|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #085
In This Issue:
From: Patrice Guinard
Exegesis Digest Mon, 21 Oct 2002
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:53:45 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: Physics, Biology & Astrology
> >From: "Dennis Frank"
> >Subject: [e] dialogue & trialogue
> >Presumably "free folded" is intended to mean `thrice-folded', tripartite.
Yes, of course. Sorry: an unintentional pun, rather well: a slip.
> >Patrice & I have
> >not agreed that his term impressional is synonymous with archetype, so I
> >remain only reasonably confident that he means the same thing I mean.
> >Possibly his term covers only part of what I mean.
An archetype, with substantial symbolistic content or meaning, or not (even JUNG
is not clear about his own concept), is a cultural acquisition.
An impressional has no meaning at all: it's just like a sort of inner "sensation" if you like. (More light of this concept in my texts : "Critical Analysis of Peirce's Semiotics" & "From Semiotics to the Astral", CURA)
> >Regarding point 3: "This remains obscure to me even after reading the above
> >link, and after reading (several months ago) various versions of your
> >*Manifesto*. To me astrological symbols are part of a way of reasoning that
> >enables us to seem valid to ourselves even though presentday astrology has
> >very little empirical content. It's a game we learn to play through
> >exposure to astrology's paradigms."
Sorry to disagree. When you are interpreting a chart, you use these symbols & you're playing that game you have learned to play. OK. But precisely, for me, it's not a good game. I prefer to play "Puerto Rico", "Euphrat & Tigris" or "Go"!
The only astrological reality & fact are these endogenous impressionals, & they
organized themselves, in "patterns", thanks to the evolution of human psychism &
its adaptation to the planetary rhythms.
The planetary rhythms have become endogenous. More they compel the psychic system to organize itself "astrologically", i.e. as planetary forces (energy), zodiacal forms (structure)... This is a meaning of "matrix". And this is the PARACELSIAN theory.
It means that the internal organization has several poles of differentiation, and when it happens a planetary transit, lived as "impressional", just an effect of the astronomical signal on the living psychic matter, the representation mind of the astrologer interprets or translates it in a certain meaning.
I will take an example: We could imagine that the Mesopotamians were feeling a sensation of vigour, strengh, even agressivity, when they notice some positions of Mars in the sky: So they rely it with their god Nergal (sumer. NE.ERI.GAL), as a "symbol" of the planet Mars.
But Nergal doesn't mean the planet Mars, nor anything else. There are no meanings at all: just differential qualities of energy. So the astrologers are generally "translating" too much...
> >The semiotic perspective turned out to be a requisite
> >acquisition (thanks, Cynthia, if you are reading this).
But see my 1993 texts on semiotics & Peirce. Sorry if they aren't read.
I forgot to mention this section, available in English: "The Biological Integration of Planetary Rhythms": ie chapter 1 of The Planetaries, http://cura.free.fr/20planen.html (translation M. Becvarov). Could be another piece of value in the debate.
Finally, just to return to point 3 "The astrological symbol is the psycho-mental and cultural translation of that impressional"
I mean that the ASTRAL reality is the impressionals & their mode of organization
in the psychic apparatus. All the structures (planets, zodiacs, houses...) are
the ASTROLOGICAL knowledge of this organization, a knowledge changing with
cultural contexts. Charts' interpretation ? : just an application, without interest,
except if the interpreter can SEE other thing in the chart that is not known by
historians and other specialists.
But commonly, astrologers are not even able to see what these others, without astrological knoledge, can easily see...
End of exegesis Digest V7 #85
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.