|
Exegesis Volume 08 Issues #017-020 |
exegesis Digest Tue, 12 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 017
In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal
archetypes
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal
archetypes
#3: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V8 #16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:18:25 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes
>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.
>
Hi Dennis,
And do these symbols ever have words to go with them?
If so, what are they waiting for? Or maybe you can draw one for us.
How about Aries, my sign.
Peter Nielsen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 21:13:20 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes
>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,
>exist.
>
Dear Lorenzo,
Certain Sumerian gods had astrological and psychological
correspondences
that were later transferable to the zodiac. For example,
the association of
Ninurta with Antares and Scorpio-like qualities.
My point is that the intuitive significance attributed
to each sign existed
as part of a religious system well prior to the formulation
of the zodiac.
This would be the logical point to start looking for
archetypes.
Then we might better appreciate who did what when, and
the inner
significance of such historical data.
Peter Nielsen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:06:57 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #16
> From: "Dennis Frank"
> > >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.
> 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.
A good example of archetypical symbols is the table of
elements. Beyond
that one is merely playing word games.
> 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
This is a very moot point, so far you have not evidenced
any such
familiarity. Quite the opposite in fact.
> fascinating mythic belief system, in its historical
development. I still
> find the psychology involved (both individual &
collective) extremely
> interesting.
Yes, astrology will be included in this same glorified bastardisation.
> 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.
Firmicus Maternus probably was not the same person of
whom you are
thinking was a christian.
Very strange indeed that you mention not Marsilio Ficino.
======================
> From: "Dennis Frank"
> 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.
I suppose the <snip> is where you slip into snippet i.e.,
> 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.
There are no other criteria beside these, so what you
are saying is
somewhat esoteric and meaningless (and even lacking any
humour).
You really do not know what you are talking about in the
paragraph
below. Book destruction was more a matter of the decline
of the
state-educational system rather than deliberate destruction,
although
there were oft-repeated laws on the Imperial Codes of
Law [the which
fact implies they were necessary to repeat, as they were
unobserved].
Most literature was lost by climate and material conditions
being poorly
condusive to preservation of texts, and by the lack of
interest in the
subject matter, as well as by the selection of what to
copy. Scenes of
book burning are very rare.
> 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
No, our *knowledge* comes from a logical and evidenciary
based cogency
of scholarship of the remains. Scraps remain scraps until
one studies
them correctly and with scientific rigour.
> 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.
Yes, this probably holds true for those who wish they
could understand
the past in terms of the their present theories and meta-theorisations,
whilst at the same time ignoring the context and conditions
of ancient
scoieties and the differences between them. It's much
easier to theorise
than to present cogent evidence.
> I have not encountered a doctrinal
> position in the historical record in favour of Virgo
as the inception point.
Virgo was used in 4th century Greek papyri as the beginning
sign
(denoted by the number one) and thus following the East
Roman Imperial
practice of beginning the year in early September.
> 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.]
Or there are the AE who used the rising of the Nile.
> Or the copying
> of the Isis/Osiris image (Mary/Jesus), well-documented
by surviving
> examples,
Perhaps you should avoid making hyper-popular grand-bandstand
statements
about what is not your own cobbler's lathe.
> by the Israelites during their bondage in Egypt.
As a biblical textual minimalist, the idea of a bondage
in Egypt, of an
as-yet-non-existent Israel, is historical folly, under-supported
by
textual or archaeological evidence.
Again the same stricture.
> The origin of the zodiac was determined
> astronomically, not theologically.
Of course!
> It defined the seasons and calendar,
> thus generating the basis of culture.
This is all wrong.
> All religion was merely consequential
> from that.
That would be a startling statement from an anthropological
and
historical point of view, but then belief is often like
that, isn't it!?
====================================================
> From: Patrice Guinard
> 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.
This is totally irrevelant to what I actually said.
The spirit matter split is a later invention of Platonic
philosophies,
Neo and Co., and therefore like the zodiac, is irrelevant
to an
understanding of an anterior period. This is *basic*
historical method.
Plusquam non ultra.
> It's not proved that the invention of the zodiac has
created the 12 archetypal
> valors that have been attributed to zodiacal signs.
Of course not, That is the point.
> 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 there
a long time BEFORE the
> ecliptical organization.
Well if that is all that "intuitively" means, then the
Babylonians also
intuitively understood relativity and string theory.
That's nice but not
an intersting comment to make, Patrice.
There is little evidence of any 12-fold system in early
Mesopotamian
divinatory systems. Where the dog pisses, yes, but not
a 12-fold system
that.
> And we could probably back up far more ahead if necessary...
This is incomprehensible.
> > 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 was not meaningless, nor for nature (plants
growing...) nor for
> humans. Calendaric systems were PRE-ZODIACAL (pre-astrological)
systems.
I spoke quite closely about calendars and the differences
and
complications of calculating them, esp., the difference
between a
12-divided lunar calendar, and a soli-lunar calendar,
which is a very
different animal.
Apparently your statement choses to ignore this facet
of our knowledge
of the past and impose upon it a modern fabrication,
albeit
"intuitively!"
feliciter,
Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo
Research Lector Late Antiquity
Biblioteca Nazionale Protocenobio Sublacense (ROMA)
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V8 #17
exegesis Digest Wed, 13 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 018
In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V8 #17
#2: From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Recent astrologers
#3: From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: V8 #17,
i.e. a response to Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo, feliciter
#4: From: Robert Tulip
Subject: [e] Zodiac archetypes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 19:19:31 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #17
>The spirit matter split is a later invention of Platonic
philosophies,
>Neo and Co., and therefore like the zodiac, is irrelevant
to an
>understanding of an anterior period. This is *basic*
historical method.
>Plusquam non ultra.
>
Lorenzo,
This is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
The descent of spirit into matter is one of the oldest
themes in recorded
history. For example, what, if not this, are the epics
of Inanna and
Gilgamesh alluding to.
Peter Nielsen
------------------------------
From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Recent astrologers
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:35:28 -0400
Kindly allow me to ask where Rudolph (Rudolf) Steiner
fits into astrology? A
friend of mine very much idolizes him. I don't find Steiner's
writings very
interesting, but perhaps because I have not seen anything
relevant... He is
supposedly a Christian astrologer (if there can be such
a thing).
Joan
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one
that heralds the most
discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..."
- Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:21:29 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: V8 #17, i.e. a response to Dott. Lorenzo
Smerillo, feliciter
Lorenzo,
Dennis is right, saying "Why glorify a thoroughly bastardised
faith?" (christianity).
Any historian (except you?) can provide to you the evidence
for that.
You wrote:
> Yes, astrology will be included in this same glorified
bastardisation.
In fact, yes. Including the mid-points mania. A. Bouché-L. lesson. But do you know a historian who has gone a little more far away? B-Leclercq has taken astrology as a funny thing. Can WE (can you?) go beyond?
And science, & particularly "human sciences", including history, isn't it a glorified bastardisation?
Astrology is glorified by WHO? Where do you find a glorification
of astrology? Do you read daily horoscopes???
> A good example of archetypical symbols is the table
of elements. Beyond
> that one is merely playing word games.
You're right. Mendeleiev was thinking after a sort of
Matricial Reason (see my
Manifesto). But you're wrong: Chemical elements ARE NOT
archetypes. Do you know why?
Dennis wrote:
> Happy to hear your views, but I'm a pretty lapsed christian.
I'm not. I thought you were, Dennis, an Aborigene partisan.
I've never been a "pretty
lapsed christian". Nietzsche was. Many historians and
university professors are,
sometimes, without knowing it.
Lorenzo:
> This is a very moot point.
It's not. See below.
Dennis:
> > It is a historical fact that the
> > christian church organised book-burning campaigns
to eliminate as much of
> > the ancient wisdom as possible
Yes, I've written the same.
Lorenzo:
> No, our *knowledge* comes from a logical and evidenciary
based cogency
> of scholarship of the remains.
Scholarship is not doing all the world, real or imaginable.
> > purely a matter of luck as to which evidence survives
from which prior
> > century.
NO. The systematic destruction of South America Documents
was not a "happen" and it
has been organized. Nor the destruction and eradication
of Tasmanians. The same has
happened with paganism after the "christian ideology"
has been taken as the good one
by the Politicians.
The fact is that christianity & churches has been
paided by estates for years, but not
astrology, nor it has been encouraged by any economic
entity. But this "poor faith in
astrology" is living.
And do you know? Lorenzo: In the XIIIth century, they
were asking: "How can you think
without God the creator?" And now, science is the way,
the Motorway, without which
it would be impossible to elabore any thought???
I'm a rather "rational" thinker, but I see "scientist"
discourses as mere productions
of believers -- in "science" (big-bang, evolution, physical
constants, dualistic
world, facts and words ...)
But history, it is a "science"?? Do you know more than
Herodotus knew?
> Assuming that such evidence proves something about
what happened
> > in other places remote in time and space is an error
of judgement.
I assume you are not in an error of judgement, Lorenzo,
but just in the good linea of
what you can read in your library.
> This is totally irrevelant to what I actually said.
It's not. You said that Platonic systems are dualistic
in nature: they are not. You
said that a wittgensteinian view of the real can provide
a real view on the real, but
wittgensteinian followers only provide the worse and
really poor (and dualistic)
philosophy that can be imagined. I know there is a sort
of alliance between
wittgensteinian and scientist thought ... But Wittgenstein
is a sort of funeral for
the philosophy, and the wittgensteinians are students
of philosophical SPITEFUL.
I wrote:
> > And precisely (you can refer to calendar if you like),
the different moments of
> > the calendar was not meaningless, nor for nature
(plants growing...) nor for
> > humans. Calendaric systems were PRE-ZODIACAL (pre-astrological)
systems.
you:
> I spoke quite closely about calendars and the differences
and
> complications of calculating them, esp., the difference
between a
> 12-divided lunar calendar, and a soli-lunar calendar,
which is a very
> different animal.
> Apparently your statement choses to ignore this facet
of our knowledge
> of the past and impose upon it a modern fabrication,
albeit
> "intuitively!"
I just guess that you have not understood my point.
A last little question, Lorenzo: What are you doing here?
Just the pleasure
of a discussion with "astrologers" & me?
Patrice
------------------------------
Subject: [e] Zodiac archetypes
From: Robert Tulip
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 10:42:44 +1000
Generally recognised archetypes for the twelve signs are as follows
Aries - I am
Taurus - I have
Gemini - I think
Cancer - I feel
Leo - I will
Virgo - I analyse
Libra - I balance
Scorpio - I desire
Sagittarius - I see
Capricorn - I use
Aquarius - I know
Pisces - I believe
With the current precession of the equinox from Pisces
to Aquarius, we are
now moving from the age of belief to the age of knowledge.
Robert Tulip
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V8 #18
exegesis Digest Fri, 15 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 019
In This Issue:
#1: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V8 #18
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 02:30:36 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #18
Patrice,
Clarity of thought is clarity of language.
Clarity of language is clarity of thought.
I suppose that's where this ends.
feliciter,
> From: Peter Nielsen
> This is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
> The descent of spirit into matter is one of the oldest
themes in recorded
> history. For example, what, if not this, are the epics
of Inanna and
> Gilgamesh alluding to.
The Joy of Sex, The Pain of Sex, obviously!
feliciter,
Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo
Research Lector Late Antiquity
Biblioteca Nazionale Protocenobio Sublacense (ROMA)
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V8 #19
exegesis Digest Fri, 15 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 020
In This Issue:
#1: From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V8 #19
#2: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V8 #17,18
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 06:38:27 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #19
Well, yes : Wittgenstein ... and ... BOILEAU !!
It leads nowhere, unlike Heideggerian paths and ways...
Patrice
> From: L:Smerillo
> Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #18
>
> Patrice,
>
> Clarity of thought is clarity of language.
> Clarity of language is clarity of thought.
>
> I suppose that's where this ends.
>
> feliciter,
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #17,18
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:13:02 +1200
Peter Nielsen wrote:
> And do these symbols ever have words to go with them?
> If so, what are they waiting for? Or maybe you can
draw one for us.
> How about Aries, my sign.
Huh? Words are symbols that operate independently
of pictures, to state the
obvious. If you are actually attempting genuine
communication, I suggest
you clarify your intended meaning.
Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
> Virgo was used in 4th century Greek papyri as the beginning
sign
> (denoted by the number one) and thus following the
East Roman Imperial
> practice of beginning the year in early September.
I see. A secondary derivation from the autumn equinox,
perhaps, shifted a
month earlier due to some calendar reform.
Joan Griffith wrote:
> Kindly allow me to ask where Rudolph (Rudolf) Steiner
fits into astrology?
A
> friend of mine very much idolizes him. I don't find
Steiner's writings
very
> interesting, but perhaps because I have not seen anything
relevant... He
is
> supposedly a Christian astrologer (if there can be
such a thing).
He does not fit in. His writings on astrology are
so insubstantial that
even mainstream astrologers have routinely ignored them.
To be fair, he
wrote in the early 20th century when few grasped the
subject to any great
degree. His membership of the Theosophical Society
would have ensured that
he absorbed their fanciful version of the subject rather
than the
traditional.
Robert Tulip wrote:
Generally recognised archetypes for the twelve signs
are as follows
Aries - I am
Taurus - I have
Gemini - I think
Cancer - I feel
Leo - I will
Virgo - I analyse
Libra - I balance
Scorpio - I desire
Sagittarius - I see
Capricorn - I use
Aquarius - I know
Pisces - I believe
Not a joke? Ok, seriously, these are hypothetical
stances someone thought
typical of sunsigns, in keyword format. You could
therefore argue that they
are typical representations of each sign archetype (not
being archetypes
themselves, I mean). However they are at best a
typical mode of expression
of those archetypes - typical ways each one affects individuals.
The next problem with this list is the extent of consensus.
Libra, for
instance, would get lots more astrologers voting for
`I relate' as being
more representative of how Libra operates in people.
I'd vote for
`balance', because the archetype generates a polar opposition
of two
entities, but `balance' is more evident in society generally
than in Libran
individuals. Think about Librans with hard aspects,
particularly to natal
Sun. They spend their life trying to reconcile
opposites, to achieve
balance. Rarely, if ever, do they manage it.
But they do one hell of a lot
of relating.
Some of that list is reasonably typical, others are laughable.
Geminis, for
instance, are normally too busy chattering to think.
Engaging the brain in
deep thought interferes with the flow of coversation,
so they avoid that by
changing the subject. Aquarians typically think
they know, rather than
actually doing so, which is why so many are pedants,
bigots, and/or
scientists.
A more correct version of that list could easily be produced
by anyone who
accepts the traditional basis for identifying the sign
archetypes - the
element and modality of each sign. Pisces (mutable
water) for instance,
would become `I flow'.
Dennis
End of exegesis Digest V8 #20
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.