|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #015
In This Issue:
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
From: "JG or DF"
Exegesis Digest Fri, 01 Feb 2002
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #13
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:40:18 -0500
Hi Dennis, I'm very much a fan of Hillman's "Acorn Theory" of course. I don't think the man avoids mentioning astrology because he feels a need to protect his turf, whatever; rather I get the feeling from reading him, and also hearing him speak on one occasion on TV, that he is not familiar enough with the art of astrology to have fun playing with the symbols properly...:) I would like to sit with him once and show him his natal chart, through my eyes, if I could, and share this notion of persons projecting their natal potentials.
I think his chart is very much a symbolic parallel for the Acorn Theory...and the astute Hillman gives *it* a voice...almost as if doing so defines his own purpose for being...:)
> >exegesis Digest Wed, 30 Jan 2002 Volume: 07 Issue: 013
> >In This Issue:
> >#1: From: "JG or DF"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #12
> >From: "JG or DF"
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #12
> >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:27:08 +1300
> >Virgo Moon, so suitable for wafting a critique into the electronic ether..
> >And applying square to Sagittarian Pluto, no less, just the time to tweak
> >the interface of cultural ethnicity...
> >The discourse between Lorenzo & Roger has seemed like a couple of jackdaws
> >squawking at each other in different dialects. The subject is mythistory,
> >once the aptly-chosen title of a nifty little book by the American historian
> >William H McNeill, professor at the University of Chicago.
> >The issue is the reality of Homer. Did he exist? We'll never know. Did he
> >write the Odyssey? Same answer. Can that book be deconstructed to reveal
> >different authors? Depends who you ask.
> >Roger seems to believe that the literary work exhibits the style of an
> >individual that correlates with certain astrological features he has cited.
> >Such advocacy suffers from the assumption that subjective correlations will
> >be shared by others. Lorenzo seems to believe that the unreality of the
> >single author named Homer has been established as fact. Assertion of the
> >`fact' suffers from the assumption that proof need not be provided to
> >demonstrate that it is a fact rather than subjective belief.
> >One might observe that any literary deconstruction, performed in the ivory
> >towers of acadaemia, that suggests a multiplicity of authorship, is mere
> >intellectual artifice. It rests upon grounds no more substantial than those
> >occupied by the interpreting astrologer. All it has going for it, when it
> >opposes the view of any individual astrologer, is the weight of any
> >consensus that it may have obtained. Generally, any such consensus will not
> >have been measured; therefore it can rightly be dismissed as hearsay by
> >anyone not inclined to be impressed by it. Bystanders may be impressed by
> >the suggestion that a considerable consensus exists, but any such assertion
> >may be empty of substantial content, merely an idle boast issued for reasons
> >of ideology or academic turf-protection.
> >The psychologist James Hillman, in his book "The Soul's Code", illustrates b
> >y reference to various people his thesis that we carry an innate pattern
> >that informs and characterises our lives toward a personal destiny. He
> >likens this pattern to a seed, much as the French-turned-American astrologer
> >Dane Rudhyar did in his first book in 1936, but Hillman manages to avoid any
> >substantial reference to astrology. Perhaps his turf needs protecting.
> >Nevertheless his `acorn theory', as he calls it, explains how biography and
> >literature illustrate the inner pattern of destiny.
> >Anonymous readers of this list perhaps assumed no issue of substance lay
> >masked by the sparring of Roger and Lorenzo. Wrong.
> >End of exegesis Digest V7 #13
> >|| http://exegesis.dyndns.org/exegesis/exegesis.html
> >|| Moderator: exegesis-owner
> >|| To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe exegesis'
> >|| as subject to lists
From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #14
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 14:44:33 +1300
> >There is nothing that the sacred cows of astrology fear more than a bit
> >of intellectual hardnosed argument, a bit of citation of historical
> >facts to counter their clouds. They really do dislike reading and
> >following up references, they really do dislike having to learn
> >languages, they really do like dislike most anything which is outside of
> >their narrow slit of heavenly Glory. They tend to think that they can
> >explain Everything and the Whole Universe and The Meaning of Life by
> >twinkling a few stars on a piece of paper, or by juggling their viewing
> >glass to provide a new kalleidodscopic picture (try this technique!).
Agreed, although a few astrologers are multilingual.
> >There are even those who opine, with all the careless naievite of the
> >Besoted, that astrology is what the astrologer does and when he does it
> >and this is because the astrologer is a Person In Touch with the Cosmos
> >through the Act of Divination... yes, I am refering to Geoffery
Agreed, although Cornelius is but a small fish in a large pond.
> >>The discourse between Lorenzo & Roger has seemed like a couple of jackdaws
> >>squawking at each other in different dialects. The subject is mythistory,
> >Wrong the discussion is about what historical and philological studies
> >have demonstrated over the last 200 years.
To whom? Merely a small circle of academics, in one small corner of the academic world, at the most.
> >>The issue is the reality of Homer. Did he exist? We'll never know. Did he
> >>write the Odyssey? Same answer. Can that book be deconstructed to reveal
> >>different authors? Depends who you ask.
> >Depends on whether they are a reliable source or not. There are criteria
> >for what one would accept as sound knowledge and evidenciary
> >argumentation. S. has failed to provide those. His theories are Clouds.
Who says any source is reliable? That is merely subjective judgement. Roger's theories may seem like clouds to you, and even to me, but that is simply because he has chosen not to specify them to the list. His style is subjective, but I suspect his theories are similar to mainstream astrology. Perhaps even identical. I agree he tends not to provide evidence in a specific sense, yet he provides hints and clues to accompany his chart illustrations. In this respect, he does all that any academic literary critic ever does. His work is consistent with that tradition of analytical commentary.
> >>Roger seems to believe that the literary work exhibits the style of an
> >>individual that correlates with certain astrological features he has cited.
> >>Such advocacy suffers from the assumption that subjective correlations will
> >>be shared by others.
> >All is not a matter of subjectivity. Astrologers like subjectivity,
> >because 1) it is the latest, along with post-modernism, catch buzz word
> >(they still haven't recovered from their embrace with the Medusa of
> >psychology); 2) it gives them an excuse for never thinking anything
> >through in any other terms but their own soi-dissant astrological terms,
> >and then they can always apply the General Principle of the
> >Kalleidoscope Effect, assuming yet another form of relativity and
> >post-modernist deconstructed subjectivity (I think this used to be be
> >called woolly-headedness).
Agreed, except that subjectivity was a notion in common usage long before I was born more than half a century ago.
> >>Lorenzo seems to believe that the unreality of the
> >>single author named Homer has been established as fact. Assertion of the
> >>`fact' suffers from the assumption that proof need not be provided to
> >>demonstrate that it is a fact rather than subjective belief.
> >Do you really want me to give you a course in Homeric scholarship,
> >complete with an obligatory 60 page bibliography you have to read?
> >Do you really think that considered and reasoned scholarly concensus is
> >so 'subjective?'
How could it be identified as objective? How do we know a consensus exists at all? You have not even said that you believe there is one, have you? If so, sorry I forgot. If you participate in such an academic in-crowd, and are sure that the specialists who have studied the matter do actually agree with the opinion you asserted to this list, I'm happy to declare that I would be inclined to believe you. Just be aware that if I was not so inclined, it would be dismissed as hearsay, nothing more than an impression of presumed agreement between the subjective opinions of a few specialists. Much as you dismiss the general consensus beliefs of astrologers.
> >>One might observe that any literary deconstruction, performed in the ivory
> >>towers of acadaemia, that suggests a multiplicity of authorship, is mere
> >>intellectual artifice. It rests upon grounds no more substantial than those
> >>occupied by the interpreting astrologer.
> >This is what I mean. See above. I've never seen any astrologer state so
> >clearly the manifesto of their own illusion.
Please explain how I managed to state this "clear manifesto"! I can't see it, but if I do have this inadvertent talent, I'd like to learn how to be able to do it again consciously, at will.
> >If it were not so clear that you have a very large axe to grind and a
> >heavy chip on your Atlean shoulders, then some form of discourse could
We all have a bias. Since I have described yours and Roger's, fair enough that either of you should describe mine.
I wonder why you contribute here, Lorenzo? The area of common interest is not clear to me. If you do not actually do astrology yourself, I mean. It is hard to see the merit of astrology unless someone gives you good reason to see it, or unless you discover it for yourself. For me, first the former happened, then a year or two later the latter. I was sceptical, yet I was always hopeful that there might be something in it. Substantial, I mean, not just promise and illusion.
Communication between specialists in different disciplines is never easy. It first requires intuition that other fields of knowledge can inform one. It also requires innate ability to transcend the ideological bounds that define one's concept of reality. It then requires the will to find common ground with strangers.
End of exegesis Digest V7 #15
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.