Exegesis V07 Issue 049

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #049

In This Issue:

From: "Lenore Canter"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #48

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #47

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #47

Exegesis Digest Sun, 31 Mar 2002

From: "Lenore Canter"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #48
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:41:19 -0500

Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
> >>You misunderstand: my 'being' = Dasein. Actuality. Concrete. Inner and
> >>Outer. Whatever you call it, I call it the real world, not pink
> >>elephants dancing in a swimming pool.

Dennis Frank wrote:
> >Yeah, the real world. I know it well. Consensual reality. The sun always
> >rises in the East. Physicists don't live in that reality, because they know
> >that in their reality the apparent horizon sinks past the sun as the world
> >turns. I looked up `dasein' in our Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary
> >but it wasn't there. What language? Or is it an invention?

"More precisely, Being is grounded in the temporal structure of those beings ("Da-sein") who have an understanding of Being. With this famous reconceptualization of the self not as a subject, consciousness, or ego but as a "Dasein," Heidegger takes the German word for "existence" (Dasein) and interprets it in terms of its basic semantic elements ("there" [Da] + "Being" [Sein]) in order to illustrate his claim that existence is fundamentally a "being-there," that is, a temporally-structured making intelligible of the place in which we find ourselves. ("Dasein is its disclosedness," Heidegger says.) He understands this "making-intelligible" as "truth" in its most "primordial" sense. As shown by the Greek word for truth, A-letheia (the alpha-privative + Lethe,, the river of forgetting), truth is primordially a kind of "un-concealment," a "dis-closing" or manifestation of presence which in fact any correspondence theory of truth must implicitly presuppose (in order even for there simply to be something to which to correspond)."

I don't believe anyone is arguing that a person (a subject) doesn't experience his or her world from his or her own perspective. The unique value of astrology, however, is its capacity to help the astrologer to view that person -- or situation -- objectively. An astrologer who helps people sort out their problems can use the chart to understand the client's subjective experience and then jump outside of the chart, so to speak, in order to help the client view the situation in a more objective context, its being-there in the world, its Dassein.

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #47
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:37:44 -0500

Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
> >There is a very dangerous and widespread cancer currently chewing its
> >chud in astrological theorising: the post-modern relativist sham. This
> >probably springs from two seemingly sybilline sources: 1] a
> >misunderstanding of particle physics, where a nano-moment of relativity
> >(Dasein/ nul Dasein) does existence in the interaction of sub-atomic
> >particles; some are wont to think this then applies to everything and
> >the universe and all meaning and Dasein. False.

No, it isn't false. Here are some links that will help you update your understanding of particle physics, though it's impossible to present the complete picture in just four pages:

http://www.isso.org/inbox/nature.htm "Non-locality, although predicted by the earliest work in quantum theory and decisively demonstrated by Aspect in 1982, has been thought to be a curious property of particle physics but of little relevance to macro-scale reality UNTIL [my emphasis] discovery of the quantum hologram." http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsT heorem.html [physicist Bernard] "d'Espagnat also tends to believe that the reality assumption is incorrect. Thus he wrote: 'The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.' " http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-5/Benford.htm "Empirical Evidence Supporting Macro-Scale Quantum Holography in Non-Local Effects Author: Benford MS...The percipient, or system sensing the information, and the source of information are in a resonant relationship for the information to be accurately perceived. . . . discovery of the non-local quantum hologram created by the absorption/ remission phenomenon and characteristic of all physical objects provides the first quantum physical mechanism compatible with macro-scale three dimensional world as we experience it....Non-locality and the non-local quantum hologram provide the only testable mechanism discovered to date which offer a possible solution to the host of enigmatic observations and data associated with consciousness and such consciousness phenomena." http://www.sumeria.net/phys/hologram.html This page gives a very good explanation of non-locality and the quantum hologram in non-scientific terms.

> >This is to admit, tacitly that the skeptics are absolutely
> >correct about astrology: it is a sham, a pseudo-science, no matter how
> >good it is at cross-dressing and drag, putting on all the pretty
> >feathers of subjectivity, relativity etc, it still babbles.

First, it admits no such thing. Second, since I am not seeking approval or validation from skeptics, it really doesn't matter to me personally *what* they think about astrology. Their skepticism does not determine my reality, nor does it affect the way astrology works. If you choose to care about their opinion, that's your business.

> >Secondly there is no democracy in knowledge, 'science', nor, better put
> >scientific methodology: what counts is the rigourous logical
> >argumentation of the evidenciary congruence. We don't vote, we are
> >persuaded, convinced, shown, proved to the point of acceptance.

We "lobby" and are lobbied for the "vote" of our acceptance, and our consensus reality is determined by the ideas with the widest acceptance. Our reality isn't determined by what is *true*, but by what we *believe* to be true.

Subjective factors that come into play in this lobbying are the human liking for a well-defined, stable reality, and the enormous emotional, irrational *resistance* most people have to paradigm-shattering new knowledge. For instance, in Copernicus' day, the consensus reality held that the universe was geocentric and anthropocentric, and that paradigm (constructed less of fact than of democratic agreement) did not give way to a new one without a fight. It didn't matter that Copernicus' science was "right". Until a new "democratic" consensus was reached--iow until enough people were persuaded to accept the theory--his proof of a new reality was nothing more than a dangerous heresy.

It's really no different today. For example, geologists agree that the weight of hard evidence points to a Sphinx *at least* three millenia older than the commonly accepted date of its carving, yet Egyptologists seem to find it easier to dismiss the science than to consider the possibility that their comfortable, familiar views concerning the rise of civilization are in error. The "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to preserve their mental constructs of "reality"--it has always been so.

The
> >oft-heard, "I feel" is a phrase one should use to one's medic when one
> >is in a state of somatic disfunction, not when one discusses the real
> >world amongst intelligent company. I often reminded my students: I am
> >not in the least interested in what they 'feel' but very interested in
> >why they think what they do, and how they can justify such thoughts as
> >they might, from time to time, summon the energy to produce!

> >>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".
> >
> >Which is precisely why such subjectivity must be weeded out, recognised
> >and neutralised. Bias, bigotry, subjectivism, relativism are all
> >distortions. It's no good complaining that your sour grapes are still
> >less green than those under the ivy walls. Even if in so doing you raise
> >red herrings.

Subjectivity *cannot* be "weeded out"; it is intrinsic to our humanity. Those who try to "neutralise" it only manage to drive it further from awareness, so that they become blind to its operation in themselves. That is one reason why academics are prone to display such "egoism" --they have convinced themselves that they have driven out subjectivity, and so are blind to their own biases, bigotry, etc. Frankly, your reply is rife with subjectivity--is in fact almost entirely subjective! The quest for perfect objectivity is the true red herring--there is no such thing, since no one can stand outside hir own consciousness and its perceptions.

> >>>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.
> >
> >Meaning that both are relatively Good Things? What does that mean?

What does retreat into *any* intellectual stance mean? It means closing one's mind off to other points-of-view; believing that one's own ideas are the "last word" and represent the whole truth; that for whatever reason, there is nothing to be learned from dialogue; not recognizing the emotional and non-rational sources of these behaviors.

> >>>Magic is the stuff of subjectively orientated projection.
> >
> >>And "reality" is the stuff of collectively oriented projection.
> >
> >So say you. But is this a relatively subjective viewpoint or one which
> >is born of rational selection? Why do you call reality projection?

Because theoretical and particle physicists are increasingly frequently calling it projection; because several ancient cosmologies and many modern thinkers call it projection; because personal experience and reflection on the nature of consciousness and "reality" confirm the idea of "reality as projection" to my satisfaction.

> >Here's a test. Chew through your computor's electrical supply flex, and
> >see if it still functions normally.

Your "test" may seem to be extremely clever to you, but it neither proves nor disproves the point.

> >We are beings in a real world. The subjective is nice for procreation
> >and recreation, and choosing one's dinner from the menu (de gustibus non
> >disputandum est), but beyond that it is to be weeded out of knowledge.

"At root is the age-old battle, whether to recognize the mind as a whole unit encompassing its reality or to split the mind from its wholeness. Religion and science too often prove blood brothers beneath their different vestments, and man proves the victim of their civil war...Surely projections of absolutes 'out there' played a decisive role in the development of science. The problem is that the projection turns on the projector and becomes a fixed concept controlling the direction of new projections...Blake saw that the inversion of Stoic thinking led to the deadness of the stone as the only real, while the enormous capacity of life, the imagination of man, is considered the most unreal." -- Joseph Chilton Pearce, _The Crack In the Cosmic Egg: Challenging Constructs of Mind and Reality_

> >Except for the fact that astrologers oft spout much nonsense. Analogic
> >thinking is another of the boojums which are currently infesting
> >astrological theory.

So say you. But this sounds much more like subjective opinion than objective fact, so perhaps some "weeding" is in order...

> >>The answers to this may depend on whether one
> >>considers astrology to be merely and purely a human "invention". (I
> >
> >And what field of human knowledge and study is not a human invention?

Well, we just don't know that with certainty, do we? You obviously believe they all are, but that *is* a matter of belief and assumption. Science can't really address the question, but must assume we did it all ourselves. On the other hand, myths from around the world explain culture and civilization as skills that were taught to humanity. Gifts of the "gods".

> >>*Is* astrology an "absolute"
> >>such that there must be one and only one clear definition?
> >
> >Frankly, yes.

Again, that is a matter of opinion, not "fact", and exhibits your ultra-rational bias. The fact is that your view of astrology and Roger's do both exist simultaneously, and both seem to "work" for each of you. That's one reason I think a mirror is a good analog to astrology--it reflects back to us both what we bring to it and what we expect to find in it.

The world is not so logical as you would like, Lorenzo--where one and only one view of any issue or thing is "right" and all differing views are "wrong" and should therefore be suppressed and/or eliminated. That is a condition, a limitation you place on your own mind; the reality you construct for yourself.

> >>"Idiolexic monologue" is not a "space", and has no absolute or independent
> >>existence.
> >
> >Ah, but it does in the minds of the truly subjective. It is the only
> >space they will occupy. Why does no one understand English anylonger?

You may be referring to idiolects, but if so, you are using the term incorrectly. First, it would be "idiolectic" and second, it is a term that refers only to an individual's idiosyncratic use of language.

> >Galileo for instance came to his theory of gravity by pure
> >logical deduction, not experimentation. Kwel!

Regards, Lois ""True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is above is as that which is below, and that which is below is as that which is above, for the performance of the miracles of the One Thing. "

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #47
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:02:44 -0500

> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:10:28 +0100
> >From: L:Smerillo
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #45
> >
> >>Lois Cruz wrote
> >>LS:
> >>>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.
> >
> >You misunderstand: my 'being' = Dasein. Actuality. Concrete. Inner and
> >Outer. Whatever you call it, I call it the real world, not pink
> >elephants dancing in a swimming pool.
> >

I think I understand that "being there" is, at first, a purely subjective experience. And, though one may attempt to be a whimsical, inauthentic, self--perhaps "silly" as one playing at embodying more and more randomness, we each soon reach the limits of our randomness. Thus we often eventually bump into our authentic pattern of selfhood by imaginative/subjective means. I doubt, for instance, the *selection* of "pink elephants dancing in a swimming pool." as part of one's Self expression, is a purely random act. Rather, what we choose may in some way be authentically representative/indicative of some facet of the being who does the choosing.

"[..] Dasein exists. Furthermore, Dasein is an entity which in each case I myself am. Mineness belongs to any existent Dasein, and belongs to it as the conditions which make authenticity and inauthenticity possible. [..]" Being and Time, Heidegger (1927), (p. 78)

[..]Heidegger points out that these two modes of disclosedness must have ownership; that is, they necessarily belong to the subjective, singular Dasein. For our purposes, Dasein, composed of its ontological and existential dimensions disclosed as Being-in-the-world, is to be understood in the context of Selfhood. [...............]"--http://members.tripod.com/~jonmills/Dasein.htm