Do/did you notice your Pluto transits?

Yes
Total votes: 27 (69%)
No
Total votes: 12 (31%)
Total votes: 39

151
Yuriy wrote:
Nevertheless you can verify shortly her forecast about current eclipse, that occurred in 2nd house for Scorpios.
Why I still reading her monthly writing, because we've done some major mortgage refinancing shortly before crisis at the end of 2008. And miraculously her general forecast for that month described situation on daily basis, 90% accurate...
Look, I don't blame people for trying to sell stuff especially if there is a market for it. But you have to call a spade a spade. This is so vague that it fits everything. You just throw a ton of options at people and something will stick. "You will get some great news in those two days -- OR -- get hints about your career that will have an effect in January or February."

"Don't lose your phone/wallet because a retrograde Mercury can make you absent-minded. Traffic probably will be bad during holidays so if you are traveling take an iPad to make good use of your time etc etc" That's not even a forecast, that's a list of advices. And why a retrograde Mercury affects only the minds of Taureans? Or maybe there should be an all-in-one forecast? I could go on and on but that's just a waste of time.

If people are buying her stuff, good for her. Someone I know bought a numerology program a couple of years ago, it produces 50-60 pages (per person) of nicely written solid piece of nothing.

You said it yourself, sometimes fits perfectly but mostly wrong.

Ehh, who cares. If people want to be suckers then I say they get what they deserve. (By people I mean people out there.)

152
Seiko wrote:
Look, I don't blame people for trying to sell stuff especially if there is a market for it. But you have to call a spade a spade. This is so vague that it fits everything. You just throw a ton of options at people and something will stick. "You will get some great news in those two days -- OR -- get hints about your career that will have an effect in January or February."

"Don't lose your phone/wallet because a retrograde Mercury can make you absent-minded. Traffic probably will be bad during holidays so if you are traveling take an iPad to make good use of your time etc etc" That's not even a forecast, that's a list of advices. And why a retrograde Mercury affects only the minds of Taureans? Or maybe there should be an all-in-one forecast? I could go on and on but that's just a waste of time.

If people are buying her stuff, good for her. Someone I know bought a numerology program a couple of years ago, it produces 50-60 pages (per person) of nicely written solid piece of nothing.

You said it yourself, sometimes fits perfectly but mostly wrong.

Ehh, who cares. If people want to be suckers then I say they get what they deserve.
If you follow that link you'll find few pages forecasts for all signs. And she reiterates such advising things about retro Mercury with only corrections to rulership, houses, etc.
About eclipses that's her method (seen in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos something relevant), part of it is that some event initiating at present eclipse and might gen full strength at next one (like for Tauruses at the end of January/ beginning of February).
I'm not much into her methods but there is certain consistency of her conclusions.
Also, of course general forecasts lack of whole picture views. For instance if your Sun in Scorpio and Saturn just leaving Sagittarius, than it could be stated that Saturn: "finally leaving your 2nd house of incomes, you'll see some relief in your financial sector!"
But if in your chart AC in Sagittarius than Saturn moving to your actual 2nd house, and you'll not notice any easements...
Again, unless some powerful Jupiter's transit going on or etc.
Last edited by Yuriy on Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

153
If people want to be suckers then I say they get what they deserve.
Even the most intelligent people can be swindled of large amounts of money. Don't blame the victim. It's the racketeer who is the culprit.

154
Years ago (probably mid-70's) I heard about the "rule of three" which is the idea that if you see some astrological indication once, there's a 30% chance that it will happen, twice, 60% and thrice, 90% chance that what is said is correct (never mind which of those astrological effects if any actually "caused" the event, just interested in whether what will be said is correct or not). I wish I could remember who said this, but like so much stated in the astrological community, it lacks sources. At the time, Dane Rudhyar had recently released his Astrological Mandala text and astrology was already going in a decidedly non fatalistic direction for several decades. I personally don't think that life is rigidly fated (but some lives may be more "fated" than others). Because "psychological astrology" takes the stand that nothing is set in stone, by its own nature it tends to lack clarity when it comes to "nuts and bolts" considerations. I don't reject the claims of psychological astrologers or that type of thinking because there is an inner dimension that the traditional side places much less emphasis on and the range of experience is far greater than what is covered by any particular branch of astrological thought in itself. For this reason I don't regard it as less likely that someone having Uranus transit the MC will have career problems or change, than if Saturn comes to the same position or that there is a direction of the MC to one of the malefics, etc. Back in the 70's I had some books that made fated statements about the outer planets to other chart positions...

However, one of the strengths of the traditional area is that because it believes that fate is more "rigid", it makes statements that can be "falsified". In other words you can tell if something is true or false. A statement can be verified accurate or not objectively; whereas many claims by psychological astrologers live on a more subjective level and are far more difficult to pin down scientifically. This was one of the reasons why Schmidt's work was of such interest to me because he came from the realm of science and one of the few mathematicians / physicists who have treated the question of astrology in a fair manner. In my dealings with skeptics, he was one of the few capable of intelligently dismantling some of the more sophisticated arguments against astrology (obviously the precession argument does not fall into this category).

Unfortunately, astrology has many of the same characteristics of a religion and people defend their astrological "sect" status as if it was a fight between Christians and Muslims. Very often it is the case that both sides are wrong and I don't think it is really that much different with astrology if you will be honest with yourself. So asking if we have noticed our Pluto transits (as if because it was demoted from planet status that it no longer holds true, or never did) seems to be a rather misleading comparison. I can think of many instances of traditional techniques that I didn't notice as well, such as the "noddings of the Moon", the third trigon lord period onset, etc... If your attention is focused upon one area, by definition you have to ignore anything that is not within your "focus" and that is a problem if you want to catch/notice "everything".

I have found a set of techniques which seem to work spectacularly (for nuts and bolts types of considerations only), but because of the phenomenon of agnoia, wonder if this is just part of what every serious astrologer has experienced. I find myself in the strange position of feeling like I know best what "works" but not willing to state how I view the world because ego always triumphs over truth in a place where Kronos binds us to the material.

What I was hoping for in the traditional field was that there would be a philosophical foundation upon which all astrology could be found to rest because without this we are all hopelessly lost. Instead what I see are astrologers debating against each other as if upon a sinking ship scrambling for the highest decks and in many cases seeming to place personal ego authority (the "it works for me" syndrome) above objective truth. This is no doubt because astrology is a disgraced subject and because of this has attracted some unscrupulous characters into the field. One can call themselves an astrologer without criminal punishment in many areas of the world, but claiming to be a doctor without a license is not allowed. Perhaps some unspoken understanding exists that any reasonable person "should know better" that calling ones self an astrologer automatically makes one into a person "not to be taken seriously".
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

155
Unfortunately, astrology has many of the same characteristics of a religion and people defend their astrological "sect" status as if it was a fight between Christians and Muslims. Very often it is the case that both sides are wrong and I don't think it is really that much different with astrology if you will be honest with yourself. So asking if we have noticed our Pluto transits (as if because it was demoted from planet status that it no longer holds true, or never did) seems to be a rather misleading comparison. I can think of many instances of traditional techniques that I didn't notice as well, such as the "noddings of the Moon", the third trigon lord period onset, etc... If your attention is focused upon one area, by definition you have to ignore anything that is not within your "focus" and that is a problem if you want to catch/notice "everything".
I relate my problem with the outer planets with the probability & prognostication which I discussed in another thread. In fact, without them there still are too many techniques that make astrology nonfalsifiable.
What I was hoping for in the traditional field was that there would be a philosophical foundation upon which all astrology could be found to rest because without this we are all hopelessly lost. Instead what I see are astrologers debating against each other as if upon a sinking ship scrambling for the highest decks and in many cases seeming to place personal ego authority (the "it works for me" syndrome) above objective truth.
I?m afraid that the hope for a common foundation for astrology is in vain. This is partly because astrology is applied as a religion, often even by those who don?t consider it a religion. If there will be an established common foundation, then astrology will have turned from the patchwork of minds with equal rights (and sometimes some occasional ego?s) into an established religion with a hierarchy, a priesthood guarding the common unified philosophy and probably excommunications of the heretics.

Another point is that there?s an unbridgeable gap between judicial and natural astrology. While the former accept the symbolic explanation of analogy, the latter wants to know how and why.
One can call themselves an astrologer without criminal punishment in many areas of the world, but claiming to be a doctor without a license is not allowed. Perhaps some unspoken understanding exists that any reasonable person "should know better" that calling ones self an astrologer automatically makes one into a person "not to be taken seriously".
The only way astrology can lift itself out of this 'untrustworthy' position is by following the rules of science, or in other words, falsification. Now I will have to say a dirty word but in society ?statistics? will be the only acceptable means to say that an astrological technique is effective. It?s obviously is not sufficient to say that it ?works for me? but it isn?t sufficient either to say that it works on hundreds of clients.

Any seriously set up research that has been made, and usually by astrologers themselves, has turned into a deception. Perhaps it will turn out that astrology works but possibly in a totally different way that astrologers hope for or might expect. For example, the only effective planets might turn out to be Mercury, Moon, Venus and Saturn and only the conjunction may be considered effective and only tertiary progressions and all this in the Regiomontanus in mundo frame of reference. Be prepared to a hard task and many disappointments.

I?ve usually been defending statistical research, and I realise that it isn't a popular stance, and even ?my preferred realm? (the aspects) wasn?t spared. My reaction ought to be either to reject astrology or to be somewhat flexible in the application of it in combination with falsifiability. But the latter two are hard to reconcile.

Perhaps there are only three ways astrology can go, either become a religion and get accepted as a religion even by scientists who don't bother about whether 'walking on water' is possible or not, or follow the standards of scientific research or remain in the marginal area and little change of the status quo.

The biggest problem is that many believe that astrology can explain everything while I think that astrology constitutes only some 5% of factors in life, next to era, political situation, economy, location, gender, age, (family)culture, own actions, human interactions etc. etc. Unless these aren't taken into consideration, most of astrological astrology remains educated guesswork. Or to use the words of Kepler who already knew this:
Kepler wrote:9-8 Natural predictions are more reliable than those of astrology, because they are derived from earthly and direct causes, and thus address the specific matter more accurately. Thus a military strategist knows about future fortune and misfortune [in war], a lawyer about the outcome of his cases, a historian about change in government, an elderly man about the future condition of his children, a physician about the outcome of illness, a farmer about anticipated fertility or about rainy weather on the next day -- each better able to make pronouncements about his special area than the astrologer... The astrologer's specialty is to examine the single general and universal cause, the course of the heavenly bodies.
(Almanac for the Year of Our Lord, 1598)
Kenneth G. Negus: Kepler's Astrology
http://cura.free.fr/docum/15kep-en.html
All rights reserved ? 1987-2001 Kenneth G. Negus

156
Eddy wrote:The only way astrology can lift itself out of this 'untrustworthy' position is by following the rules of science, or in other words, falsification.
There is no science without philosophy. Everything that science holds dear (including statistics) comes from the ideas of philosophers having been applied. This is why philosophy has to come first or the situation is hopeless.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

157
I agree with that comment about science and philosophy. I've been thinking a lot lately about how, in the past, those who became the great names of science all had a very rounded education, and philosophy was at the heart of it. Though studies were separate, each was expected to be understood in relation to other fields, so there was no clear distinction that kept the sciences and the humanities apart. Usually a study of Latin was required, which brought the need to be familiar with the works of the great philosophers too. This sort of education equally trained the imaginative and rational potential of the mind - the result: more possibility for brilliance to emerge.

Today we have the opposite, scientists are being persuaded to be singular in their approach to critical analysis and treat alternative views as destructive nonsense. This might help methodical application but it is limiting for science. All the great breakthroughs of science occured when someone argued against the mainstream, seeing a bigger picture that didn't fit the mold, with something that was considered 'alternative'.

Eddy, it's a common misperception to think that the things you mentioned are not relevant to astrology "era, political situation, economy, location, gender, age, (family)culture, own actions, human interactions etc. etc."

You say "Unless these aren't taken into consideration, most of astrological astrology remains educated guesswork". Ptolemy said the same thing - that it is only when these things are properly understood that astrological analysis should even begin.

158
Shifting gears a bit and wandering a bit in the process:
It?s obviously is not sufficient to say that it ?works for me? but it isn?t sufficient either to say that it works on hundreds of clients.
"It works for me" is kind of a bugaboo amongst astrologers because the obvious objection is "well if it works for you, then it should work for everyone." Then the statistician comes along and informs us that 'No it only has to work at a rate greater than chance for everyone."

The problem with "it works for me" is that the assumption by both advocate and detractor is that astrology is or should be mechanistic. The scientist not versed in anything else (as referred to above by Deb) is only able to see the mechanical side of everything because they think everything is mechanical. But those who say, "If it works for you, therefore it has to work for everyone," are also being mechanical. They're just saying the other guy's mechanics are faulty. Astrology isn't mechanical, because it if is, then astrology cookbooks reveal all.

But what of the people who say "it works for me?" Are they all lying? Let us grant, and get out of the way, that some of them are lying,and some of them are lazy and simply make the statement so they don't have to do the hard work of study and application. It is much easier to announce one's own insights as omniscient and move on. Let us also stipulate that some who say that honestly, believe it, and have reason to believe it. Why do they believe that and what do we do with them?

This is not a new problem. In fact it is restating a very old and continual situation in astrology - one astrologer is doing things differently than another and both claim positive results. The absolute best place to look for this is Morinus who criticized virtually everybody who came before him, but who at least took the trouble to state his rival's opinions (and more often than not accurately state them - there are a few flubs in this area, though), and then his own which he obviously considered superior. We can also, if we read Latin and I don't, look to Cardan and Guarico for the same sort of thing. Other astrologers were equally critical of others, but sometimes not as specific. But aren't they all ultimately saying "it works for me?"

The statistician mounts his charger and rides to the rescue with his calculator that to him reveals all truth. "Well let's find out who is more accurate: Cardan or Guarico, and then we'll find out whose methods work best when others use them. All we have to do is convert everything to numbers and put the numbers into my little electronic gizmo that will give us a third set of numbers which we will then convert to objective reality." Would that it were so. The second data dump of e-mails of manmade global warming advocates just this week gives us insight as to how well this method works. But even if used honestly this method is not going to reveal absolute truth every time. The material is objective; the rest of the world less so.

We are overwhelmed with technique. In fact I wonder if it isn't time to declare a moratorium on new techniques past and present, discard more than a few of them simply to clarify things and then actually apply this philosophy business to reading a chart. I attended a meeting of an astrology group one time and saw an eager beginner asking something about her chart. "I have Venus in the 10th. What does that mean?" - or something like that. A half dozen well meaning people all chimed in to answer and I doubt any two of the group gave the same answer. The one thing all answers had in common was they all represented a particular technique.

The proper question, it seems to me is not "What does Venus in the 10th mean?" but rather "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means with any certainty in a particular chart?" The answer to that question lies in Deb's observation that the best scientists were well rounded. They had a liberal arts education.

The expression "liberal arts" has an interesting etymology. The root of liberal is not the Latin phrase for "non-scientific." Liberal arts were the things it was believed a free man needed to function well as an adult. This was unnecessary for a slave or otherwise limited individual as their function in society was predetermined and required no thought - just the way the statisticians want us to live now. It is the statisticians that deny freedom to think or act outside their paradigm(although they will deny it their actions give the lie to their stated beliefs. Don't eat this, don't drink from that, buckle your seat belt, put on your safety helmet OR ELSE!!! There, there the statistics say it's for your own own good. It's not me). In fact it is the "social scientists" that work tirelessly to undermine the very freedom implied in liberal arts.

But back to the question, "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means?" The first thing we do is ignore statistics. We might come back to them at some point, but we need a little breathing room, and that is precisely what statistics deny. The next thing we do is practice what I think is the main difference in traditional astrology and its contemporary counterparts - get to the essence of the 10th house. Books give us rote answers: career, status, honors, fame, etc. But those things and more contain something in common with each other that cannot be measured. The same is true for Venus and is also true for whatever sign that holds Venus. This gives us a lot to work with that is not specific to the native and it is here that our other great admonition kicks it:"It depends on the rest of the chart." It does. What does Venus rule? What about receptions? What about aspects? This begins to fill out the picture without the constraints of statistical analysis that leads us away from precisely what we wish to know: information about this native. The practice of Psychology reverses what the application of essence does. Client sees therapist, discusses situation, psychologist recalls this or that study that applies. He then pigeonholes client as the odds favor the cookbook/statistical interpretation and works towards that end to find a solution.

One of the most innovative approaches to psychotherapy that I've come across was in a book titled "Plato Not Prozac." Those guys applied philosophy to people's problems. Now if an individual had a serious mental illness they quickly turned that over to the psychiatrists. Plato is not intended for the organically irrational. This is a lot closer to what we need to do. Their goal is to apply philosophy to the client's problems. The solutions to many problems is found in the wisdom of the great philosophers. I think this is closer to what we could be doing than applying an ever increasing number of techniques.

I don't want to meander much longer, but I think Ptolemy not cliches or maybe Morin not mental morphine is a much better approach if we could further refine it. The refinement of what we do to get more out of what we have not discover more variations of what we do know or more of what we don't know seems more practical. I am not discouraging further historical research only asking that the huge amount of what we now that we didn't know only a generation ago is ready for some application.

We have all been subject to the astrology book buying mania. Some of us still have it. We did that originally in order to find the one book that would explain it all perfectly and allow us to apply it perhaps even more perfectly. That book never existed. The waiting for more and more historical information to be unearthed is another way of playing the same tune. It's time to apply, technique and philosophy combined and most likely fail a lot and endure a lot of criticism in the process. The operative word is "apply" not "mimic ." Our ancestors are guides not the basis of statistics. They're mentors not computers. They're human; so are we.

159
This is all because people are pulling away from the nature. In rural areas, older people use astrology more than you know. Well, to be honest, they don't realize they are using it but still. They follow the quarters (or phases) of the Moon so they know when to plant and do other agricultural stuff. And not only agricultural. They cut hair according to the Moon, they do laundry when the Moon is in a sign of Watry Triplicity. I'm not kidding. 100% of the calendars they print show the quarters of the Moon and 80% show the current sign of the Sun and the Moon. In small print, but nevertheless.

But that's not astrology to them. That's a given. They know those things work (especially in agriculture) because they've been told by their parents and they have seen it for themselves.

So people in rural areas have been electing by the Moon for ages, at least in the Eastern Europe. They just don't know that it's astrology they're doing. They can also tell what's the weather gonna be like by things like that.

The horary is just a step above that kind of natural astrology. That's why it is by far more reliable than natal astrology. Yeah, I know, the same old tune by Seiko. But what is easier -- to determine the fate of the ship by looking at its blueprints or to tell if there will be a storm by certain observations?

So, I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing it looks like sour grapes. If you can't predict anything (I'm not saying the traditional astrologers are Nostradamuses) then it's psychology time, everybody. You are lazy and a sissy, you will never accomplish anything in your life. You have an inclination to do this or that but it will not show until this happens. Maybe. I think.

This ship is unsinkable, it will last for years but this little poorly built fisherman's boat will not survive even a hint of a storm. Yeah, right. We've been there.

160
Tom wrote:

But back to the question, "How can we know what Venus in the 10th means?" The first thing we do is ignore statistics. We might come back to them at some point, but we need a little breathing room, and that is precisely what statistics deny. The next thing we do is practice what I think is the main difference in traditional astrology and its contemporary counterparts - get to the essence of the 10th house. Books give us rote answers: career, status, honors, fame, etc. But those things and more contain something in common with each other that cannot be measured. The same is true for Venus and is also true for whatever sign that holds Venus. This gives us a lot to work with that is not specific to the native and it is here that our other great admonition kicks it:"It depends on the rest of the chart." It does. What does Venus rule? What about receptions? What about aspects? This begins to fill out the picture without the constraints of statistical analysis that leads us away from precisely what we wish to know: information about this native. The practice of Psychology reverses what the application of essence does. Client sees therapist, discusses situation, psychologist recalls this or that study that applies. He then pigeonholes client as the odds favor the cookbook/statistical interpretation and works towards that end to find a solution.
Well, may be I'm still being amateur astrologer, but I've got through good practical training in traditional techniques. One of problem solving was definition of native's profession.
And the first we've practically learn that there is no chance to define profession (more or less precisely) without following basic Ptolemy's technique:
Finding profession significators from:
- reviewing planets which have strength at MC
- planet which rising before Sun
Nobody knows exactly how Prolemy got that idea, but that WORKS
If you missed first to find RIGHT SIGNIFICATORS than you most likely lost at all
Planet in 10th house alone, without connection to MC sign can lead our analysis quite far from finding profession

161
For the part of astrology as a ?social? science, I agree about the necessity of philosophy. Perhaps for the calculation part, one could do without, but philosophy has also been a great inspiration for astronomy and mathematics.

Statistics don?t tell everything, I realise. I only mean to say that to be accepted by some areas of science, one has to apply statistics. I recently spoke a friend of mine who is a psychologist and used to ?evidence based? therapies but recently has started an alternative therapy practice. I hope to find some inspiration of her experiences in dealing with the doubts I?ve sometimes expressed.

I should have thought about Ptolemy, I guess I read too many bad (cook)books in the past which left a dominating bad taste.
In fact it is the "social scientists" that work tirelessly to undermine the very freedom implied in liberal arts
Unfortunately that?s true. Years ago a Turkish housemate of mine did translation work. One day she went with a social worker of the Riagg (the Dutch ?regional institute for mental welfare?), to translate the client, a Turkish woman, that needed some therapy. The social worker had a questionnaire consisting of several pages, to be ticked off with yes, don?t know and no. The translation was just about translating the questions for the Turkish woman and translating the yes & no answers to the social worker. There was no opportunity for the (future) client to tell her story, which was just she wanted to do. My friend was astonished, and the client probably too. The results in the questionnaire would be entered in the computer which subsequently would spit out a ?model? of the problem and the fitting model for the treatment.

In psychiatry it?s sometimes the same instrumental approach of a mental problem. I therefore feel quite like an antipsychiatric when I hear about people being stuffed up with anti-depressants while I believe there may be another solution. These sciences are not the sciences I?d make a stand for. I think most of you here will dislike it as much as I do.

Since I know a little bit about astronomy etc, I?ve always had a discomforting ambivalent feeling about astrology. Our understanding of physics is so well developed that we can predict astronomical positions to the arc second some centuries before. It?s just plain hard science. This means that at birth we can calculate any possible predicting technique for the following 100 years of life. If the course life is explained that way, I think we risk doing the same as the social worker of above, a mechanisation of human experience. However I don?t think that astrology can be as applied physics. I don't understand why many others don't have these feelings of ambivalence. The astrology needs constant and actual adjustment to non astrological factors. I sometimes even think that much prediction (for humans) is rather an expression of how the future is seen at that moment (and same for looking into the past), and might need a total new approach a few years later. One may predict to a prosperous 15 year old a change in career at age 25. This will be filled in according to what is known at that moment, perhaps considering a graduation at university. However if the person is a crack addict at age 20, this change of career might be the ?graduation? to the leader of a drugs dealing gang, or moving to a jail. Timing of moments is possible to a certain extent, it?s the dressing that?s difficult to know.

(I?ve been reading on some similar problem, I plan to mention it in the ?articles section? soon.)

That?s why I think that astrology is mostly external. It therefore horrifies me if people call the natal chart the ?map of the psyche? (did Jung invent this expression?). The psyche is free and in my opinion cannot be mechanically ?mapped? by objects and points subject to physical laws. This is what raised objections in many (also astrologers) in the past who rejected a strictly judicial astrology. It is a philosophical argument which played a much greater role than any scientific objection.
Other astrologers were equally critical of others, but sometimes not as specific. But aren't they all ultimately saying "it works for me?"
Yes, I think so.

Seiko wrote:This is all because people are pulling away from the nature. In rural areas, older people use astrology more than you know. Well, to be honest, they don't realize they are using it but still. They follow the quarters (or phases) of the Moon so they know when to plant and do other agricultural stuff. And not only agricultural. They cut hair according to the Moon, they do laundry when the Moon is in a sign of Watry Triplicity. I'm not kidding. 100% of the calendars they print show the quarters of the Moon and 80% show the current sign of the Sun and the Moon. In small print, but nevertheless.
I like this. Although I may appear as someone who searches just for mathematical precision, I like the natural approach.
The horary is just a step above that kind of natural astrology. That's why it is by far more reliable than natal astrology. Yeah, I know, the same old tune by Seiko. But what is easier -- to determine the fate of the ship by looking at its blueprints or to tell if there will be a storm by certain observations?
It sounds like a good tune. Another ambivalent feeling I?ve often had with natal astrology is the 'ego-centeredness' of it. The planets for a certain moment (birth) and a certain location all placed there for this certain individual.

The natural astrology surely has the attractiveness that it concerns the whole surroundings and not especially the individual. Moreover it has the advantage of the continuous flow of planetary positions not related to a natal or ?beginning? chart, apart from a few cases as ingress charts, and eclipse-points which are active for a while. I also think it?s possible the natal chart can ?dissolve? during lifetime. Perhaps this is the liberation of the attachment of the ego as meant in Buddhism and other philosophies.

At least there would be no more ?it works for me? agony then.

162
I only mean to say that to be accepted by some areas of science, one has to apply statistics
Which I'm sure is true, but why do we have to be accepted by science? I don't see that as necessary or desirable.