Gary Phillipson's book
Astrology in the Year Zero (published 2000) has been mentioned a couple of times before in archived posts. It's a book of interviews with astrologers and researchers into astrology. I often pull it from the shelf, open it randomly, there's always something there to tickle the ol' grey matter .
In a section considering "how far astrology can go" - for example, how far in being able to identify a murderer? Mike Harding responded with something I see as very important as a general astrological rule of thumb, and something easily overlooked on occasion:
"...the chart is not the chart of a person, it's the chart for a moment in time....the chart is about 'the nature of time', whatever that turns out to mean." (page 113)
That remark is kind of, sort of, related to something I commented a few posts back, that Aquarius (or any zodiac sign) is a zodiac sign, not a person. Keywords for each sign relate to the reputed "atmosphere" of that particular segment of the ecliptic.
Obliquely related to those thoughts, a few pages further on in the book, there's a conversation about astrologers coming up with what seemed to be a good, reasonably accurate reading for a client, then finding out they had interpreted the wrong chart.
Geoffrey Cornelius said
"[Astrologers] get correct readings from wrong maps on sufficient occasions for it to be, clearly, an astrological phenomenon. One has to be very sparing with that, because it is so ruthlessly undermining of the status of astrology...... "
As embarrassing as it must be for a professional astrologer to find herself/himself in that situation I, as a pain-in-the-ass amateur dabbler in the art, could argue that producing a "correct" reading for a person, while using a wrong chart, needn't be seen as such a calamity.
While astrology could never be considered a "one-size-fits- all" kind of thing in relation to the natal chart, there is certainly a fair amount of stretch, mix-and-match, and variability going on. A metaphor - maybe a poor one, but the one that sprang to mind first: ten people arrive all dressed slightly differently. They are issued robes to wear after removing all clothing. Shortly thereafter they are called back, blindfolded and asked to choose from the various piles of categorised clothing (underwear, skirts, trousers, tops, coats, socks, shoes). Wouldn't it be likely that the folks would pick some, maybe even all, pieces that were not their own, but which still afforded a reasonable fit? I think so - but not in every case. A heavily built person or a petite one would be more likely to find themselves in difficulty - as would the average sized person who inadvertently picked up pieces belonging to the non-average sized. The non-average sized among the group would be aware beforehand of the very obvious pitfall for them, for they had always "stood out from the crowd", and only certain pieces provided a good fit.
Each person's natal chart
is unique, but in spite of that, there are going to be similarities, often many of 'em between charts of any random group of people. I suspect there are are, indeed, possibilities of being able to cull a seemingly right reading from a wrong chart in certain cases, especially in cases where there is no obvious distinctive chart feature.
Looping back to the first quote in this post: "how far can astrology go?" It can go quite a long way, seems capable of a certain amount of flex and stretch. Rather than being an embarrassment if a decent reading has come from the wrong chart, wouldn't it be better to consider it just another crazy thing that astrology's flexibility is capable of throwing up? Nobody, even the most erudite of astrologers, knows for sure what astrology is all about. Astrological lore isn't carved in stone. Texts ancient and modern tend to indicate differently, but in truth, nobody knows - nor as far as we can tell has ever known the answers to the what, the why or the how of astrology. In matters astrological we feel around in the dark - just like those blindfolded individuals in a previous paragraph.
