|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #077
In This Issue:
From: Patrice Guinard
Exegesis Digest Mon, 09 Sep 2002
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:07:25 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] What to "consider" in your astrological practice? & WHY?
What to "consider" in your astrological practice? & WHY? Tried to give my reasons in my 1993 thesis.
Concerning mid-points, parts & similar fanciful material, see my paper: The Solar System: What is a Planet in Astrology? http://cura.free.fr/18solsys.html
I've never found, for instance, a good reason to use mid-points, & will be glad to hear one.
I advocate a limited set of astrological operators:
6 (ou even 4) aspects (= 0, 90, (120?), 180, (120?), 90),
10 planets (including Pluto-Charon),
12 signs (tropical).
Aspects is a time-organized set, houses a space one (compass card), planets
energy (see the 10 sefirots), & signs structure.
Time, Energy, Space & Structure are the "a priori" frameworks of perception, i.e. four "Inclusives" of Consciousness (see http://cura.free.fr/10domi1e.html) My idea is all that is the same Matrix, differently organized (in the psychic apparatus, if one), & it could justify the "rulerships" (Aries-Mars, Taurus-Uranus!, Leo-Sun, etc...)
The physical matter could be organized similarly: see for instance the 8 baryons set & the 10 baryons set in Paul Davies, The new physics, Cambridge University Press, 1989 & 1993.
> >From: L:Smerillo
> >Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #75
> >Mes chers petits vernis, et Patrice!
> >>Divinatory is a puerile and a futile practice of astrology.
> >>Horary is just placebo.
> >Pithy. & spot on.
> >>And the explanation of the astrological fact by Jungian synchronicity, is
> >>affective, emotional, & a matter of imagination, i.e. a lazy explanation.
> >Obviously, of course, apodictic; but one does have such a difficult time
> >of explaining this to the obfuscating obdurate with their fastuous
> >anopsia and Campbell's Jungfrau Soup pre-used in clanking rusty tin
> >cans. Or their Warholian photocopies of lithographs of the same. La
> >stessa zuppa o zucca riscaldata. uffa! They are the Ratzinger's of
> >astrology. At their very, most absolute best, such are very bad poets,
> >writing gibberish in blank verse. At their very, most absolute best.
> >>>What would you think of an astrology with only houses
> >>>and planets, major aspects with very narrow orbs and
> >>>without sign degrees?
> >>The real way to investigate. In my opinion, there is no other astrology
> >>that could be justified by reason.
> >Scrap houses, eight or twelve, take four quadrants from two angles.
> >Major aspects... hmmm, that would be 0, 11.15, 22.30, 33.45, 45, 56.15,
> >67.30, 78.45, 90, 101.15, 112.30, 123.45, 135, 146.15, 157.30, 168.45,
> >and 180, of course, would it not? The rest is foreplay in mirrors in the
> >circus tent.
> >And use:
> >Planetary cycles, location location location.
> >Sign degrees are a measurement system, not a reality; there are no real
> >signs, still less degrees in the cosmos, only the mathematical
> >approximations of distances transposed to eliptical line. Inches,
> >And all the other fixed star (idee fixe a la Brady and Rosenberg
> >amateurs) and asteriod junk is flotsam floating from the Colacca Maxima
> >Divina or Immobile.
> >First REASON: local reality is very complicated: traditional,
> >theosophical and divinatory astrology is simple-minded, simple simon is
> >as simple simon does. It's a tiny shoe for a huge monster, local
> >reality. You can not hang mountains from a spider's web of traditional
> >gossamer tangle. Even from its Arabic parts, or private parts for that
> >Wissenschaft, gentlemen, Wissenschaft.
> >Lorenzo Smerillo
End of exegesis Digest V7 #77
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.