Exegesis V07 Issue 004

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #004

In This Issue:

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: Astrology seems a matter of relating verbs to one anoth

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #2

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #3

Exegesis Digest Mon, 21 Jan 2002

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: Astrology seems a matter of relating verbs to one anoth
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 18:30:01 -0500

[...................................]
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >From: "Lois Cruz"
> >Subject: [exegesis] Re: Astrology seems a matter of relating verbs to one anoth
> >Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:23:31 -0500
> > [...................................]
> >
> >Roger, your whole email is remarkably fascinating to me because it "feels"
> >so "true". The reasons why this should be so are pretty well explained in
> >your final paragraph, I think! Anyway, it was enough to overcome the utter
> >lack of confidence that has kept me silent in this forum until now. Thanks
> >very much for the food for thought, and I'll be following this topic with
> >great interest.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Lois

( Lois wrote:) "............For what it's worth, I have personally found less value in astrology as a means of predicting future action, and more value in its ability to point toward meaning in the present moment by illuminating the past. The whole symbol system can really mean anything you want it to mean, and maybe that's the whole point of it--investing meaning in creation by using a set of symbol cues. ............"

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #2
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:36:14 -0500

[big ol' reluctant snip]
> >
> >Some residual questions remain. One, for me, is the astrology of the
> >collective. This is usually known by that most inadequate label `mundane
> >astrology'. Since Pluto entered Sagittarius I've been assessing its
> >effects. I suspect that outer planet archetypes manifest differently
> >according to the culture. [.............]
> >Enough for now, lest the subject of intervention by extraterrestrials
> >crosses my mind! Hope Exegesis prospers in the new format, and it seems
> >most auspicious that our valiant moderator has persevered to achieve it
> >prior to the Mercury station...
> >
> >
> >Dennis
> >

Hi Dennis, Before I can attempt to grasp some mundane significance of, say, Pluto Sagittarius, I have to individualize everything, somehow. And, the role of whatever intuition is, is always center stage. Perhaps I unconsciously remember Mozart's natal Pluto's position, but it is currently only about a degree from Mozart's natal position. While reading your comments I wondered what the world was like the last time Pluto was in Sagittarius, and it just popped into my head that I should look at Mozart's chart. Anyway, all the young men of the American Revolution were born about that time. The Satterlee's that settled here in Elmira, NY, as wagon pushing woodsman, some as frontier missionaries and some as Indian exterminators, were like Mozart, born with Pluto in Sagittarius, or so it would seem. The inseminating Founding Fathers, like Jefferson, were probably born with Pluto in Scorpio...:)

So, did Homer have natal Pluto in Taurus, and is this why the destruction (eating) of Helios' cattle is stated by the writer as the *reason* gods torment Odysseus...:)?

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [exegesis] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #3
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:31:07 +1300

Dale Huckeby wrote:
> >On to more substantive matters. Before the hiatus Patrice Guinard
> >posted a section from his Manifesto [v6/iss17], and I've been wanting
> >to discuss it.

> >it reminds me of what bothered me about Patrice's argument: its attitude
> >towards testing and science. Since this attitude is not only prevalent
> >but has been expressed here by thoughtful and intelligent people, it has
> >to be taken seriously, but I think it is seriously mistaken. I sympathize
> >because I share some of the sentiments that I think cause it, but I think
> >there are more constructive ways of dealing with the problems that have
> >evoked it.

> >By "the problems" I mean to suggest a general malaise, more intense
> >here, probably, but widely if weakly felt amongst astrologers in general,
> >a sense that something is amiss. For some the most nettlesome problem
> >is that it doesn't make sense that something like astrology _could_ work,
> >for others it's that astrology often predicts what doesn't happen yet
> >fails to predict what did happen. But most prevalent is a feeling that
> >we simply have too many factors and techniques, too many degrees in
> >our orbs, too much leeway in our meanings, in other words, albeit not
> >always clearly articulated or seen, too many ways of being "right".

Well, I certainly agree with your critique of general practice in the field, Dale. Since we've covered this qround before a few times, maybe the general view of practice doesn't get us very far? However, I am interested in your concern, so by all means expand if appropriate.

Just to comment on particular points in your above paragraph, the suggestion of a general malaise is intriguing. Are you getting this impression from the current state of the astromedia? Websites and magazines? Books? Astro newsgroups, & other mailing lists? Consider me out of touch, since in the past couple of years I've looked at little but Exegesis.

Regarding "too many factors and techniques.. too many ways of being "right".", this is just the normal consequence of market forces. Postmodern culture requires constraints be not applied to them. Everyone must be given the freedom to be right. Once obtaining this freedom, who would choose to be wrong??? Back when I was young, western nations conformed to a prior culture which is now retrospectively called `elitist'. The notion of righteousness then still retained currency, and traditional judgements of right and wrong were normally applied. The effect on the astrology of the time was minimal in practice, since standards had in fact never actually been applied. The reason for that is historical, and would be a good topic for a dissertation! My point, and it is verifiable in somewhat hostile critiques of the time, is that expectations of a right and a wrong way of doing astrology did seem to be generally held, as an internal reflection of the norms of society at the time. The fact that this was not specifiable consensually in practice did often get lamented in the astromedia of the time.

Just on your point about orbs, I was pretty strict on narrow orbs for at least a decade, but had to eventually concede that some people did seem to function on the basis of wider orbs than I used. When the point was argued by astrologer-friends whose self-understanding I was inclined to credit, and when they gave specific reasons in the particular instances, the cumulative effect was persuasive. Nowadays I use the same orbs as before, but keep in mind the possibility that wider ones may be operating in practice. I find it necessary to identify major aspects visually - computer printouts are notorious for regularly missing some! Some that are a degree or two out of orb will function if activated by other aspects in the chart - particularly large configurations. You could think of it as a secondary resonance amplification perhaps.

> >However, because they don't recognize the underlying cause, astrologers
> >who decrease orbs, limit factors, and look for multiple confirmations
> >fail to realize that in their efforts to close loopholes and be more
> >rigorous they are simply playing the same game at a more sophisticated
> >level.

Astrological theory as commonly understood is probable but a partial simulation of what it ought to be in order to be more reliable. As you may recall, I never used rulerships because it was always obvious to me that it was unwise to do so. Same for various other techniques.