|Exegesis Volume 08 Issue #016
In This Issue:
From: "Dennis Frank"
From: "Dennis Frank"
From: Patrice Guinard
Exegesis Digest Mon, 11 Aug 2003
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #14
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 20:10:37 +1200
(feedback to Peter Nielsen)
> >>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.
> >Using your words, I don't see how an "essence" can be an "approximation".
Nor do I. If you check carefully, you'll see that I did not suggest that it could. It is the description (succint selection of keywords) that is the approximation. Archetypes are too deep to be captured so that they can be reproduced in discourse, they can only be mediated via symbols.
Keywords, being language, are symbols. They identify typical features of an archetype. Such features are how people commonly experience a planetary archetype. There is also reason to believe some people have developed an inner attunement to, or internal recognition of, planetary archetypes.
> >The transit of the sun has long been equated with the journey of spirit
> >through matter. Hence, the allegorical or intuitive meaning of zodiacal
> >signs undoubtedly predates predictive astrology . This import has been
> >conveyed through various belief systems. For example, the early Christian's
> >began this cycle with the virgin birth (Virgo) and ended with resurrection
> >(Leo). The life of Jesus, or solar hero, was imparted through arcani
> >disciplini as the spiritual awakening latent in every man/woman. These
> >correlations are also apparent in the "labors of the months", stations of
> >the cross, and copious pictorial symbolism taken direct from zodiacal lore
> >which adorns cathedrals and manuscripts. The labors of Hercules, and other
> >historical systems of twelve, have been similarly interpreted, although
> >Virgo is not always the point of inception.
> >If you would like to discuss further, a good starting point might be to
> >explore what each sign represents in the above context.
Happy to hear your views, but I'm a pretty lapsed christian. See, I won't even use a capital c anymore. Why glorify a thoroughly bastardised faith? Despite a residual emotional attachment to the teachings of Jesus, I'm too familiar with the history of christianity to take it seriously. It is a fascinating mythic belief system, in its historical development. I still find the psychology involved (both individual & collective) extremely interesting.
That aside, I'm sceptical as regards any hypothetical distinct strand of christian astrology. Most christian astrologers in the historical development of astrology did no more to customise the tradition they learnt than anyone else, so far as I know. That opinion is based on reading the main surviving expositions of Firmicus Maternus & William Lilly, plus selected portions of St Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal D'Ailly, & various others.
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #15
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:27:40 +1200
Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
> >More validity might be attached to the statement that the journey of the
> >sun through the apparent sky has long been equated with the cycle of
> >plant growth and decay.
Validity lies in the eye of the beholder. However, I don't mind seeming old-fashioned enough to agree to this point. Farmers have always out-numbered esotericists, and the perceived truth always emanates from communities which out-breed the others. [Lorenzo's point responded to Peter Nielsen's suggestion that `the transit of the sun has long been equated with the journey of spirit through matter'.]
> >Before the invention of
> >the zodiac (c. 600 BCE) < snip > the "intutiive meaning" of the
> >zodiac signs did not, could not, exist.
Lorenzo cannot possibly know this, of course. Perhaps he is channelling the memory of a past life in that ancient epoch, but even if so it would merely give him knowledge of a local community or two, and a regional belief system. Popular literature allocates that date to the invention of the zodiac merely because surviving historical sources provide the earliest evidence of use of the zodiac then. It is a historical fact that the christian church organised book-burning campaigns to eliminate as much of the ancient wisdom as possible, most notably the burning of the library of Alexandria. It ruled the known world for enough of those early centuries to eradicate the threats of competing belief-systems. Our knowledge of that era comes from the few scraps of evidence that accidently survived. It is purely a matter of luck as to which evidence survives from which prior century. Assuming that such evidence proves something about what happened in other places remote in time and space is an error of judgement.
Most of Lorenzo's zealous critique of Peter's suggestions concurs with my own sceptical reaction to his implications, except for one further point.
> >>Virgo is not always the point of inception.
> >The which fact, for your theory to hold *must* be explained, or, more
> >cogently, taken as another basis for the rejection of your theory.
I'm inclined to go further here. I have not encountered a doctrinal position in the historical record in favour of Virgo as the inception point. Not if the vernal equinox is implied. [Most historical cultures used the vernal equinox as fiducial, but a few did use the winter solstice or autumn equinox.]
If you have a theoretical basis for your introductory remarks, Peter, by all means explain it. Perhaps it is merely that the christians copied prior versions of the virgin-birth scenario, which I am aware of. Or the copying of the Isis/Osiris image (Mary/Jesus), well-documented by surviving examples, by the Israelites during their bondage in Egypt. It all seems rather beside the point. The origin of the zodiac was determined astronomically, not theologically. It defined the seasons and calendar, thus generating the basis of culture. All religion was merely consequential from that.
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:23:32 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #10
Joan Griffith wrote (V8 #10):
> >here is an article relating time
> >and physics. If our view of time changes, could that change things
> >associated with time?
Paul Valery had some interesting thoughts upon Zeno's paradox in his "Journal" (ed CNRS, Paris, 1957-, 50+ vols.). Nothing new here. Are the physicists beginning to read philosophers (and poets) ?? :-))
More importantly, a reflection on psychological time would be more appropriate to our subject. Physics deals with Matter & Objects, not with this special living matter as human brain. (see PG: "The Threefold Nature of Knowledge", http://cura.free.fr/07athem2.html)
L:Smerillo wrote (V8 #15):
> >This is a recent approximation of, or perhaps an extrapolation from, a
> >vaguely Platonic or another even more dualistic philosophical system
Plato was not a dualistic thinker (see for ex. his Parmenides!) , nor are the best Platonic systems. And the main part of philosophical discourse would just be an appendice of the philosophy of Plato, as Whitehead has suggested. You can't disqualify a discourse just saying that it's platonic-oriented. If you know best views, tell which ones.
again (V8 #15):
> >This does not follow at all [Quite aside from the logical and
> >evidentiary gap thinly masked by 'undoubtedly']. Before the invention of
> >the zodiac (c. 600 BCE) *and* the much later discovery that the path of
> >the sun along the self-defining eliptic was the same approximate course
> >as that of the Moon upon various measurement coordinates (= zodiac
> >stars), the "intutiive meaning" of the zodiac signs did not, could not,
It's not proved that the invention of the zodiac has created the 12 archetypal
valors that have been attributed to zodiacal signs.
I've already suggested here (V5#22) that a MATRICIAL logic (archetypal 12-folded logic, if Dennis likes) has been used in divinatory systems (12 months folded) for a long time before the invention of zodiac by Babylonian astronomers. So the 12-folded matrix has been "intuitively" operating a long time BEFORE the ecliptical organization.
And we could probably back up far more ahead if necessary...
> >This was done in a time previous to the
> >invention of the zodiac, and preserved in calendars upon which zodiac
> >signs where later overlaid.
And precisely (you can refer to calendar if you like), the different moments of the calendar were not meaningless, nor for nature (plants growing...) nor for humans. Calendaric systems were PRE-ZODIACAL (pre-astrological) systems.
Director of CURA
End of exegesis Digest V8 #16
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.