Exegesis Volume 08 Issue #002

In This Issue:

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #116

From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] ASTRO & NewAgers (Re: exegesis Digest V7 #116)

Exegesis Digest Sat, 08 Feb 2003

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #116
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 23:49:44 +1300

Fran wrote < snip >
 > >http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc _pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
 > >which has some very good bits in it. The first half is
 > >very good, but, since I'm not a follower, the second
 > >bit isn't very impressive to me.

I was surprised at the level of perception exhibited by the authors(s). For instance: "There is a problem built into the current text. It is an attempt to understand and evaluate something which is basically an exaltation of the richness of human experience. It is bound to draw the criticism that it can never do justice to a cultural movement whose essence is precisely to break out of what are seen as the constricting limits of rational discourse."

Such a thoughtful approach is indeed worthy of consideration.

 > >My question is: is astrology well served by its
 > >acceptance from NewAgers?
 > >
 > >In any case, have a look. Tell us what you think.

Yes. It does benefit from the uncritical approval of new-agers. Such approval facilitates the spread and survival of the antique meme.

Does this help astrology in the sense that Patrice, or I, or anyone wishing to progress the subject understand it? Of course not. For the same reason that Roman catholicism (or any other christian sect doctrine) fails to help anyone with a contemporary view of spirituality.



Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 05:33:49 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] ASTRO & NewAgers (Re: exegesis Digest V7 #116)

 > >My question is: is astrology well served by its
 > >acceptance from NewAgers? (Fran)

No. And there is much confusion on these questions.

1. The responsability of astrologers.
A tropical zodiac for individual charts & a constellational one for mundane evolution is intellectually incoherent. Rudhyarian astrology takes its part of responsibility in the propagation of this error.

2. A phantasm.
"Age of Aquarius" as the astrological age that New Agers believe will usher in an era of harmony, justice and peace, following the current "Age of Pisces," which has been marked by wars and conflicts."

-- a dream, a phantasm. Wars & conflicts still are remaining, perhaps less visible, but much more extended to all beings. Conflict is now an essential dimension in the heart of each one.

So the real question: Is Imagination still able to catch / to change human spirit / mentality ?

What the Vatican is thinking about these hopes & believers is without any interest for me: just an ideological position. Although there is often more faith among the N A believers than among christian bigots.

3. The astrological ages depend on real cycles.

We are in the Gemini/Capricorn Era since 1821 ! (Pluto-Neptune-Uranus cycle)

Nothing really exciting. We are going through more disillusion & disenchantment, to more & more control by organised entities upon individuals & upon the "rights" of individuals to accomplish their beings ...

Patrice Guinard

PS: The 24th of CURA is online. :-))


End of exegesis Digest V8 #2

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

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