@christinelovessnickers
13 Years1,000+ Posts
Lol. I wonder if anyone knows...
I've wondered about that myself.
Good question.
I've wondered too and have no answer. Long ago when the optical illusion that causes planets to appear to be retrograding wasn't understood to be an illusion, it makes sense that it would be looked at as possibly meaningful by astrologers, etc. It would seem real because it looked real. Mirage.
It may look real, but it isn't. Should that change the way astrology should be done? Is astrology flawed based on that? Or is it still ok to use since the illusion still occurs?
Posted by christinelovessnickersIt may look real, but it isn't. Should that change the way astrology should be done? Is astrology flawed based on that? Or is it still ok to use since the illusion still occurs?
Probably. I have some RX planets in my chart and when I read about what that's supposed to mean I don't really relate to it.
Posted by tiziani
The thing is they don't describe anything unique to them alone so I don't think it makes a difference.Like someone who's described as hard of communicating just because they're natal merc retro? There can be a dozen more significant influences in their charts to hit the same theme.
As for rx in transits, yeah iffy territory.
That's what I keep thinking when I look at the Venus and Saturn rx in my chart. I have no shortage of aspects that suggest issues I might have with those planets w/o the rx factored in.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →
So, if planets don't actually retrograde, how are they legit in astrology?