Exegesis Issue #3
Messages begin to trickle in...
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 00:41:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: For Exegesis Issue ?
As a member of every known astrology list on the Internet planet, I am pleased to see this forum opening...for this reason: things are in quite a muddle! On the one hand, there are proficient professionals in astrology who have many years of experience under their belts, and, on the other, a scarcely contained enthusiasm for astrology bubbling within most aspects of our society generating many novices who want to "know" things. Astrology stands with one foot in esotericism and one foot in science, very seductive to very many.
But does it really have a cogent way of dealing with this interest? I believe there is difficulty here; a forum such as this may allow the cutting through to some "order out of chaos". Astrology is perceived by me as a Tower of Babel. If it had not proven itself in a most profound manner, I might just be inclined to dismiss it entirely ... however, there are elements that appear to be very reliable and capable of indeed bridging that gap between mysticism and science mentioned above.
The Babbling Tower has the upperhand at this point in written material and spoken word. Every so often there is a voice that makes itself heard to me that there are others who feel as I do about this; even if I am the only one on this list who is willing to bring the training of a scientist along with the lifestyle of a contemplative (a stretch to be sure), I promise an honest discussion!
I have studied astrology since experiencing profound changes within myself in the mid-70's. At the time I was a neurobiologist. In the last fifteen years, I traveled and lived closely with two enlightened people, one an Indian monk, the other an American monk. I live a contemplative and simple life with much time for study and meditation. Here's my data:
10/10/42, 21:25, 92W16 34N45, 6 (CST)
Dr. L. C. Burns
The Contemplative Order
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Christopher Gragg firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks, Fran, for the considerable energy you have expended starting and organizing this group, and for your continued efforts. Judging from the introductions from others you have already posted, it sounds as though our discussions will turn out to be both entertaining and educational.
A few words of introduction about myself. My name is Christopher Gragg and my vital statistics are: born May 20, 1950 at 3:49 PM (PDT) in Los Angeles, California (where I still live ((Burbank, actually)) and work). Taurus Sun (29 degrees and it shows), Cancer Moon, Libra Ascendant.
I began my study of astrology only five years ago while undergoing a series of past-life regressions using hypnosis. Diane, my hypnotist, guide, and eventual astrology teacher, had access to my birth data and did a short reading for me at the beginning of our second session. Her uncanny accuracy got me hooked on astrology and I remain hooked to this day. In true Taurean fashion, if it works, I'll use it.
And astrology has more than met my expectations, helping me to better understand our shared humanness, and thereby develop greater tolerance and love for others and for myself. I'm not as puzzled by other people as I used to be (particularly those I find myself attracted to) and I tend to find their foibles (and my own) more endearing than annoying. With a Taurus Sun and Libra Ascendant (opposing Venus on the Descendant) I freely admit that I am most interested in synastry and have read every book I can find on the subject. Neptune on the Ascendant kept me in the dark about love interests until I found astrology. I am defenseless no longer.
The questions posed by others in this group have already provided us with plenty of interesting topics to discuss. I would like to propose a few others, specifically concerning cusps and orbs. I still have difficulties accepting the abrupt breaks between signs that most astrologers insist upon. For example, someone with a 29'59" Scorpio sun is considered mega-Scorpio, yet if she or he were born just a few minutes later s/he wouldn't be thought of as a Scorpio at all, but as a zero degree Sag. All this intense energy builds up only to vanish into thin air in an instant. It seems more rational to believe that the energy slowly dissipates, perhaps during the zero degree of the next sign. Having a 29' Taurus sun, I can't say that I feel much like a Gemini, but I don't think the energy works in reverse, anyway. In other words, I don't think a 0' Gemini sun "bleeds" backwards toward Taurus, but I'm at least willing to consider that a 29' sun of any sort "bleeds" into the sign that follows. After all, doesn't 0' mean that the person is just beginning an experience with that sign, that the person really wants to "do" that sign, but is clueless how to approach it? That is what I was taught, anyway. This would explain such anomalies as Hitler being a 0' Taurus (Some Taurus, he was a lousy painter!); he acted much more like a 29' Aries (no offense intended toward you Martians out there). What is others' take on this? It seems that the vast majority of astrologers opt for the abrupt break scenario, though I haven't taken any opinion polls...
I have the same problem with strict orbs, particularly in synastry. Some astrologers, such as Lois Sargent (sp?), advise using 10' orbs in comparing two people's charts, even 15' with the luminaries, while others maintain that 5' is all that should be allowed, and one author (whose name I purposely forget) even insisted on 1'! According to her, if the aspect between two planets was 1'01", then no aspect existed. Needless to say, her repeated insistence on this point greatly reduced her credibility with me. Is anyone else interested in synastry? If so, what are your thoughts on orbs in comparing charts? How about orbs in composite charts? Or individual charts? Surely everyone has some opinion on this.
Hope I haven't bored anyone with this, but, hey, what are Taureans for?
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 08:22:11 -0800
Subject: Re: Exegesis Issue #2
From: "Joanna M. Ashmun" email@example.com
Up front here, before I forget it again, I've been wondering since I heard about it on NPR over a year ago if anybody knows anything about stochastic resonance theory and how it may or may not be of interest in astrology. There are a lot of indexed references on the Web but I haven't had time to read them.
To introduce myself, my data are: 16 November 1948, 14:25 PST (GMT-0800), 47N51, 119W59 (Chelan, Washington USA). I grew up in a rural and fairly isolated agricultural area. I was introduced to astrology when I was eight or nine years old and read an article in Awake! or The Watchtower. My grandparents had an old friend who had become a Jehovah's Witness and they purchased her literature all the time so as not to hurt her feelings, but nobody on either side of my family was religious. We went to Sunday school at the community church. This article I read was a vehement condemnation of astrology, and my hot little Scorpio heart was intrigued by the emotion expressed. Nonetheless, nobody I knew knew anything about astrology; as I recall, they didn't even know the word, though my mother knew "horoscope" from novelties and features in magazines. It seemed very strange that sweet little old ladies that I knew were going around to their neighbors handing out attacks on practices unknown in these parts--I didn't understand where this was coming from, but eventually came to understand that these little pamphlets were printed "back east" in New York City by people who didn't know anybody in the Chelan Valley and who distributed them without regard for local relevance and that this was the ordinary provenance of most printed material that came my way, including school books and Sunday school books. What an idea! The world became much broader to me then--and I felt that my true vocation was to be a pamphleteer!! (I guess this story sounds like I have JU just on the 9th house side of the MC opposing UR.)
Otherwise, I started formal study of astrology in 1972 and got around to taking the AFA exam around 1980, I guess. I've practiced, I've taught, I've lectured, I've written, I published The Seattle Astrologer 1982-84. My daughter was completely homeschooled for several years, and during that time my public astrology activity was limited almost entirely to critiquing drafts for Geoffrey Dean. Between 1974 and 1984 I also spent most of ten years in Jungian analysis, about 400 or 500 hours; I was on the board of directors of the local Jung society for several years, president for two, did their newsletter and publicity, booked speakers and auditoriums and dinners, etc. I also did three years of the Centerpoint program, which is a Jungian study group formerly sponsored by the Episcopal Church; I think it has been independent for quite a while. Because of my lengthy analytical experience, I have a rather more blood-and-guts approach to Jungian psychology than most astrologers--plus I've known a few Jungian analysts in addition to my own.
This seems incomplete, but I must close for now.
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996 their respective authors.
[Exegesis Top] [Table of Contents] [Next Issue]