Practically speaking, no single chart ever recurs. Astrology is a science of particular moments, all being unique. We try to find the laws, and many good ones are found, but we can never know to what
extent our findings are dependent upon context.
Meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless.
So, there we are, in the midst of a paradox. Even if a chart would be precisely mimicked within a short span of time, say a personal chart, still the parental charts would differ. And that would make a difference, putting the chart in quite another context.
I think it is inescapable that "proof" must be anecdotal in nature. The thing is to make the story (and I do not mean story like fiction here, but presentation or narrative) manages to capture the patterns, the laws, of what the chart presents.
I think it is inescapable that "proof" must be anecdotal in nature. The thing is to make the story (and I do not mean story like fiction here, but presentation or narrative) manages to capture the patterns, the laws, of what the chart presents.
