Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #088

In This Issue:

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #85

Exegesis Digest Fri, 25 Oct 2002

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #85
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:15:32 +1300

 > >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
 > >>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 on his own concept), is a cultural acquisition.

I don't agree. Well, perhaps I do agree that it has acquired that meaning in recent decades, due mostly to Jung's influence and the spin he put on the meaning of the word. When it comes to language perhaps I'm more of a fundamentalist than a postmodernist - I prefer the original meaning when it involves profound issues and deep meanings.

 > >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)

Hmm. You make it seem trivial and I'm reluctant to accept that it is! If you are suggesting it is a mere biological reflex, I would argue that temporal gearing is still incorporated into that function (as the basic context).

 > >>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"!

You seem to be responding to this quote of Dale's as though I wrote it. Regardless, I agree that it is not a good game. I play it sufficiently differently to most astrologers as to make it a different game. Dale can't accept this, as my style looks too much like most other astrologers to him. They, on the other hand, are either baffled or think I'm a heretic when they find I don't use rulerships, exaltations, the 7 rays, midpoints, solstice points, asteroids, imaginary planets, etc etc etc.

 > >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", ie as planetary forces (energy),
 > >zodiacal forms (structure)... This is a meaning of "matrix". And this is the
 > >PARACELSIAN theory.

Have you anywhere documented that Paracelsus said this, or do you merely think that's what he may have meant? [Excuse me being the devil's advocate!] I note that other meanings of `matrix' are implied above. Care to expand on that?

Also, I should issue a caution. Rudhyar made a strong case that the psyche models the cosmos, and the natal horoscope is the structure of the psyche. I have tended to follow him in this, and your view above seems to concur. However I have spent the past few years extending my comprehension of psychology by reading the latest books by a range of neuroscientists and evolutionary psychologists. It has become clear to me that the structure of the psyche cannot be merely a microcosm of the solar system, as it contains major structural & functional components that have no obvious correspondence to that model. I still am confident that some operational subcomponent of the psyche is a microcosm of the solar system, but it now seems to me that it must be a reductionist error to assume the psyche as a whole is merely that.

 > >It means that the internal organization has several poles of differentiation,
 > >and when it comes 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 as 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 note 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...

Yes, the cultural associations are seen as causal by simple minds.

 > >>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.

If you mean me, you forgot that I emailed you how much I appreciated them. It was Cynthia, in Exegesis in '99, who first got me intrigued enough to start learning about semiotics.

 > >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...

Broadly, I agree. However, it has always been clear to me that some interpreters are able to identify the archetypal content sufficiently to provide an accurate match between theory & practice, or, more precisely, a compelling correspondence between the result of their application of astrological reasoning and the evident nature of the real life object of their analysis.

Bye for now. I hope to reply to Dale & Alexandre's comments some time this weekend.



End of exegesis Digest V7 #88

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

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.