Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #094

In This Issue:

From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: to Dennis & Dale, Exegesis Digests V7 #86, #88, #91

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

Exegesis Digest Thu, 31 Oct 2002

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:29:12 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: to Dennis & Dale, Exegesis Digests V7 #86, #88, #91 etc

A short response to some of the mails recently posted here:

After I'd written:
 > >An impressional has no meaning at all: it's just like a sort of inner
 > >"sensation" if you like.

Dennis replied:

 > >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).

Not a reflex, because the stars are in you (Paracelsian's theory). An impressional is a tiny inner voice. It's like a musical note, a E or a G. The musician can recognize the E or the G, in the same manner than the astrologer can perceive Venus or Saturn.
Also: a chart is a manner of RITORNELLO. Nothing else. You could add all the meaning you want: but this is not "being musician".

Astrologers usually do the worse literature that it could be: they only decode existing events or situations, & add to them these instruments they have learned to use (planets, zodiacal signs etc...) Generally they are not able to think and see other thing than thought and seen by others. So it's not a knowledge: rather more a KNO-LEDGE (it was not a typo). A real knowledge ought to do the demonstration to other people, that a sense, that a real information, could be provided by astrology.

What is interesting concerning an event (if you like) or concerning a person, are the astrologers saying??? Are the astrologers able to say something interesting about whatever thing you could choose? When an astrologer is interpreting the chart of Balzac for instance, is he, is she!, able to say smth interesting about Balzac ???

 > >Patrice: >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.

 > >Dennis:
 > >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?

My lecture of Paracelsus. See his Astronomia Magna (1538). Some details about could be read in the different parts of my doctoral thesis (1993). I have to do a synthesis on this important thinker. But each thing with time.

 > >Dennis: 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.

Of course! If neuroscientists had found such correspondences, some of them would pay some attention to astrology!

 > >Dennis: 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.

I agree. & I've not said that this microcosm is ALL the psyche.

________________ ________________

Dale Huckeby wrote:

 > >Patrice: >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.
 > >
 > >Dale: This is the only (minor) point on which we differ. I don't think the
 > >planets have compelled this organization, rather that life has _used_ the
 > >planets to organize itself.

It seems to me that astrology needs this hypothesis -- of Matrix, the most difficult to accept, I agree, & a speculative one. Planetary periodicities reflected as internal clocks or "temporal templates" are not sufficient. It's the only way to "justify" astrological signs. We could understand rather easily how planetary rhythms could be integrated in the temporal organization of the psychic apparatus, but what about zodiacal signs?

Dale posted recently (#91) some interesting observations.

I haven't ceased to repeat that for me, the explanation of the astrological fact by Jungian synchronicity is no explanation at all, not even "characteristic of the traditional paradigm" to take Dale's expression, but just the usual lazy way of today's astrology. And this symbolistic/post-event connection that could be read in all the astrological magazines, in the conferences, seems to me to be no more than an indigestible soup.

 > >When a MOMENT is examined it's because we already know what the event
 > >is and when it happened, otherwise we wouldn't know which moment to examine.

This is the point. AFTER the event, the chart is CALCULATED, & a partial configuration of this chart is CHOSEN to match the event. I don't see another thing than an intellectual game, either by the "left" or "right" brain.

Another point would be / is: Astrology is definitely not event-oriented. The stars don't care what the human activities are or aren't, especially with an "actuality" organized as a spectacle. So the question remains: What to do with astrology?

________________ ________________

Dennis wrote recently (#93)

 > >Poor interpretation
 > >comes from inadequate recognition of the keywords that characterise the
 > >archetypes, as well as failure to grasp the technique of using the language
 > >to synthesise component meanings into an overall picture of the situation.

I don't recognize the existence of these supposed keywords! A rather poor literature relating to these "keywords" has been made available recently in some books. The problem is that: "it clearly doesn't work".

Did you asked yourself, Dennis, why POOR INTERPRETATION (on this point, we agree!!) & ALL INTERPRETERS (I would add) fail to "recognize" (as you say) & also to "grasp" the good technique?? Do you know a good interpreter who doesn't fail? Just one: give me a name!

Or do you suppose that there is a knowledge in these archetypes/symbols/keywords, but that no one is able to use this knowledge?

-- Or it is your conception of implicated meaning in the astrological operators which is not adequate??

Have a look at the conclusive words of my text on Planets http://cura.free.fr/20planen.html

The planets are put into the state of psychic energy: they pre-structure the immediate data of consciousness. Each planetary operator establishes a specific caesura of the same continuum and orients a particular perspective of one's perception of reality. Given a "uniform" reality, the Saturnian and the Solar do not see the same object, because they are fitted with different lenses. Moreover, the "object" is not necessarily a given: it is the Saturnian or the Solar who calls forth its own object, who causes it to exist in its own consciousness, who creates it, because its consciousness discriminates with the aid of this "planetary lens a certain texture of reality to which it is sensitized. Of course education, culture and experience contribute to desensitization and to a pragmatic management of perception, but the planetary operators nonetheless continue to innervate consciousness. The planets are the elements that incite psychic functions. The physical signal is imperceptibly integrated into consciousness. The planetary operator is an internal force, an impressional, i.e. a daemon that presses from within.

The astrological planet (for human consciousness) is no other thing than a manner to perceive the REAL. Nothing else.

For that I say that astrology is not psychology-oriented, nor event-oriented.



From: "Alexandre"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #85
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:12:09 -0200

Hi Patrice,

When you state:

 > >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.

I have to confess , the most intriguing in your theory is the hole of the impressionals, and seems , to me, that every time we start to discuss it we end trying to define the meaning of archetype. In other words , we reach nowhere.

Well, maybe in a different approach we can go further in my understanding about the impressionals, do you have an example where their action or their presence are unquestionable? I'm thinking about a very simple fact, not a complex one, something that can be self evident, like the adaptation of the plants to the changes of the environment.

Another issue is about the eight houses, does we have eight basic types of impressionals? I'm saying that, because, IMO, we must encounter two things one from earth and other from sky at the same time and with a congruent necessity (synchronicity ?), to shape something new - The impressional. If so, maybe you could explain this basic types. This idea come from the Ogdoad Egyptians, maybe they are the first types of things creates by an impressional.

Anyway I'm very confused and any clarification you could give will be nice.

Best to you,


Ps : Dennis wrote:

"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."


"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."

In my opinion, I think all that kind of extras are necessary to make a point in Astrology, because we try to explain a complex event -- at lest three points of congruence -- Sky - Earth - Impressional (?) , with only one kind of science, Astrology, this brings the necessity to carry strange elements and , at the end, mix then with the traditional one's. As I have been proposing, I think we need three "sciences" to explain it , working together , in an harmonious, balanced and cleaver way (quality) : so I made the hypothesis of use :

Sky - Astrology - Seven Planets and Sings Constellations Earth - Sacred Geometry - The eight Domus inside the Octahedron Impressional (?)- Tarot - but bare Arcanum ( not archetypes) ( common human symbols)

Just an idea for further comments.


End of exegesis Digest V7 #94

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

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