I don?t think I have fundamental differences with you on this matter.

I think we do. The fundamental difference is that I do not believe that all transits have to be linked to something in a chart to be of significance.

I do think that we should always tie in transits or cycles to existing chart, be they natal, solar ingresses, or even to grand conjunction charts.

Why? A mundane chart is often an event chart for a particular event that has occurred. This can be anything from a train crash to an earthquake to a terrorist attack. An event chart is like a natal chart. A natal chart is the event chart for the moment of your birth. We gain great value out of delineating a natal chart without tying it in to anything else. Why is it so hard to understand that an event chart can offer the same understanding of whatever event it represents?

It?s easy but not very enlightening to talk in a general way about planetary cycles.

If you do not understand cycles you do not understand astrology. A look through some of the classic epics or poems, such as Virgil's Georgics, for example, will show you that an understanding of and belief in the importance of astrological cycles dates back thousands of years. Babylonians and Egyptians had a strong sense of the importance of cycles.

The same thing is happening in mundane, but from I can see, the work is years behind where we are with horary.

I have no idea where you get this view because it simply is not true. What might be true is that horary is currently more popular than mundane astrology and that mundane astrology has not had the same renaissance that horary astrology has had but people who are doing mundane work are hardly inferior astrologers to those of horary astrologers.

So we?re able to see that a conjunction or Saturn and Jupiter is bad, and the same for an opposition between Saturn and Pluto maybe even too. But that?s a pretty crude understanding of things.

It might be a crude understanding but it is not my understanding. Nor is it the understanding of mundane astrologers. You are simplifying things in the extreme. Who ever said that a conjunction of Jupiter/Saturn was necessarily a bad thing? I haven?t come across this view in mundane astrology. It is a cycle that is neither good or bad. It involves a benefic and a malefic. Deaths of US presidents is merely one example of how it may play out. One of the most common explanations for the ?Star of Bethlehem? is that it was the Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of -0006BCE. I guess it depends on your view of the Christian religion but generally this conjunction is considered to be a good thing because it announced the coming of the ?saviour?.

We?re not lowering ourselves or doing a cheap trick when we do a prediction. Like I said above it?s our only way of checking our technique.

Astrology is about so much more than technique. Anyone can use techniques to come up with the right answer in, say, a horary chart but it requires a much deeper understanding to give the depth of guidance that people are seeking. Personally, I am not all that interested in prediction but I am interested in understanding the cycles that repeat throughout history. I am also interested in looking at event charts in an attempt to determine what it was that brought us to this moment in time and why it manifested in the way that it did.

It?s the modern astrologers who are being superficial when they couch all their predictions in double-talk about growth and change, which could cover anything from being fired from your job to being hired for a new one.

You are being very unfair to modern astrologers. There are plenty of people who consider themselves traditional astrologers who would win hands down in the superficiality stakes. Just take a look at some of the horary questions on this forum. And I think it is arrogant to believe that it is modern astrologers who lack understanding and must learn from traditional astrologers without acknowledging that this learning can be a two way thing. A good friend of mine is a modern astrologer and through our conversations we learn from each other. Deb and I have both mentioned Dennis Elwell. Dennis is a modern astrologer and I disagree with much of what he says. However, ?Cosmic Loom? is one of my favourite astrology books and I have learned a lot from reading it. I have a problem with the application of some of his ideas (he uses the natural zodiac, for example) but I find the theory highly interesting. Deb also mentioned the judgement by Dennis on the ferry disaster. If P&O had listened to him rather than ignoring his direct warnings many lives may have been saved. The judgements that Dennis made were not tied into any other chart. If you have not read this article, I suggest you have a look at it. This is mundane astrology at its best.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shipelwell.html