|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #031
In This Issue:
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Exegesis Digest Fri, 22 Feb 2002
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #30
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:22:58 -0500
> >Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:22:36 +0100
> >From: Patrice Guinard
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #20 (ASTROLOGICAL SYMBOLS)
> >Hi! Some points about symbol.
> > [.................]
> >I've proposed the following explanation of the astrological fact:
> >1) the astronomical signal is integrated into the neurophysiological
> >2) the astral impression is the inaperceptible psychic effect of this signal. It
> >is "quasi-lived ".
> >3) the astrological symbol is the psycho-mental and cultural translation of this
I like all three parts of this proposed explanation, even though I have a great deal of trouble trying to fathom what actually constitutes an "astrological signal" or how it is initially made manifest as a latent human potential--it's being "is integrated into the neurophysiological organization."
As to symbols, Patrice wrote:
[..] Firstly a symbol does't speak of OBJECTS.
> >Secondly, there is no definite reference for a symbol. Otherwise it would be a
> >sign, not a symbol.............I've discuted the concept of symbol in my analysis of >Peircian semiotics [..]"
Perhaps I'm too much of a visual kind of guy but I like what is attributed to Pierce in the following:
"[..]Charles Sanders Peirce (see Peircean), is actually a little more practical for visual art, for his distinctions between icon (meaning based on similarity in appearance), index (meaning based on cause and effect relationships), and symbol (meaning based on convention)[..]"-- http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/s_list.html#semiotics
I see all three Peircean visual art distinctions as being the most useful notions to me when I consider their observable products-the expressions of natal chart biases, whatever. I see the use of "icon" , "index", and "symbol", in the personal myths we create in the name of our metaphorically illustrated and poetically condensed autobiographies. Or, as well, as when I believe myself to be observing the unconscious choices of people who "quasi-live" their potentials--the act of making natal-ly biased choices while they are (perhaps) manifesting their astro-formulated, latent, individual tendencies. If one is creative enough, either by nature or training, persons seem to express mental images to illustrate their intended communications; and if I deconstruct these poetic images, I see that icon, index, and symbol are grabbed at with wild abandon and the ensuing tossed salad of half-intended Self expression...:)
Apparently any Dadaist-ic, unstructured, socially irreverent, blurting out of our raw natal chart potentials serves to release our genie from the bottle. For example, look at this bit of irrational bias as a postmodern artistic expression of the native's Mars--its placement by sign and house, and it's aspects: http://www.geocities.com/pedantus/wright_f1.gif
If the natal chart potential is what we wish to observe here, isn't "pepper" part Peircean icon, part index, and part symbol...:)? And, while I thinking about it, I'm really very confused about Peirce's "Firstness," "Secondness," and "Thirdness," and which gives rise to which, and when...:)
End of exegesis Digest V7 #31
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.