Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #052

In This Issue:

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #51

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #51

Exegesis Digest Fri, 05 Apr 2002

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #51
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:19:45 -0500

 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------
 > >
 > >Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:43:28 +0200
 > >From: L:Smerillo
 > >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #49
 > > "[.......] I am fully aware that my rather Uranian-cosmobiological and materialistic view of astrology is not common cud of the family of do-gooders and navel pickers. [...............]"

I'm all ears; tell me about the uncommon cud of scientifically objective astrology you prefer and what your are measuring. Thanks.



From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #51
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:05:04 -0500

Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
 > >Yes, these are interesting theories of consciousness and perception but
 > >have nothing to do with the logicality of discourse which is the issue I
 > >addressed. So they are rather a red herring

They directly rebutted point 1 of your "logicality of discourse" argument, so it's no good making this red herring claim now.

 > >I would think they have still less to do with any speculative underlying
 > >principle which would validate astrological thought in the scientific
 > >community.

The theories of non-locality and the quantum hologram are most likely astrology's best hope for validation.

 > >However, here's a clue as to where you are 'coming from' (I do like to
 > >see other's subjective views made more intellible):
 > >
 > >>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.
 > >
 > >To quote the site:
 > >"A fascinating read on Sumeria is to be found in any of Zecharia
 > >Sitchin's books. A lot
 > >people think he goes over the top with his ideas about where the
 > >Sumerians came
 > >from, but since he is one of the few people in the world who can
 > >read Sumerian
 > >fluently, I think his ideas should not be dismissed lightly."
 > >
 > >This is boojum hocus pocus. Do you know what sort of charlatan Sitchin
 > >is?

No, since I've never read any of his books, nor have I investigated any of his claims. I presume you have done both to make such a judgment. In any case, it's amusing to see how you attempt to "discredit" me, and by extension this informative essay, by scouring the entire *site* and selecting a quote that has nothing whatever to do with the essay (which you either didn't bother to read or with which you could find no fault). This tactic of yours seems to be a good example of the "dogmatics" you mention further along, and one of your dreaded red herrings as well.

 > >>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,
 > >
 > >This is just another red herring as well as being totally idiotic. Have
 > >you swallowed the whole of Robert Bauval's reguritation?

You may choose to call it idiotic, but it is a legitimate and widely accepted (though not by Egyptologists) conclusion based on empirical evidence. Yale-trained and sterling-credentialed Dr. Robert Schoch http://www.teamatlantis.com/schoch/credentials.html has published and presented his conclusions in peer-review journals and before the Geological Society of America and the AAAS, who aren't known for entertaining "totally idiotic" theories. Far from being a red herring, it illustrates the subjective nature of even empirical science very clearly.

 > >>Subjectivity *cannot* be "weeded out"; it is intrinsic to our humanity.
 > >
 > >It must be attempted to be weeded out for rational discussion. No theory
 > >can rest on the subjective interference in testing of evidence. That is
 > >not rationality, it is dogmatics.

Then please start with yourself. You dismiss legitimate scientific evidence out-of-hand as "totally idiotic", as if expressing your subjective opinion of a theory you "don't like" is enough in itself to make the evidence go away. I have brought up several ideas for such "rational discussion", and have provided sound scientific and theoretical bases for the ideas, yet you have attempted to discredit and dismiss them all with nothing more than subjective snide comments. You are only managing to prove the point I made about the danger of driving subjectivity from awareness.

 > >>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 mirror is muddy with subjective projection. It does not communicate.

You can't reasonably expect that everyone who looks into the mirror will see a reflection of Lorenzo's reality. However, I do agree that it is desirable to find as much common ground in astrological theory as possible. But any such theory must begin with a recognition of astrology's fundamental and unavoidable element of subjectivity. This subjectivity is not a *fault*, in the astrologer or in the system, that needs to be eliminated. Such a quest for pure objectivity is a "boojum" that will keep you eternally unsatisfied and forever battling the same phantoms, imo.

 > >>The world is not so logical as you would like
 > >
 > >That is quite clear, but our understanding of it must be logical if we
 > >are not to fall into the solipsism of 'alternative realities' which are
 > >merely constructs of subjective longings.

To provide just one example, I'll point out that the "alternate reality" of man flying--flying to the "moon and stars" no less--began as an illogical (everyone knows man can't fly) construct of subjective longing, so it isn't wise to dismiss the power and potential of such longing. As I said before, an understanding of non-locality and the quantum hologram seem to provide a sound and logical starting point for developing a scientific validation of astrology.

With that, I'll bow out of the discussions and leave you to deal with your plethora of red herrings and boojums.

Regards, Lois


End of exegesis Digest V7 #52

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.