|Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #097
In This Issue:
From: Patrice Guinard
Exegesis Digest Mon, 04 Nov 2002
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:00:27 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #94
First a question to Francis.
EXEGESIS is probably for several years the best list on astrology. There is here interesting stuff from several individuals, that couldn't be found anywhere. So, why do you accept such post that is polluting the list? -- as:
> >Please delete our name from your list immediately.
> >We do not want this material.
Alexandre wrote (#94):
> >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?
Rather simple: An impressional is a manner of inner transformation, a feeling, a
qualitative energy. When I've begun in astrology, in the late 70ties, the main thing
that convinced me of the astrological reality has been the transit experience, this
sensation that something is changing in me, for instance with a Mercury or Venus
First, this strange sensation (I'm not "venusian" nor "mercurian") that something was changing in me, independantly of the external circumstances ; and these sensations could be seen, MORE or LESS, equivalent to the astrological descriptions I knew, to the astrological "portraits" of the planets Venus and Mercury. AFTER I've checked the ephemerides: there were transits of these planets on my natal Sun and some other configurations.
But why astrologers can't convince the sceptics: because these sensations are more and more weak with time. See the Scottish xviii th c. philosopher David Hume's theory upon, precisely the "impressions" of the consciousness. No need of a "New-Age" thought...
> >Another issue is about the eight houses, does we have eight basic types of
The impressionals are mainly "triggered" by planets. The Houses (8) and Signs (12) are two types of structural RE-organizations of the planetary palette for the psychic apparatus. I've suggested they are the same "material" but differently organized (idea of Matrix). For that, there are similitudes between Aries & Mars for instance, & a Rulership theory would be the heart of the astrological knowledge, but not that one of pre-Ptolemy's tradition, which is just a calculated, arithmetic distribution. (more about that in my past & future articles, CURA)
Jan-Sar Skapski wrote (#96):
> >it may be rather difficult to talk about the subject
> >of astrology not being familiar with the practical issue, in the daily
> >rehearsalů It is like being a physician without any practice (?!)
I hardly understand what do you mean or want to suggest, and let you free of your
Ptolemy has been accused to be more a "theorician" than a "practicioner", but the majority of the SUPPOSED modern "practitioners" are taking without any critic what they've read in Ptolemy. For me theory & practice are tied up.
And, if you can understand that: you need more "practice" to see the reality of the 8 Houses, than to apply learned stuff.
> >Trying to "bend" astrology to fit the Jungian or any other
> >psycho-hodgepodge (I mean: theory) is, in my humble opinion, a mistake
Here again: I hardly understand what do you mean or want to suggest. Do you mean that all theory is hodgepodge for you? And the mid-points theory: what it is? A "practical" acquisition??
End of exegesis Digest V7 #97
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.