted as that is a term borrowed from geometry and unfortunately corrupted by superficial modern pop astrology.

Learning useful information and technique on this topic can be very difficult because of how off-kilter information is so easily spread.

Read my response to someone else's post on this topic: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/227867.html

posted August 06, 2019 08:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
Opinions vary widely on this because many astrologers have not been properly taught the origins of the term interception and how it actually applies in astrology. It does not apply to signs whose arc is set at 30°, therefore there can be no interception. It applies to houses whose arcs vary because of the Earth's rotation. So in order to properly understand interception you must have a reasonably good grasp of house system dynamics and most astrologers and students don't.

Regardless the language used by some astrologers (even in supposed texts) [b]planets cannot be intercepted. Only an arc can be intercepted as that is a term borrowed from geometry and unfortunately corrupted by superficial modern pop astrology.

Learning useful information and technique on this topic can be very difficult because of how off-kilter information is so easily spread.

Read my response to someone else's post on this topic: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/227867.html

[/B]

---

posted August 07, 2019 02:12 AM            

quote:

---

Regardless the language used by some astrologers (even in supposed texts) planets cannot be intercepted.

---

Within the astrological community, signs that do not fall on a house cusp are usually referred to as "intercepted signs". ... Houses that have the same sign on their first/opening degree and last/closing degree are usually referred to as "intercepted houses" and/or as "duplicated houses".

Planets that fall within an intercepted sign are usually referred to as "intercepted planets".

As Kannon points out above ... geometrically :-
1) A planet cannot be intercepted. ... Hence, these should be referred to as "planets located within a sign that is wholly contained within an intercepted house".
2) A sign cannot be intercepted. ... Hence, houses containing signs that do not fall on a cusp should be referred to as "intercepted houses" (rather than "intercepted signs").

Hence, confusion has indeed arisen within the astrological community because some astrologers understand (and correctly use) the geometrical definition; some attempt to do so (but get it wrong) and others make no attempt to do so at all. In reality though, if one understands what a person's comment is referring to ... it does not matter if he/she chooses to call it a rose or a thistle. ... And my comment below refers to signs that do not appear on a house cusp (intercepted signs) and houses that have the same sign on their opening and closing degree (intercepted houses).

Interpreting Intercepted Signs and Houses

Generally, an issue in the intercepted house pair will be adversely affecting the activities of the following house pair - in a way that prevents the (positive) qualities of the intercepted signs (and all planets located within them) from functioning EFFECTIVELY. ... And that will continue until the chart owner identifies (and resolves) the underlying issue.

For example, I have Cancer/Capricorn intercepted in the 10th/4th houses (with Moon in Cancer + Jupiter in Capricorn) and my Virgo/Pisces is duplicated on the cusp of the 12th+1st/6th+7th houses.

Hence ... an issue in my 12th/6th houses (of service) adversely affected the activities of my 1st/7th houses (of self and partners) - in a way that prevented me from operating effectively in the 10th/4th houses (of career and home).

posted August 07, 2019 02:31 PM            

There is no basis whatsoever for the attribution of detriment or dysfunction to interception.

It is entirely an assumption of sign-based simplistic thinking that each house cusp 'should' be covered by a different sign in succession so that each zodiac sign has its own house cusp. In spite an orderly or neat appearance to it, that does not require it to be used as a carved-in-stone template for all natal horoscopes. Nor does it make interception in any way an expression of disorder or detriment.

Interception simply changes the house ruler to a different one than is usually seen with the predictable order of zodiac sequence. It is a condition of expansion. Expansion creates greater emphasis. Expansion relates to the principle of Jupiter and is benefic in nature.

The late master astrologer and NCGR member John Willner's research into interceptions of house pairs and found they relate to vocational themes. I have not seen enough confirmation of this and tend to mostly ignore house interceptions unless very pronounced after verifying the pinpoint accuracy of the Asc location and house lines. Then I pay most attention and give most interpretive meaning to the interceptions that reinforce an undoubted emphasis because of planets in one or both houses.

The attribution of highly specific and elaborate meanings of detriment or dysfunction to unverified 'sign interceptions' and using concepts extraneous to astrology to do it is to give over astrology to speculation and fantasy. I for one won't participate.

posted August 08, 2019 12:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kannon McAfee:
Graham, you have just illustrated more than anything the intransigence on the issue across too much of modern astrology, but also for MMarie the very difficulty of cohesive interpretive information on the topic. You acknowledge the correct definition just like you are reading it in a dictionary, yet close it and say it doesn't matter.

---

quote:

---

There is no basis whatsoever for the attribution of detriment or dysfunction to interception.

---

quote:

---

It is entirely an assumption of sign-based simplistic thinking that each house cusp 'should' be covered by a different sign in succession so that each zodiac sign has its own house cusp. In spite an orderly or neat appearance to it, that does not require it to be used as a carved-in-stone template for all natal horoscopes. Nor does it make interception in any way an expression of disorder or detriment.

---

quote:

---

Interception simply changes the house ruler to a different one than is usually seen with the predictable order of zodiac sequence. It is a condition of expansion. Expansion creates greater emphasis. Expansion relates to the principle of Jupiter and is benefic in nature.

---

quote:

---

The late master astrologer and NCGR member John Willner's research into interceptions of house pairs and found they relate to vocational themes. I have not seen enough confirmation of this and tend to mostly ignore house interceptions unless very pronounced after verifying the pinpoint accuracy of the Asc location and house lines. Then I pay most attention and give most interpretive meaning to the interceptions that reinforce an undoubted emphasis because of planets in one or both houses.

---

quote:

---

The attribution of highly specific and elaborate meanings of detriment or dysfunction to unverified 'sign interceptions' and using concepts extraneous to astrology to do it is to give over astrology to speculation and fantasy. I for one won't participate.

---