thanks michael!

in the end it is working with the chart to come to some sort of analysis over the content or direction based on a particular interest or question or whatever a person wants to gain from doing astrology.

i do like the analogies i can make with music as i find they help put in context the different astrological approaches where i appreciate them all that much more. i don't negate any astrological approach, but also realize on a personal level this is exactly what individual astrologers or musicians typically have to do - prioritize and make a decision over what has to be left out or ignored - technique/approach/what have you..

a musician decides on a particular path of jazz or classical.. the two are quite different but in other ways they share much in common - a focus on technical ability being the most obvious.. extremely talented musicians can do both with relative degrees of success... interestingly more and more one sees classical music with elements of jazz and jazz with elements of classical. this has partly to do with training, but also with the types of compositions that allow for more of one then the other, or a bit of both.. going back almost 100 years we see someone like gershwin was a huge admirer of fats waller for example and probably vice versa too.. this hasn't changed, but probably become more common.. just the other day a friend - university prof of music for many years was telling me that duke ellington had invited django to perform with his orchestra.. this is bringing a 'gypsy' musician - an extremely gifted, but untrained musician - to play with the best jazz orchestra of the 20th century essentially.. these kinds of cross overs do happen.. i think they can happen with astrological technique too!

to go back to the idea of aspects - if an astrologer wishes to adopt a classical approach then these aspects that kepler introduced, represent a completely different way of looking at astrology that is not able to be reconciled with the classical outlook... as i see it if one is going to base their astrology on the classical or traditional outlook, they will have difficulty incorporating minor aspects and will be taking an approach of a maverick or modernized individualistic approach that doesn't reflect the classical approach as well...

for me it is a case of what i have learned in a haphazard way over 30-40 years, by not ruling out the value that can be gotten from removing these structural approaches that say you have to emphasize something more then something else...

i think what i am trying to say is that aspects can be thought of as different geometrical values based on numbers, as opposed to cycles.. neither one has to be put above the other in terms of the meaning i think can be gotten from either.. on some level they dovetail with one another, but i don't like one having to lord it over the other.. well now maybe i am just repeating myself!