Rectification

[Pete 4twain]

First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

[DJ]

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

Rectification is usually rectal-fication. Too many astrologers are talking out the wrong end, in my experience.

[Pete 4twain]

Post by DJ

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

Rectification is usually rectal-fication. Too many astrologers are talking out the wrong end, in my experience.

Hey, a response! Thank you. Zipporah Dobyns rectified my birth chart, as I did not have a recorded birth time. I had to apologize to her for giving her a hard time in the process. She had said that the rectified birth time was "approximately" correct; I thought she meant hours, but she meant only a few minutes. It turned out that the rectification was quite accurate, as my father's heart attack and then the time of his death clicked with progressions and transits. I tried to learn from Dobyns' methods, but I have to agree that rectification is a "p.i.a."

[Todd Carnes]

Post by Pete 4twain

Post by DJ

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

Rectification is usually rectal-fication. Too many astrologers are talking out the wrong end, in my experience.

Hey, a response! Thank you. Zipporah Dobyns rectified my birth chart, as I did not have a recorded birth time. I had to apologize to her for giving her a hard time in the process. She had said that the rectified birth time was "approximately" correct; I thought she meant hours, but she meant only a few minutes. It turned out that the rectification was quite accurate, as my father's heart attack and then the time of his death clicked with progressions and transits. I tried to learn from Dobyns' methods, but I have to agree that rectification is a "p.i.a."

Try searching (these archives AND Google) on "Trutine of Hermes" and "prenatal epoch".

Todd

[Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)]

The post below is from a long-time poster to this group, Claude Latrémouille, who has tried to give his reply to the previous post since several weeks, but whose posting to the group has not worked due to technical difficulties. Until that problem has been resolved, I forward his replies to the group.

Should you experience similar difficulties, please send a mail. Contact data are available at our homepage:

www.altastrologymoderated.com.

/Moderator


____________________

Post from C.L.:
____________________


My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrémouille
March 11, 2013

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

[Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)]

Correction!

The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.

-------------------------



On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 09:37:37 CST, Pete 4twain wrote:
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrémouille
March 11, 2013

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Pete 4twain]

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
Correction!
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service. Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am privately very grateful for the guidance I find.

If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a chart as best I can.

My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations when we make mistakes.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.
-------------------------
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrï¿œmouille
March 11, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRï¿œMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)]

< Reply forwarded from Claude L. >

*
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:03:42 CST, Pete 4twain wrote:
*
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more
experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a
professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for
private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other
person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is
indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a
different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service.
Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious
fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am
privately very grateful for the guidance I find.

If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a
chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.
*
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are
quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations
when we make mistakes.
*
For rectification to be a valid process, we would need to have a
very precise chart which would have no need for rectification,
list a series of events affecting that chart, events which would
be determinative in the rectification process, give only the date
and place of birth of the subject of the chart to a number of
astrologers well versed in the rectification process, and wait
for the results.
*
Although none of them could be wrong by more than 24 hours (as
they would be given the correct date), I wonder how different
their results would be, one compared to the other, and also
compared to the real birth data already known.
*
And no cheating, please ! :-)
*
This would probably reconcile me with the rectification process.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 8, 2013

=== ***@torfree.net ===
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

Post by Pete 4twain

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
Correction!
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service. Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a chart as best I can.
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations when we make mistakes.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.
-------------------------
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrï¿œmouille
March 11, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRï¿œMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Pete 4twain]

"True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)"

Fine-tuning a prediction is another thing! But rectification would be based on past events. It's just irritating when a prediction is correct, but off the mark by two years. However, those errors are helpful in learning the ropes of rectification. By this method, I'm pretty sure that I am reinventing the wheel.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
< Reply forwarded from Claude L. >
*
*
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!
I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more
experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a
professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for
private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other
person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is
indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a
different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service.
Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious
fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am
privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a
chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.
*
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are
quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations
when we make mistakes.
*
For rectification to be a valid process, we would need to have a
very precise chart which would have no need for rectification,
list a series of events affecting that chart, events which would
be determinative in the rectification process, give only the date
and place of birth of the subject of the chart to a number of
astrologers well versed in the rectification process, and wait
for the results.
*
Although none of them could be wrong by more than 24 hours (as
they would be given the correct date), I wonder how different
their results would be, one compared to the other, and also
compared to the real birth data already known.
*
And no cheating, please ! :-)
*
This would probably reconcile me with the rectification process.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 8, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

Post by Pete 4twain

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
Correction!
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service. Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a chart as best I can.
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations when we make mistakes.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.
-------------------------
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrï¿œmouille
March 11, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRï¿œMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)]

Forwarded reply:
__________

*
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:29:39 CST, Pete 4twain responded to:
*
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify
a chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.

Fine-tuning a prediction is another thing! But rectification would be based
on past events. It's just irritating when a prediction is correct, but off
the mark by two years. However, those errors are helpful in learning the
ropes of rectification. By this method, I'm pretty sure that I am reinventing
the wheel.
*
If I understand you correctly, you seem to imply that a
prediction can be correct and at the same time be off the mark by
two years. In my view, if it is off the mark by two years, it is
incorrect. And I do not view the fact that the events do not
happen on the date predicted by the astrologer as an error.
Either the chart refers to that event, or it does not. If it
does, no problem. If it does not, then it must be expected that
the announced event would not happen as expected.
*
If the method you use does not allow you to account correctly for
a given event, then the method you use is wrong. You are not
making an error, it is the method you use which should no longer
be used.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 17, 2013

Post by Pete 4twain
"True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)"
Fine-tuning a prediction is another thing! But rectification would be based on past events. It's just irritating when a prediction is correct, but off the mark by two years. However, those errors are helpful in learning the ropes of rectification. By this method, I'm pretty sure that I am reinventing the wheel.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
< Reply forwarded from Claude L. >
*
*
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!
I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more
experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a
professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for
private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other
person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is
indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a
different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service.
Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious
fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am
privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a
chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.
*
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are
quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations
when we make mistakes.
*
For rectification to be a valid process, we would need to have a
very precise chart which would have no need for rectification,
list a series of events affecting that chart, events which would
be determinative in the rectification process, give only the date
and place of birth of the subject of the chart to a number of
astrologers well versed in the rectification process, and wait
for the results.
*
Although none of them could be wrong by more than 24 hours (as
they would be given the correct date), I wonder how different
their results would be, one compared to the other, and also
compared to the real birth data already known.
*
And no cheating, please ! :-)
*
This would probably reconcile me with the rectification process.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 8, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

Post by Pete 4twain

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
Correction!
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service. Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a chart as best I can.
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations when we make mistakes.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.
-------------------------
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrï¿œmouille
March 11, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRï¿œMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Pete 4twain]

My method (or lack of) was dropped; but after the event occurred I could then go back and learn from it. However, I did not have your view on timing, and I will think about that. I appreciate the discussion!

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
__________
*
*
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify
a chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.
Fine-tuning a prediction is another thing! But rectification would be based
on past events. It's just irritating when a prediction is correct, but off
the mark by two years. However, those errors are helpful in learning the
ropes of rectification. By this method, I'm pretty sure that I am reinventing
the wheel.
*
If I understand you correctly, you seem to imply that a
prediction can be correct and at the same time be off the mark by
two years. In my view, if it is off the mark by two years, it is
incorrect. And I do not view the fact that the events do not
happen on the date predicted by the astrologer as an error.
Either the chart refers to that event, or it does not. If it
does, no problem. If it does not, then it must be expected that
the announced event would not happen as expected.
*
If the method you use does not allow you to account correctly for
a given event, then the method you use is wrong. You are not
making an error, it is the method you use which should no longer
be used.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 17, 2013

Post by Pete 4twain
"True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)"
Fine-tuning a prediction is another thing! But rectification would be based on past events. It's just irritating when a prediction is correct, but off the mark by two years. However, those errors are helpful in learning the ropes of rectification. By this method, I'm pretty sure that I am reinventing the wheel.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
< Reply forwarded from Claude L. >
*
*
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!
I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more
experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a
professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for
private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other
person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is
indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a
different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service.
Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious
fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am
privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for
sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a
chart as best I can.
*
True, so many of the charts are precise but... only after the
fact. Before the events, we can only guess (and sometimes we are
lucky) that the astrological symbolism will manifest itself in a
certain specific way and, when it does, we tend to give ourselves
more credit than we deserve by saying: Hey, I predicted it! :-)
*
In fact, we interpreted the chart in a manner which appeared to
be the most likely outcome -- given the subject's personal
circumstances -- but we really did not know.
*
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are
quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations
when we make mistakes.
*
For rectification to be a valid process, we would need to have a
very precise chart which would have no need for rectification,
list a series of events affecting that chart, events which would
be determinative in the rectification process, give only the date
and place of birth of the subject of the chart to a number of
astrologers well versed in the rectification process, and wait
for the results.
*
Although none of them could be wrong by more than 24 hours (as
they would be given the correct date), I wonder how different
their results would be, one compared to the other, and also
compared to the real birth data already known.
*
And no cheating, please ! :-)
*
This would probably reconcile me with the rectification process.
*
Claude Latrémouille
April 8, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRÉMOUILLE ===
===========================

Post by Pete 4twain

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
Correction!
I appreciate the responses here, including the wry and the unconventional!

I liked taking another look at the prenatal epoch idea again, as I have more experience now than I did when I first studied it. Definitely I agree that a professional astrologer needs proven skill and integrity. I use charts for private study and guidance. Usually, I don't mention astrology to the other person because there is no reason to mention it. In cases where death is indicated, for instance -- after I have searched every which-way for a different interpretation, I put away the charts and pray to be of service. Astrology might never be mentioned, especially when the friend is a religious fundamentalist who would only become polarized by the subject. But I am privately very grateful for the guidance I find.
If all of the charts were fuzzy, I'd drop the question on rectification for sure. But so many of the charts are precise, so of course I wish to verify a chart as best I can.
My conviction is that rectification can be a valid process -- but you are quite right in pointing out that we need to drop any phony rationalizations when we make mistakes.

Post by Modteaminfo (www.altastrologymoderated.info)
The first part of the post was accidentally left out. This is the post as it should be.
-------------------------
*
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an
individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns'
progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify.
Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap
in education.
*
Forgive me for this unconventional view but... the question ought
to be: Is rectification a valid process?
*
My answer is: NO!
*
Why not? Because we, astrologers, tend to make a pig's breakfast
out of a natal chart whose data are absolutely certain. Imagine
what we can do with a chart whose data are unknown or imprecise!
*
Moreover, having a large number of charts whose data are very
reliable, one can see how imprecisely their various features
manifest themselves in a person's life. So, if reliable data do
not produce a very accurate interpretation, it is extremely
illogical in my view to pretend to 'rectifiy' a chart, as if
astrology were a precise science and not a vey imprecise art.
*
More generally, I have observed a very irritating tendency on the
part of many astrologers: They just *LOVE* to be dealing with
unknown data, or with very imprecise charts; thus, they can
'justify' their interpretation mistakes by blaming them on the
imprecision of the chart. They don't fool me: they are mere
intellectual frauds.
*
The wise course of action in those circumstances in my view: Do
not even touch a chart whose data are imprecise. Sure, you might
thus lose many clients, but if your purpose in life is to make
money, I can think of many more lucrative activities which would
allow you to make a lot of money: A Wall Street trader thief, for
instance!
*
So, to answer your question above: Rectifying a chart presupposes
that astrology is a precise science. It is not. So any procedure
which pretends otherwise is a self-deluding process which
astrology can very well dispense with.
*
Claude Latrï¿œmouille
March 11, 2013
=== CLAUDE LATRï¿œMOUILLE ===
===========================

[Kjell Pettersson]

Hi, and welcome!

I am afraid there is not more consensus on this than on any other matter astrologers theorize about. Myself I think your idea of using the charts of relatives is an excellent one, as it is highly likely the birth of a person should be considered something that resonated with charts of other family members.

The birth chart is the sum of the transits at a particular point in time, and if you get a daughter or a brother, having important transits going on would certainly be likely.

I would even vote for this over mostly any other method, even if it requires involving charts of persons other than the one whose chart you attempt to rectify. I can think of no career change or move to another city or similar that would have the same strength, and people often do not have extremely strong events you could use for rectification anyway.

/Kjell

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make up for my gap in education.

[Robin Wilkie]

You'd think that, since the advent of computers, someone
would have by now run more than a few tests to ascertain
whether or not there's a rectification method that's reliable.
In fact, this may have been done, but it's a secret, or there's
just a problem with research & communication.. at the
amateur level at least.

If you take a hundred life events of 1000 people with recorded
birthtimes, it's easy enough to ascertain how accurate the
birthtimes are by the manner in which events coincide with
tight transit clusters around sensitive points. The cluster is
fuzzy, but it translates to within a minute or so, even seconds,
of the viable moment of birth.

However, there can be clusters of clusters around a period of
10-20 minutes. This may be due to birthing as a process that
includes stages of 'deployment' that incorporate different levels
of the being. But astrology usually works best -- mundanely --
with the moment of cord-cut, when the native finally becomes
a separate physical entity.

There are programs for rectification, usually as routines in
commercial astro software. I scanned only a couple some
years ago and noted dubious assumptions & methods. I hope
there's something better, publicly available by now, or soon.

-=Rab

Post by Pete 4twain
First-time poster here. I've looked at some of the discussions in the
archives, but I'm wondering if astrologers have a standard procedure, or
an individual rule of thumb, in rectifying a chart. I've used Zipporah
Dobyns' progressed moon, which works well when there are separative events
to verify. Otherwise, I might use relatives' charts or something, to make
up for my gap in education.

[CFA]

Post by Robin Wilkie
You'd think that, since the advent of computers, someone
would have by now run more than a few tests to ascertain
whether or not there's a rectification method that's reliable.
In fact, this may have been done, but it's a secret, or there's
just a problem with research & communication.. at the
amateur level at least.
If you take a hundred life events of 1000 people with recorded
birthtimes, it's easy enough to ascertain how accurate the
birthtimes are by the manner in which events coincide with
tight transit clusters around sensitive points. The cluster is
fuzzy, but it translates to within a minute or so, even seconds,
of the viable moment of birth.
However, there can be clusters of clusters around a period of
10-20 minutes. This may be due to birthing as a process that
includes stages of 'deployment' that incorporate different levels
of the being. But astrology usually works best -- mundanely --
with the moment of cord-cut, when the native finally becomes
a separate physical entity.
There are programs for rectification, usually as routines in
commercial astro software. I scanned only a couple some
years ago and noted dubious assumptions & methods. I hope
there's something better, publicly available by now, or soon.

The whole thing is fuzzed by the nature of transits. I seldom see
events that correlate to exact aspects. Sometimes they are close, but
not precise, and sometimes they're not within orb.

Post by Robin Wilkie
-=Rab

Ken

[Robin Wilkie]

"CFA" <***@alt.not> wrote in message news:***@news.alt.net...

Ken: The whole thing is fuzzed by the nature of transits. I seldom see

Post by CFA
events that correlate to exact aspects. Sometimes they are close, but
not precise, and sometimes they're not within orb.

I don't recall the last time I noted a significant event that did NOT
have at least one (almost) exact transit aspect. It may not be what
I expect, but often makes more sense. Much depends on context,
the nature of the event, and its importance. Many events are not as
important, or as crucial, as they seem. (I think we usually miss what
happens when a transit becomes exact because it transcends our
usual focus on tangibles, as in mundane or personal affairs.

In rectification the fuzziness decreases with more data. A mist of
points becomes fog then a cloud, but a small and discrete cloud,
covering much less than a degree. Selecting, gathering, and applying
ample data is the key.

With a single event the 'hit' may be off a bit. Another event will likely
be off as well, possibly in the other direction. In fact, every other event
will also tend be off , but "off" from what? Averaging them altogether
reveals the most viable point in time for the natus or radix.. even
when some events used are not particularly important.

With life events, use just the main angles of the birthchart, note the
closest transits by aspect. Use major aspects only and an orb of one
degree. Loosen slightly if necessary -- i/e if you're not getting any hits
at all. You could limit aspects to the lowest harmonics, 1-4: cnj, opp,
tri, sqr.

-=Rab

Post by CFA

Post by Robin Wilkie
You'd think that, since the advent of computers, someone
would have by now run more than a few tests to ascertain
whether or not there's a rectification method that's reliable.
In fact, this may have been done, but it's a secret, or there's
just a problem with research & communication.. at the
amateur level at least.
If you take a hundred life events of 1000 people with recorded
birthtimes, it's easy enough to ascertain how accurate the
birthtimes are by the manner in which events coincide with
tight transit clusters around sensitive points. The cluster is
fuzzy, but it translates to within a minute or so, even seconds,
of the viable moment of birth.
However, there can be clusters of clusters around a period of
10-20 minutes. This may be due to birthing as a process that
includes stages of 'deployment' that incorporate different levels
of the being. But astrology usually works best -- mundanely --
with the moment of cord-cut, when the native finally becomes
a separate physical entity.
There are programs for rectification, usually as routines in
commercial astro software. I scanned only a couple some
years ago and noted dubious assumptions & methods. I hope
there's something better, publicly available by now, or soon.

The whole thing is fuzzed by the nature of transits. I seldom see
events that correlate to exact aspects. Sometimes they are close, but
not precise, and sometimes they're not within orb.
-=Rab

[Pete 4twain]

This is a vivid description, thank you. It does seem to me that narrowing a chart's fuzziness down to within a few minutes or even several minutes of exact -- is pretty much exact!

Post by Robin Wilkie
Ken: The whole thing is fuzzed by the nature of transits. I seldom see

Post by CFA
events that correlate to exact aspects. Sometimes they are close, but
not precise, and sometimes they're not within orb.

I don't recall the last time I noted a significant event that did NOT
have at least one (almost) exact transit aspect. It may not be what
I expect, but often makes more sense. Much depends on context,
the nature of the event, and its importance. Many events are not as
important, or as crucial, as they seem. (I think we usually miss what
happens when a transit becomes exact because it transcends our
usual focus on tangibles, as in mundane or personal affairs.
In rectification the fuzziness decreases with more data. A mist of
points becomes fog then a cloud, but a small and discrete cloud,
covering much less than a degree. Selecting, gathering, and applying
ample data is the key.
With a single event the 'hit' may be off a bit. Another event will likely
be off as well, possibly in the other direction. In fact, every other event
will also tend be off , but "off" from what? Averaging them altogether
reveals the most viable point in time for the natus or radix.. even
when some events used are not particularly important.
With life events, use just the main angles of the birthchart, note the
closest transits by aspect. Use major aspects only and an orb of one
degree. Loosen slightly if necessary -- i/e if you're not getting any hits
at all. You could limit aspects to the lowest harmonics, 1-4: cnj, opp,
tri, sqr.
-=Rab

Post by CFA

Post by Robin Wilkie
You'd think that, since the advent of computers, someone
would have by now run more than a few tests to ascertain
whether or not there's a rectification method that's reliable.
In fact, this may have been done, but it's a secret, or there's
just a problem with research & communication.. at the
amateur level at least.
If you take a hundred life events of 1000 people with recorded
birthtimes, it's easy enough to ascertain how accurate the
birthtimes are by the manner in which events coincide with
tight transit clusters around sensitive points. The cluster is
fuzzy, but it translates to within a minute or so, even seconds,
of the viable moment of birth.
However, there can be clusters of clusters around a period of
10-20 minutes. This may be due to birthing as a process that
includes stages of 'deployment' that incorporate different levels
of the being. But astrology usually works best -- mundanely --
with the moment of cord-cut, when the native finally becomes
a separate physical entity.
There are programs for rectification, usually as routines in
commercial astro software. I scanned only a couple some
years ago and noted dubious assumptions & methods. I hope
there's something better, publicly available by now, or soon.

The whole thing is fuzzed by the nature of transits. I seldom see
events that correlate to exact aspects. Sometimes they are close, but
not precise, and sometimes they're not within orb.
-=Rab

[CFA]

Post by Pete 4twain
This is a vivid description, thank you. It does seem to me that
narrowing a chart's fuzziness down to within a few minutes or
even several minutes of exact -- is pretty much exact!

What is exact? Consider an outer planet moving through an aspect.
Pluto has been at 11° Capricorn for the past three months. How would
one predict even the month of an event under such a transit? If we
consider personal planets as timers, they often represent event
triggers earlier or later than the exact aspect of an outer planet.

In addition, my observation is that Uranus events typically happen
ahead of the exact aspect, Saturn events after, and who knows with
Neptune? ;-)

Even when it isn't close to station, it takes almost a month for
Neptune or Pluto to traverse a single degree. I'm not saying
prediction can't be done: I just don't know how to eliminate the fuzz.

Ken

[Pete 4twain]

By "exact," I do mean narrowing down the fuzziness, not any great ambition to eliminate it. Readers of horary charts have a whole set of considerations before judgment -- including one to determine whether or not the astrologer is fit to interpret the chart! I appreciate this, because it seems a humble nod to real life. But here I am referring to natal charts, and this is anecdotal, but this is what I mean by exact:

Family memories confirmed that I was born sometime in the morning. So the fuzziness of a noon chart was narrowed down to a dawn chart.

On my first contact with a professional astrologer, she determined the ascending sign based on my physical appearance. I appreciated the counsel. But then as she looked at the chart, she warned me of physical danger. And that was very much fuzzy information. Day in and day out on guard against physical peril, why not just step onto the tracks of a speeding train and be done with it?

The next contact was astrologer Zipporah Dobyns, who was an expert in rectification. She verified the angles to "within a few minutes." That's pretty much exact,considering my starting point.

Going back to the aspects of "physical danger," the event had occurred (I was shot by a robber in a parking lot) when the natal Uranus opposition squeezed out all but a minute of orb, by secondary progression; and when the Mars quincunx became an opposition by solar arc direction. By transits, the event occurred when transiting Saturn was squaring natal Mars; while transiting lunar nodes hooked up with the midpoint of the natal opposition; and even more precisely, when transiting Mars squared the solar eclipse in House One, to the degree and minute; while transiting Moon in Aries lit up the nodes, the opposition, and the angles on the hour of the event.

This was a precision reading in retrospect,of course. But this is what I mean by exact -- an astrologer who might have looked at a reasonably rectified version of this chart would have had more than sufficient satisfaction of the "rule of three." It shows the timing of the event by progression, direction and transit; and it did not manifest as a bullet in the gut for everybody born on my birthday! It manifested in the "exact" (give or take a bit of fuzziness) chart for my place and time of birth.

Post by CFA

Post by Pete 4twain
This is a vivid description, thank you. It does seem to me that
narrowing a chart's fuzziness down to within a few minutes or
even several minutes of exact -- is pretty much exact!

What is exact? Consider an outer planet moving through an aspect.
Pluto has been at 11ￜ Capricorn for the past three months. How would
one predict even the month of an event under such a transit? If we
consider personal planets as timers, they often represent event
triggers earlier or later than the exact aspect of an outer planet.
In addition, my observation is that Uranus events typically happen
ahead of the exact aspect, Saturn events after, and who knows with
Neptune? ;-)
Even when it isn't close to station, it takes almost a month for
Neptune or Pluto to traverse a single degree. I'm not saying
prediction can't be done: I just don't know how to eliminate the fuzz.
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net

[CFA]

Post by Pete 4twain
Family memories confirmed that I was born sometime in the morning. So the fuzziness of a noon chart was narrowed down to a dawn chart.
On my first contact with a professional astrologer, she determined the ascending sign based on my physical appearance. I appreciated the counsel. But then as she looked at the chart, she warned me of physical danger. And that was very much fuzzy information. Day in and day out on guard against physical peril, why not just step onto the tracks of a speeding train and be done with it?
The next contact was astrologer Zipporah Dobyns, who was an expert in rectification. She verified the angles to "within a few minutes." That's pretty much exact,considering my starting point.
Going back to the aspects of "physical danger," the event had occurred (I was shot by a robber in a parking lot) when the natal Uranus opposition squeezed out all but a minute of orb, by secondary progression; and when the Mars quincunx became an opposition by solar arc direction. By transits, the event occurred when transiting Saturn was squaring natal Mars; while transiting lunar nodes hooked up with the midpoint of the natal opposition; and even more precisely, when transiting Mars squared the solar eclipse in House One, to the degree and minute; while transiting Moon in Aries lit up the nodes, the opposition, and the angles on the hour of the event.
This was a precision reading in retrospect,of course. But this is what I mean by exact -- an astrologer who might have looked at a reasonably rectified version of this chart would have had more than sufficient satisfaction of the "rule of three." It shows the timing of the event by progression, direction and transit; and it did not manifest as a bullet in the gut for everybody born on my birthday! It manifested in the "exact" (give or take a bit of fuzziness) chart for my place and time of birth.

Very nice!, at least in astrological terms, not about your safety. Do
other significant and/or memorable events line up like this? Or maybe
the question would be "Are there any that don't"?

Ken

[Pete 4twain]

On Friday, May 31, 2013 1:20:02 AM UTC-4, CFA wrote:
Do other significant and/or memorable events line up like this? Or maybe

Post by CFA
the question would be "Are there any that don't"?
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net

(I hope I'm not messing up the order of the discussion here.) The chart "clicks"
with events. For a while, I used the assumption that maybe my chart clicked
because of cardinal placements and lots of dramatic life events. But in working
with other charts where I could verify the angles, I found that eventful points and chart movements click.

[Robin Wilkie]

Post by Pete 4twain
This is a vivid description, thank you. It does seem to me that
narrowing a chart's fuzziness down to within a few minutes or
even several minutes of exact -- is pretty much exact!

Ken: What is exact? Consider an outer planet moving through an aspect.
Pluto has been at 11° Capricorn for the past three months. How would
one predict even the month of an event under such a transit? If we
consider personal planets as timers, they often represent event
triggers earlier or later than the exact aspect of an outer planet.
In addition, my observation is that Uranus events typically happen
ahead of the exact aspect, Saturn events after, and who knows with
Neptune? ;-)
Even when it isn't close to station, it takes almost a month for
Neptune or Pluto to traverse a single degree. I'm not saying
prediction can't be done: I just don't know how to eliminate the fuzz.

Rab: In the context of rectification, "exact" is a discrete cloud of points
often within less than a degree, (outliers ignored). These points represent
'hits'. (That clouds appear is in itself a notable phenomenon, indicating
transit resonance). We can't eliminate fuzz but predictive timing can be
narrowed by a search for shorter-period triggers.

Hits for each event are selected according to criteria for orbs in relation
to the probable angles of a radix. Best to start with known event-moments
to familiarise oneself with the nature of this beast. The difference between
the apparent or recorded event-moment and the actually viable moment
may be small or fairly large but it occurs. (I'm not aware of exceptions.
Discrepancy may be the result of observational error). For a known event
3 degrees is ample.

Don't use transits of Neptune & Pluto, and be cautious about Uranus.
(We might even weight all planets according to their periods. I've not
gone that far -- it hasn't been necessary, but it would be interesting).
Transits of Angles, Moon, Merc, Ven, Sun, Mars are most likely to be
triggers.

Triggers may depend on the nature of the radix under consideration --
whether for a person, nation, or other entity; and what level they're
operating at.

One concept that could be useful: an influence or resonance tends to
manifest physically -- is literally 'grounded' -- according to solar, lunar,
then angular transits to a radix. (Although a crucial event does not have
to be physical. It can happen at any level).

According to the rather intricate inter-relationship of planetary cycles,
the influence of the most recent e/g Jupiter-Saturn conjunction can
take many years to manifest, fully & mundanely in a particular location,
i/e before the last bits fall into place and align. (Somewhat like the lock
on an old safe/vault. Maybe the Stonehengers were quite up to speed
on this..)

-=R