Exegesis Volume 08 Issue #012

In This Issue:

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #9

From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis

Exegesis Digest Thu, 07 Aug 2003

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #9
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:59:49 +1200

Nice to get a few responses, after expecting nothing!

 > >Hi Dennis, here we are. A pleasure to read you again.

Hi Patrice, & thanks.

 > >BUT NOBODY'S ASKING, except me and few others :-)) : "WHAT IT IS : 'working'
 > >or "no working' for astrology?"
 > >I guess : a too difficult question to investigate ...

This is indeed the main issue, and it is indeed too difficult for most punters. No matter, the capable will persevere!

 > >you are probably welcome here, but i dont think youre
 > >going to get any of us to debate whether astrology
 > >works or not.
 > >i think most of us have evolved past this kind of a
 > >waste of time.
 > >perhaps you could start your own list where you debate
 > >whether gravity is relevant.

Hi Steven, & I agree time is wasted on that dualist question. Gravity is relevant < grin > although, given that it is a bipolar interaction, it also is a dualist issue < sigh > ... I have been down that road in this list, although one tends to enter rapidly into deep water thereon! The most significant point is that, as we were taught in 5th-form physics, the 3-body problem is insoluble. The textbooks will also tell you that this is so in theory, as well as in practice. An early warning of chaos theory, it now seems in retrospect.

 > >...Very funny. Joan, you have two choices:
 > >1. unsuscribe;
 > >2. learn astrology.
 > >With love...
 > >Jan Sar

Hi Jan - but this too is a dualist presentation of options, excluding all third alternatives, one of which Joan seems to have already adopted!

 > >Hello Dennis - it's been a while!

Hi Bill & thanks for your thoughtful response. A whole bunch of points there which I hope to comment on or agree with when I have time to do so. Suffice for now to say that if it hadn't been for you, I would not have become so aware of the positive consequences of postmodernism - having been so critical of it for its negative impact for so many years.

 > >It's true that astrology doesn't work - it's the astrologer who 'works' =
 > >or who
 > >does not 'work'.

Pretty much how I responded, too.

 > >So that I might comment, can you provide a short list of what you believe
 > >to be the archetype(s) for each sign? By archetypes, I would mean their
 > >significance in terms of progressive stages of human development.

Hi Peter, dunno if I can do so in those terms. First, any such list from me would be succint descriptions of the essence of each sign archetype. Such a bunch of keywords merely approximates the archetype. Second, the typical way they manifest in "progressive stages of human development" depends on how I'd interpret that phrase. If it refers to an individual, my view is that there is no typical manifestation. Along with most astrologers, I see the signs manifesting differently in each life depending on the particular configuration with signs, axes & houses. If you mean it to refer to collective human development, see below. My comprehension of the essence of the sign archetypes derives from what I call the `zodiacal archetype' - the 3 x 4 matrix of elements and modalities.

 > >From which past cultural context have you drawn your interpretation?

Humanistic astrology, primarily Dane Rudhyar. For instance, his correlation of the signs of the zodiac with the developmental process of human society (in his book "The Pulse of Life") is one I share. He described the way the sign archetypes manifest in collective development, and for me it rang true and impressed me considerably. I took it a little further. Observing the general agreement that the same underlying theoretical logic drove interpretation of sign, aspect & house meanings, I rendered this tacit consensus explicit via the concept of the archetypal pattern of cyclic development generally. For me, this was pure pragmatism. It reconciled traditional astrology with a contemporary perspective in a fairly satisfactory form.

Dennis Frank


From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 09:40:25 -0400

Thanks for your well-thought-out and intelligent answer, Bill.

One of the astrologers on my list is Terry McKinnell, who has the Macroastrology.com website. His view is that the precessional ages are composed of 12 parts, so that each part is governed by an individual signs. I think he breaks it down even further, and is laboring to define history in that light. It is an interesting concept, but another astrologer thinks Terry is a very bad astrologer--professional jealousy? lol. who knows!

I consider that there is something to be learned from everyone, and as astrology shapes your viewpoint, that may be of importance. However, I do not think it affects history or my life in any way.

Obviously I have done some research into this for various reasons, over the years. Horoscopes on funny pages are endemic on the web! There are some very interesting web sites, as well, which allow you to create your own daily or other horoscope and thus learn about the subject. The biggest thing I have learned is that there are overall "moods" by which one is supposed to be influenced. Therefore, the funny papers & similar can generalize about the day ahead. Of course people want specifics... So if a newspaper horoscope says you will find romance, you might expect perhaps a new love, special affection from a child, or even a pat on the back by the boss. However, my personal experience is "none of these." Not that I mind! I grew up with great interest in occult matters, such as whatsisname who bends keys, the guy who used psychic powers to find dead bodies for the police, etc., supernatural tales in books & on television... all things that really give one a superstitious frame of mind. Therefore I like to inspect "the goods" to see if they are real. So far, not at all.

However, some are more than interesting! (renaissanceastrology.com) It seems incredible that a man trained as a lawyer would spend his time creating (expensive, lucrative) magic amulets and researching/publishing/speaking on astrology as practiced in medieval times. But maybe he is not as brilliant a lawyer as he is an astrologist? His price for horary questions keeps going up, so he must be popular. I'm not willing to pay $250 to find out what he thinks he can foretell.

I have had correspondence with a guy in the Far East who uses his knowledge to play the ponies. Now there is a man who believes in himself!

Joan Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart. - Marcus Aurelius

_________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


End of exegesis Digest V8 #12

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

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