Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #104 In This Issue: From: Patrice Guinard Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #103 & 98
Exegesis Digest Wed, 13 Nov 2002

Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:12:11 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #103 & 98

Dennis:
 > >If you are meaning to imply it [the impressional] is inherently
 > >qualitative, I'd be satisfied

It's what I didn't ceased to say : inherently qualitative! (but see the definition of a "quality" in Peirce's semiotics : a quality is the contrary of a meaning)

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

in psychological words? related to daily concerns?

If we follow my conception, the "bad" astrologer translates astrological variables in common psychological language. The "good" astrologer would hardly know what these common psychological terms MEAN -- but he knows what IS, for instance, a square Saturn-Sun. The astrological knowledge is not only an additional way to interpret the "SAME" reality, it is, in itself, an other view on this reality.

Alexandre:
 > >In this way, I can use everything to try to understand it, so I choose :
 > >Geometry - Platonic solids
 > >Astrology - external influences perceived by the beings
 > >Arcanum from Tarot

I can't easily answer to your last message (#98) because I can't see exactly the point you want to reach. Seems to be very different material. Perhaps you could show me (us) how it could be assembled together. I've noticed also that you are using some of "my" concepts (impressionals, Ogdoad...) in a personal way, or at least in a way different of mine. It's your right. But for me, the "impressionals" are other thing, would they be also different of the sense given by D. Hume. Impressionals are chiefly these "small perceptions" defined by Leibnitz (see my text http://cura.free.fr/16peiren.html)

Patrice

End of exegesis Digest V7 #104

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