Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #103

In This Issue:

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #94

Exegesis Digest Wed, 13 Nov 2002

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #94
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:53:09 +1300

 > >>>An impressional has no meaning at all: it's just like a sort of inner
 > >>>"sensation" if you like. [Patrice]
 > >>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). [Dennis]
 > >
 > >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 that the astrologer
 > >can perceive Venus or Saturn.

Seems okay to me, but fails to clarify how the impressional is more than I biological reflex. If you are meaning to imply it is inherently qualitative, I'd be satisfied, because that would effectively equate it to my concept of the astrological archetypes.

 > >What interesting about an event (if you like) or about 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 ???

Astrologers, generally, just tell stories about the chart. I differ - in believing I am interpreting the archetypal dimension of the chart.

 > >>[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

Well, I accept it, even if I may not have fully grasped your intended meaning Patrice. It does not conflict with my own theory, but usefully adds explanatory value.

 > >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?

Exactly. I believe the signs add their own archetypal quality to the mix.

 > >>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 of the "left" or "right" brain. [Patrice]

Sure it's a fun game. A parlour game, to use the traditional description. Few people have parlours these days however. Obviously you are ignoring the `predictive' examination of moments for some reason.

 > >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".

I also thought the English language selection of sources was pretty poor when I was trying to identify the astrological archetypes when learning astrology more than 20 years ago, and there has been no evident improvement. This apparently reflects the current human condition. However, I was able to get around the problem by adopting the appropriate right-brain strategy. Children use it to do jigsaw puzzles.

 > >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??

Why are people incompetent? Dunno, guess they just can't help it. Intellectual laziness sure helps make it happen.

 > >Do you know a good interpreter who doesn't fail? Just one: give me a name!

Of course not. To err is human.

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

False dualism. It is there, and people often partially access it.

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

Don't understand that, sorry.

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

I did when it first was published. Cannot produce any short response.

 > >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.

This seems okay, even if I had to look up caesura. However I wouldn't restrict the action of a planetary archetype to orientation of one's perspective. Rudhyar's explanation of the planetary archetypes as psychological drives suits me fine. These operate more via the unconscious, but also affect states of consciousness.

 > >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.

Again, I like your description but think the visual component is a mere part of the entire effect. The term `daemon' appeals to me greatly, and it seems your usage is similar to that of the ancient Greeks.

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

I think I agree. The planetary archetype colours both perception of, and experience of, reality - with its own unique quality.

If I differ from you fundamentally on this matter, Patrice, it would be on what is included in that `quality'. For me, the archetype must be understood as an active agent in nature. This agency makes things happen. Reality is shaped accordingly.



End of exegesis Digest V7 #103

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

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