subjective freedom is not only an opinion, and it is true that certain planets are pedestaled in the chart (rulers, singletons, triplicity, chart location). there is a rule where a Minor aspect closer orb would have more of an effect than a Major aspect medium orb. there is even exponentiality as it gets to 0. There is also the guideline that a larger orb can have a more "present" effect at least in some situations. astrology is about "activation" in the first place.
now let us consider a contemporary feeling instead of a traditional hierarchical disposition.
if one examines an Essay written by a Geminian with a Gemini Jupiter also in the stellium. no Sagittarius planets, but there is some covalence towards Sagittarianisms in the chart (axis lacuni, vertex, quasi-combination states, etc).
Okay so in terms of the Geminism this essay would be somewhat fragmentary, eclectic, informational, a confluence with particulars.
The Jupiter Gemini won't be able to get to an exceedingly Broad Picture in traditional terms, but instead it would look more like a the Broadness of Particularity and how its stream of language is connected up to another bigger structure, is part of the larger structure, but designates it as a particular field of the structure that its alluding to.
the Orb between Mercury in Gemini and Jupiter in Gemini is about 7 degrees. This in traditional terms would be a very weak field, the Bigger Picture not really even present.
instead what is culminated here through the standards of "thesis" (the bigger picture) or "world-spirit" another sagittarius concept in a Alluding-Parallel structure that has a bit of space in between the actual particular and whole fields. the idea-structure position is in itself important to the understanding of the mechanisms of connection to the big picture. its mirroring, its proportion, its encasement of the spatiotemporal realms of its legging is unique...
one thing that is easy to forget in astrology is that the cosmic imprint is 3D not 2D. then if we want to sort out the paradoxes of logic, "the arbitrary evolution and play of form inside 3D", people would need to find out its 4D+ riemannian parameters. that would be one way to get closer to the mind of the self and the mind of the universe.
thats why theres declinations, declination to aspects is another bridge, as well as harmonic position of modulus strip.
it is true that a planet going further away from a planet is leaving a "center", but there is also "no center" in astrology as it is relativistic.
now when someone is doing historical astrology they are already using 4 dimensions, and depending on whether time itself mixed with the other dimensions creates shifts of logic is true it would still have to include the submanifold activity of the disparate significators of astrology. that is why its probably fully solvable in 5 dimensions, and viable in 4.
the hardest part would actually be how is metaphysical platonic features assignable to geometry inside and outside of geometrical dimensions, what would the 5th actually contain?.
well it is possible to quantitatively measure curvature of difference in various physical categories that would amount to ideal. it just seems like the data collection might be too much of an open continuum.
the significators do have their own physical spread pattern inside the manifold, but its a holistic transgressive spread. it must be some kind of loop-back through it. well thats definitely the spiraloid pattern that is overlooked by standard physics and produces some convergence with the world of abstraction-via-enviornment. it would include not only the interaction of significators through time, but also to their original intersecting structure.
refining the categories and definitions after looking at more specific parameters might clear away a lot of the misconception with the "measurnent of data" in astrology. it might be that our way of testing using various non-3D dynamical methods leads to a miscalculation in the effects of actual placements. once the astrological system is eventually refined it would be possible to reduce that data back to a more workable criterion using combinations of definitions. when david cochrane, an astrological statistics analysist says the placements are true when we look, then when we try to test them on a mass scale (using outcome correlations) they turn out only have a minor significant effect. this could be because if we look at a particular placement or placements using the intelligence of the human brain we are able to isolate particular things and point them out correctly. the definitions, even if they are currently unhinged, are actually rather efficacious. the problem could be that if there is missing variables in data analysis, the results come out flat and skewed.
here is the other route that turns out is a way of defining the intesectionality between the novel astrological feature.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51388&highlight=archaic+transference&page=2