Exegesis V07 Issue 045

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #045

In This Issue:

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Astro-Angst

Exegesis Digest Tue, 26 Mar 2002

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:24:57 -0500

Lorenzo wrote:
> >This then seems to be saying that astrology is a relativist subjective
> >approach to being.

Ultimately there IS no other approach to being, so such a view of astrology seems appropriate. The weight of science, history, tradition, authority may give the illusions of objectivity and of some kind of unchanging "absolute", but in the end it probably *is* all illusion, consensual or individual. We seem to live in a Democratic Universe--the perceptions/conceptions with the widest and most long-lasting agreement, "win".

> >The ulitmate form of this
> >expression is a tantrum of boundless egoism and turf
> >protection/expansion (=NE unbridled).

This is a human condition, and certainly not limited to any particular paradigm, point-of-view or mode of consciousness. Academia itself--the ultimate in rationality and "objectivity"--is rather notable for such "egoism and turf protection/expansion".

> >The retreat into subjectivism is a
> >way (called passive aggressive) of protecting the individual from social
> >contact, from dialogue and compromise.

So is the retreat into objectivism. The keyword here is "retreat", not whatever the refuge may be.

> >It is a testing of the
> >validity of the intuition. Statements such as 'Margaret Thatcher was the
> >King of Belgium who fought Napoleon' may be intuitive, but are open to
> >challenge if they are to be validly used as paradigms or even statements
> >of perceptive intution. It may be that such a statement is symbolically
> >meanful and true to an inidividual, but whether this is able to be a
> >part of a dialogue with another individual is somewhat of a moot point.

Yes! This is an aspect of the beauty and value of rationality--it provides us the means to test and prove perceptions and conceptions of worth, and can help us to reach agreement (the value of which is worthy of an essay of its own ;-).

> >To exalt the qualities of one
> >aspect (intuition) over the other is to fall into individualism, which
> >is the breaking of the unity of the entity, which is a triparate entity
> >of individualisation, collectivity and process.

Given this statement, it seems strange to me then that you speak so disparagingly of intuition and intuitive understanding, dismissing them as of little worth and definitely on a lower rung of an apparently hierarchical mental ladder.

It is pretty wondrous to me that the system of astrology is a big enough mirror to accurately reflect both your view and Roger's. Fractals, holograms and mirrors seem like good analogs to astrology. If one could concede the possibility that astrology is bigger than any one person's ability to understand, then one might begin to take a less rigid position on definitions. With increased mental flexibility, one might understand that it's not the *system* that changes into something else with the change of perspective.

Trying to frame my thoughts here, I've come up with a kind of tangential question (or two): Does astrology shape *us*, or do we shape astrology, or some combination of both? The answers to this may depend on whether one considers astrology to be merely and purely a human "invention". (I realize there may be semantic problems with my question, but hope it points sufficiently clearly to the idea behind it for the idea rather than the semantics to be addressed) Second question: *Is* astrology an "absolute" such that there must be one and only one clear definition? (IOW, must your and Roger's views of what astrology is be mutually exclusive?)

> >This would mean I think that one has decided not to dialogue with the
> >real world but to magically inhabit a space of idiolexic monologue.

"Idiolexic monologue" is not a "space", and has no absolute or independent existence. This is the problem I see with the "real world". We use words and rationality to define "it", forgetting that both our words and our rationality are imperfect and incomplete, and thereby limit and restrict *ourselves* to the mental boxes we create. Intuition is our way (or at least one way) out of the boxes.

> >Critical thought, historical
> >perspective, contextualisation, linguistic comparison and
> >intertextuality, verfication by means of definition, experimentation and
> >methodological rigour are a way to exit from the (false)monologue of
> >intuition.

I agree that these are very useful *tools*, but the craftsman is master of his tools, not vice versa. Maybe it is "dangerous" to venture beyond the tools we have for shaping consensus reality, but that is how new ground is cleared and new tools invented--it is how we expand consensus reality, imo.

Just my thoughts, for what they're worth. Thanks to you and Roger for such a stimulating discussion!

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:35:08 -0500

> >Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:18:17 +0100
> >From: L:Smerillo
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #43
> >
> >Rog wrote:
> >
> >>I have found that astrology is more of an artistic outlet for our human
> >>capacity for intuition than a discipline for the training of one's reasoning
> >>ability.
> >
> >This then seems to be saying that astrology is a relativist subjective
> >approach to being. The problem with this approach is that it is a ghetto
> >of one ape in a treeless desert. There is no dialogue with the real
> >world, no tension, no loop and feed back of critical thinking, it is
> >mere expression: take it or leave it. The ulitmate form of this
> >expression is a tantrum of boundless egoism and turf
> >protection/expansion (=NE unbridled). The retreat into subjectivism is a
> >way (called passive aggressive) of protecting the individual from social
> >contact, from dialogue and compromise. It is simply a reaction of fear,
> >and the camouflage of boundless expression hides from the invasion of
> >the real world upon the seemingly 'artistic' (ie, individualistic)
> >mirror of intuition which is ever looking only at itself.

"Itself" may at some point actually be the itself of one's human-ness, which is no doubt confounding-ly intermingled with one's individuality. It appears to be a matter of the human heart determining where self and others overlap and share some common human *it-ness*...:) Individuality is probably an un-willed emphasis on some thematic grouping of collective human potentials, while other equally possible potentials lie dormant, so to speak--not available to a particular human consciousness as a matter of nature's apparent insistence on the diversity of human group members. Individuality seems not to be a choice of the intellect. It is as if individuality *intuitively* fashions the whole of one's capability and preferences for one's apperception activity, this in turn author's one's autobiography in the manner of a great unwritten novel, which in turn serves as the foundation for the whole one's philosophy. It seems to me that the meaning of any fact will always be tainted (or seeded) by an intuitively charged creative fiction.

> >I would view astrology from a much more mundane and humble level: it is
> >a technique, based on a correlation of time space coordinates as
> >expressed in simple mathematical terms which can perhaps give _an_
> >insight into the possible expression or manifestation of matter in time
> >and at a location. Given that the variables in all parts of this are
> >quite numerous, and some might be yet unknown, the search for a
> >rationale of astrology can not be limited to the merely individualistic
> >and relativist expression, or intuition or interpretation.

This cause and effect sort of view of astrology is probably an illusion promoted by the human will to manipulate, control, and perhaps adapt and employ whatever one's curiosity brings into view.

Part of the
> >problem with astrology lies in its ability to change the cards on the
> >table by the use of the kalleidoscope effect: change one's technique,
> >ill-define one's categories, and the image perceived changes, is perhaps
> >then given to be intuitive.

Some persons actually believe that the quantity of photo-realism is the measure of what an artist has to offer...:) Non-objective, impressionistic, or abstract, projections are not merely subjective projections...the distortion of "reality" by an individual is probably a necessary mental act which gives rise to one's conscious existence. Except for the distortion of the mind's rippled/imperfect surface there would probably be so Self to reflect upon.

> >
> >>illusive "fact" for Dennis to focus upon; but, for me, astrology's reason for
> >>existence lies in its apparently singular ability to suggest some kind of
> >>wording for our intuition-born perceptions--our uncanny sensations of
> >>"knowing" that which is just outside our intellect's rational grasp or vision.
> >
> >This would mean I think that one has decided not to dialogue with the
> >real world but to magically inhabit a space of idiolexic monologue. The
> >great propensity of the mind is to fool itself into thinking that it
> >'knows' what it intuits/perceives. Critical thought, historical
> >perspective, contextualisation, linguistic comparison and
> >intertextuality, verfication by means of definition, experimentation and
> >methodological rigour are a way to exit from the (false)monologue of
> >intuition.

Again, the actual basis for human thought would seem to be the "monologue of intuition" particularly when, as in astrology, no objective measures exist to serve the needs of "critical thinking." I can live quite comfortably with that *reality* and that kind of "real world" input. I personally see no merit in an astrological version of "methodological rigour." Noting the *scientific* significance of aspecting planets does as this point in my life seem more like documenting the exact conversations between Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny...:) However, any such creative fiction has come to be an invaluable resource for my astrological observations--my exploration of natal charts as the algebraic parallel of one's expressed individuality. This being the comparing of two arts, and not an appeal to science for sense of personal or professional legitamacy or, heaven forbid, objectively measured beauty or truth.

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Astro-Angst
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:40:30 -0500

My early personal experience of astrology, as a pseudoscience and means to making predictions concerning events, their timing and so forth, did seem a constant source of agitation, a vexation of the spirit, whatever, and thus I would not recommend that naturally anxious individuals seek some sense of relief by attempting to use astrology as a means to better anticipate the workings of fates. I've come to the conclusion at long last that a desire to be a controling influence in my own life is probably a reasonable undertaking, but any attempt to use astrology to project the likelihood of either fortunate or unfortunate events is not only anxiety provoking but completely lacking in spiritual nutrition, for lack of a better term at the moment. For instance, I have found that several sucessive near perfect predictions using Horary as a means of divining the unfolding events of a given matter did nothing for my general sense of well being, except diminish it by instilling a feverish wont in places that were previously idylic isles of mental refuge and relaxation. One might wonder why, if I were at all successfull at predictions, that I did not simply cash in on the stock market and the like. I wonder about that too, but I did believe at the time that any such materialistic purpose would negate the presence of whatever holy of holies was apparently operating through my person in the manner angels (whatever) directing some automatic writing before my mind. Oh the excitement and bitter-sweet agony of "KNOWING THINGS!" Surely, I was mad as a hatter, but that would have be quite an acceptable existence if only I were actually happy...actually could know the joys of a spiritual appreciation, instead of the gnawing desire to somehow possess the secrets of anything and everything. Thank god for Dane Rudhyar and the viewing of astrology as psychological phenomenona. The mechanistic, fatalistic, modeling of traditional astrology was indeed, for me, Dante's fifth circle of hell.

Currently I feel a little alienated from whoever I was before astrology reorganized my apperception; and, there is a nostalgic sense of loss in that I can "never go home again" but I did run full bore from whatever that initial "real world" was. I seem to remember it was a very heavy, sad, gloom-filled world totally lacking hope and joy....I was as dead as an astronomical planet...as dead as the scientifically defined sand on a beach teeming with frolicking youth mindlessly celebrating their coy, fruit-filled, lives. But finally, I found an outlet for the creative, but apparently limited, creature that dutifully signed my name to all of life's required documents and faithfully accepted all the dead truths of an atheist's un-haunted reasoning.

Forgoing the contextual biographical anecdote here, a self-proclaimed "practical" Virgo once said to me, "...after all, you *are* just a man--just a human being." Ah, what a relief there was in that, for me. There was no need to be a wizard. There never was a basis for feeling called upon to perform something supernatural, or even humanly exceptional. Why didn't I think of that much earlier. The drive of the leonine ego? The need for an atheist to be his own god? Whatever. However it came to pass, I did find my personal salvation in the simple fact that there truly are things that I simply cannot know. That there are things in Heaven and Earth which have absolutely no need of me to conceive of them, nor do they require me to laboriously trod a path to their eventual conception and dissemination. That I cannot know some authoritative sounding pseudo-mechanical explanation for some apparent astrological phenomena no longer burdens me with the shame of a personal failing, or even a suspicion that I am a derelict in terms of some humanistic and obligatory rational duty. I need only to present my observations as interesting and life appreciation coincidences. Not so much as a single mention of a formally defined correspondence need be uttered while *listening* to the music of the spheres. Astrology is and has always been an art of mankind, a quirky gift of the muses apparently intended to enhance one's spiritual life regardless of whatever scientific, religious, or political dogma would seek to use our very soul for a self perpetuating breeding ground. Where is there a greater sense of self determination and truly democratic participation than in an astrology, a product of the human arts which allows us to see or not see a "connection" of one thing to another in any manner the intuition-bound spirit darn well pleases....:)