Exegesis V08 Issues 021 to 030

Exegesis Volume 08 Issues #021-030

exegesis Digest Sat, 16 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 021

In This Issue:
#1: From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #20
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #20
#3: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #19

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:04:04 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #20

> Robert Tulip wrote:

Did he? => I've already read this list smw.

> 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

Dennis:

> 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.

Yes, just expressions for the supposed archetypes. Libra / I balance is very
weak.

See my own argumented list at http://cura.free.fr/17semsig.html
(not yet translated)

Aries - I want (I will)
Taurus - I found
Gemini - I can

Cancer - I imagine
Leo - I create
Virgo - I choose

Libra - I feel
Scorpio - I live
Sagittarius - I see (YES!)

Capricorn - I think
Aquarius - I am acquainted with, I am aware of (French: "je connais")
Pisces - I know (French: "je sais")

Patrice Guinard

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:36:48 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #20

>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.
>

(snip)

>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,

There's a start. How about the rest of them according to this view?

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:37:25 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #19

>> 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!
>

Lorenzo,

Yes, if by obvious you mean superficial.

The Mesopotamians had a numeric code for each god, which revealed its
allegorical meaning.

BTW there is nothing more sexy than a literalist squirming on his own hook.

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #21

exegesis Digest Sun, 17 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 022

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #21
#2: From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] planetary gods
#3: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] imposition

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #21
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:32:06 +1200

> There's a start. How about the rest of them according to this view?
>
> Peter Nielsen

What, me perform? Sidestep the deeper issues?

Aries = I originate (cardinal fire)
plus: initiate, generate, begin, start, commence
Taurus = I substantiate (fixed earth)
plus: persist, maintain, attach, connect
Gemini = I communicate (mutable air)
plus: discuss, decipher, signal, inform
Cancer = I feel (cardinal water)
plus: care, nurture, nourish, succour, help
Leo = I perform (fixed fire)
plus: express, dramatise, play
Virgo = I adjust (mutable earth)
plus: refine, improve, correct, amend
Libra = I relate (cardinal air)
plus: negotiate, conciliate, compromise, harmonise
Scorpio = I share (fixed water)
plus: sustain, commit, trust, bond
Sagittarius = I collaborate (mutable fire)
plus: participate, search, travel, explore
Capricorn = I build (cardinal earth)
plus: I manage, organise, coordinate, execute
Aquarius = I believe (fixed air)
plus: know, subscribe, interpret, network
Pisces = I flow (mutable water)
plus: empathise, mix, blend, absorb

I could critique this list easily, of course. It only represents my
off-the-cuff view of a flawed prescription. Why assume that the
sign-archetypes are essentially verbs? There are obvious dichotomies.
Passive/active tenses, for instance.

Sagittarius would once have been `I hunt', which is why an archer is the
traditional symbol. Those who range far afield may do so alone, or in a
team. Thus we have a team coordination context generating some keywords.
Some venture far in mind, rather than in body, thus the traditional
correlation with higher learning. The other traditional Sagittarian focus,
religion, seems a secondary derivation from the band of hunters. Collective
goal-orientation in the wild blue yonder. I always tried to discern the
underlying motivations that might connect the traditional keywords via a
rational basis, if you get my drift...

One problem with this sort of glib listing is that the theorist is always
tempted into literary artistry. For instance, opening the cycle with Aries
= `I originate' suggests that it concludes with Pisces = `I terminate'. The
Piscean, however, does not make a good terminator (too limp-wristed)!

Dennis

------------------------------

From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] planetary gods
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 13:06:20 -0400

This is not an astrology-specific question, but I wonder if there were
specific calendars for the planets in ancient times? Obviously today we know
more about their orbits, etc., but the Babylonians had their planetary
tables. I thought perhaps the individual temples for each god (Venus, Mars,
Jupiter) might have an annual calendar regarding that particular orbit or
appearance. I actually know nothing of pagan worship, except as absorbed
into Christianity./

Joan
Always listen to the experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why.
Then do it. - Robert Heinlein

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:17:11 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] imposition

> From: Peter Nielsen
For example, what, if not this, are the epics of Inanna and
Gilgamesh alluding to.

> >The Joy of Sex, The Pain of Sex, obviously!

> Yes, if by obvious you mean superficial.

Oh, *your* values being plugged into the text.
Not exegesis
but eis-egesis.
Boring.
I withdraw from this silly exchange.
feliciter,
LS

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #22

exegesis Digest Mon, 18 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 023

In This Issue:
#1: From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #22 Zodiacal Signs Meaning
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Numbers and gods
#3: From: Juan
Subject: [e] Rudolf Steiner

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:26:12 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #22 Zodiacal Signs Meaning

> From: "Dennis Frank"
>
> Aries = I originate (cardinal fire)
> plus: initiate, generate, begin, start, commence
> Taurus = I substantiate (fixed earth)
> plus: persist, maintain, attach, connect
> Gemini = I communicate (mutable air)
> plus: discuss, decipher, signal, inform
> Cancer = I feel (cardinal water)
> plus: care, nurture, nourish, succour, help
> Leo = I perform (fixed fire)
> plus: express, dramatise, play
> Virgo = I adjust (mutable earth)
> plus: refine, improve, correct, amend
> Libra = I relate (cardinal air)
> plus: negotiate, conciliate, compromise, harmonise
> Scorpio = I share (fixed water)
> plus: sustain, commit, trust, bond
> Sagittarius = I collaborate (mutable fire)
> plus: participate, search, travel, explore
> Capricorn = I build (cardinal earth)
> plus: I manage, organise, coordinate, execute
> Aquarius = I believe (fixed air)
> plus: know, subscribe, interpret, network
> Pisces = I flow (mutable water)
> plus: empathise, mix, blend, absorb
>
> I could critique this list easily, of course.

Yes indeed, it could be easily criticised. The point is that it doesn't come
from "intuitive" perception (or aperception) of the SUPPOSED archetypes, BUT
from a numerical (and artificial) system of distribution of the supposed
elements and elementary qualities within the zodiac. As I've shown it, this
system (Fire, Earth, mutable ...) is not even "traditional" (not known by
Ptolemy) but rather a late but old-fashioned theory.

See "The Elemental Zodiac and its Difficulties" in my "Avatars of the
Astrological Zodiac" published in Considerations XVIII 2 and previously by CURA
(http://cura.free.fr/25avazod.html)

Patrice Guinard

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:08:20 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Numbers and gods

A member emailed me off-list requesting a reference re: my mention of
Sumerian deities and numbers.

In case others are interested, one is a book entitled "Musical Theory and
Ancient Cosmology" by Ernest G. McClain.

Here is an excerpt from a review:

"Around 3000 BC, the Sumerians developed cunneiform writing, in which they
recorded their pantheon, and a base-60 number system. Their gods were
assigned numbers that encoded the primary ratios of music, with the god's
function correpsonding to their numbers in acoustical theory. Thus the
Sumerians created an extensive tonal/arithmatical model for the cosmos. In
this far-reaching allegory, the physical world is known by analogy, and the
gods give divinity not only to natural forces but also to a "supernatural",
intuitive understanding of mathematical patterns and psychological forces."

An illustrated article by the same author is available online at:

www.new-universe.com/pythagoras/mcclain.html

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

From: Juan
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:07:51 AST
Subject: [e] Rudolf Steiner

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).>>

Dennis Frank wrote: <<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.>>

my comment:

Rudolf Steiner left no "writings" on astrology. Of the very extensive
Steiner bibliography --a few books and more than 6000 lectures-- there is
nothing that had to do with Astrology as we know it. He considered most of
what went for Astrology at his time "mere superstition". He consistently
confused zodiacal "signs" with "constellations", and in my opinion he
showed very little understanding or "grasp" of what Astrology is or was
about.

Steiner was a philosopher and a spiritual researcher. He very often talked
about man's and the whole of nature's relationship to the stars, to the
zodiacal constellations, to planetary energies and movements, to the Moon
and the Sun, the lunar nodes, etc.. But he always talked about these
matters from a vital, organic perspective that strove to clarify the
foundations of what was later called by his followers "Astrosophy", and
which has very little or nothing to do with what astrologers traditionally
do or have done.

"Traditional" Astrology has therefore very little to do with Steiner's
teachings. When he talked of astronomical matters, he always did it in
spiritual, non-physical terms, striving to explain how deeply the human
being is spiritually related to the world of the stars. But to think that
the very extensive Steiner literature --consisting of lectures, never of
"writings" per se-- on these matters that is available today, has anything
to do with Astrology, in my opinion shows little understanding of both
astrology and of Steiner's spiritual cosmology.

The confusion between Steiner's teachings and traditional (or modern)
Astrology comes about mainly for 2 reasons:

1-) There is usually no understanding among astrologers (and
non-astrologers) of how little astrological practice and tools have to do
with what is really happening in the sky. I have developed this point
extensively in the past.

2-) One can use the language of Steiner's body of teachings and attempt to
use this language to talk about astrological matters --or about anything
else. A lot of what passes as "esoteric astrology" today is nothing but a
translation between languages.

A practical "Astrosophy" --a way of modelling man's relationship to the
stars and planets from the Anthroposophical perspective-- has been
developed by followers of Steiner, mainly by the late Willi Sucher
(1902-1985). Material on this can be easily obtained in the Web, and Willi
Sucher's writings can be obtained in print. Willi Sucher's approach is in
my opinion genuinely anthroposophical, and anyone interested in what were
Steiner's teachings on the matter and how they can be applied in a
practical way can study his work.

More recently, the pseudo-astrological writings of Robert Powell make
intensive use of anthroposophical concepts and language. Powell's work,
however, stems from a more traditional astrological perspective, i.e., he
uses traditional astrological tools, and in my opinion this has resulted in
a great distortion of Steiner's original intentions. This distortion,
unfortunately, has found a large audience among anthroposophists, who no
doubt will disagree with the opinion I have expressed here.

A lot of what Steiner left in the form of methodology and epistemology, of
the ways in which life and reality --and particularly a human biography--
can be approached as an object of study, can be directly applied to
astrological practice. This part of Steiner's teachings does not deal with
astronomy or with what superficially --and wrongly-- is often considered
"astrology", but with those matters to which traditional astrology is
applied.

Juan

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #23

exegesis Digest Thu, 21 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 024

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] sceptics win battle, lose war (again)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] sceptics win battle, lose war (again)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:23:23 +1200

Renegade astrologer turned debunker, Geoffrey Dean, is up to his old tricks.
This time he has an extensive analysis published in the latest issue of the
Journal of Consciousness Studies. This featured on both our national radio
& television news a few days ago. In the newspaper article I will quote
from, Dr Dean is described as "a scientist and former astrologer", and his
co-author Professor Ivan Kelly "a psychologist at the University of
Saskatchewan, Canada".

The article, reprinted from London (Telegraph), is entitled "Astrological
time-twin theory fails the tests of science".

"For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2000 people - most of
them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the
subjects should have had very similar traits. The babies were originally
recruited as part of a medical study begun in London in 1958 into how the
circumstances of birth can affect future health. More than 2000 babies born
in early March that year were registered and their development monitored at
regular intervals. Researchers looked at more than 100 characteristics,
including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness,
sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading -
all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts. The
scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the
`time-twins', however."

"The findings caused alarm and anger in astrological circles yesterday. Roy
Gillett, the president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain,
said the study's findings should be treated "with extreme caution" and
accused Dean of seeking to "discredit astrology"."

Good heavens, surely not?

"Frank McGuillon, a consultant to the Southampton-based Research Group for
the Critical Study of Astrology, said of the work: "It is simplistic and
highly-selective and does not cover all of the research." He said that he
would lodge a complaint with the journal's editors."

A similar media splash was made by the sceptic/scientist Shaun Carlson in
the mid-'80s with a similar analysis, which turned out later to be riddled
with methodological errors. The sceptics tend to win these media battles,
due to editorial reluctance and refusal to publish critiques and rebuttals.
However, they continue to lose the war for the public mind.

"Surveys suggest that a majority of people in Britain believe in astrology,
compared with only 13% 50 years ago." "It seems that no sector of society
is immune to its attraction. A recent survey found that a third of science
students subscribed to some aspects of astrology".

I thought the most fascinating piece of information was that anxiety levels
are scientific grounds for differentiating people. Presumably these are
measured with an anxiety level detector. People cannot be classified into
the different level categories if their anxiety levels are not constant, so
the common belief that anxiety is variable must be a delusion (probably
fostered by astrologers or other deviants with a liberal-arts education).
Obviously this finding is a major scientific advance, and it would be
inexplicable that the media failed to promote it as headline news if we did
not already know that journalists are scientifically illiterate.

Dennis Frank

-----------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #24

exegesis Digest Thu, 21 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 025

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #24
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes
#3: Subject: [e] Sun sign archetypes
From: Robert Tulip
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #24
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:52:42 -0400

Dennis,
All you need do is say "Science" in my office of journalists (specifically,
the nearness of Mars next week), and eyes glaze over, the subject changes
quickly... as far as I'm concerned, it is frightening. However, what my unit
writes about is political and legal, and that is where MY eyes glaze over...

Joan
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -
Philip K. Dick

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:01:28 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes

The discussion of archetypal imagery has been fascinating. But I wonder why
each of the contributors, so far, has preceeded each attribute with a
personal "I". An egocentric viewpoint is prone, by its nature, to be
self-limiting. This is the downfall of modern astrological interpretation.

An archetype is the imposed pattern, and the "I" simply a composite result.
Otherwise, the ancients might have just depicted a person with different
hats on. Instead, we have anthropomorphic symbolism with its far richer
meaning and interplay.

Let's use Saggitarius as an example. "I see" and "I collaborate" have been
offered by others, with shades of hunting mixed in.

My interpretation is that what was originally intended is more like
"outward concentration", and, inversely, the captivating influence of the
target upon the archer. There is also a revealing deficiency of aim implied
by this particular imagery. The archer's concentration, however skilled, is
allied with maintaining tension, the pull of the bow. Accordingly, the
lower half of the body remains undeveloped, an unstable platform. In some
renditions, the horse is even depicted as stumbling. Concentration is
present but mis-spent, as we mortals are inclined to do.

All this reflects the dynamical qualities of an archetype not amply
conveyed by something like "I concentrate", or the symbolism of a sign
described in isolation from the rest of the zodiac.

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

Subject: [e] Sun sign archetypes
From: Robert Tulip
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:32:24 +1000

Some background for the 'archetypes' of the sun signs
(Aries to Pisces - am, have, think, feel, will, analyse, balance, desire,
see, use, know, believe)

The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoian and Acker, in their description of sun
sign potentials, defines these twelve themes as 'key phrases' for each
sign. I first encountered this list of key attributes in an astrological
calendar and was immediately intrigued by the question of how they provide
a structure for the annual seasonal rhythm of time. The dates of the sun
signs are defined by the four points of the solstices and equinoxes, in a
rhythm entrained by the monthly cycle of the moon, providing the perpetual
structure of the seasons of earth. All genes on earth have evolved in this
context, which provides the framework of our ecological niche. The annual
physical rhythm of the northern year can be analysed in terms of the
archetypes of the signs, which precisely match the flow of the seasons.

In my own work, I have taken this annual rhythm as the entry point to
understand the structure of time, arguing the annual structure finds a
clear reflection in the bigger temporal framework of the precession of the
equinox, marked by the 2150 year astrological ages. While I know some on
this list are not sympathetic towards theology, to my thinking the
astrological structure of time provides an elegant basis for the orthodox
Christian understanding of history, in a way that coheres fully with
rational scientific thought. The interpretation of history against the
framework of the transition from the Age of Pisces (belief) to the age of
Aquarius (knowledge) provides an incredibly fruitful and productive
rational basis for understanding the deep processes of change we are living
through.

Happy to discuss further. A summary paper is on the calendersign website.
Please contact me directly at Robert_Tulip@ausaid.gov.au if interested to
follow up.

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #25

exegesis Digest Fri, 22 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 026

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #25

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Joan Griffith"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #25
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:43:31 -0400

Hi List,
Robert Tulip meant his paper is in the files section of
Calendersign@yahoogroups.com

I am enjoying the wordplay here. Such prose, and I mean it sincerely.

Joan
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good,
you'll have to ram them down people's throats. - Howard Aiken

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #26

exegesis Digest Sat, 23 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 027

In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes
#2: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #25

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:18:19 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal archetypes

With regard to the Saggitarius symbol, I neglected to mention the following.

In traditional symbolism, a horse represents the id, or subconscious mind,
while the "rider" signifies the ego. Therefore, the instability of being
depicted by the symbol is indicated to reside in the subconscious. Horses
were, and are, considered as noble and intellegent, but easily disturbed or
frightened.

The bottom line is, we, as riders, are not as dominant as we would like to
think. However, refining egotism is not the ultimate solution.

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #25
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:32:50 +1200

Joan wrote:
> All you need do is say "Science" in my office of journalists
(specifically,
> the nearness of Mars next week), and eyes glaze over, the subject changes
> quickly... as far as I'm concerned, it is frightening. However, what my
unit
> writes about is political and legal, and that is where MY eyes glaze
over...

I empathise! Try this view of the issue, from one with a foot in both camps
http://www.astrozero.btinternet.co.uk/correlation.htm

> The discussion of archetypal imagery has been fascinating. But I wonder
why
> each of the contributors, so far, has preceeded each attribute with a
> personal "I". An egocentric viewpoint is prone, by its nature, to be
> self-limiting. This is the downfall of modern astrological interpretation.

Indeed, and go to the above link for further confirmation!

> An archetype is the imposed pattern, and the "I" simply a composite
result.

You mean one's ego is composed of archetypes? A jungian view. Too
simplistic, but may be part of the truth.

> Otherwise, the ancients might have just depicted a person with different
> hats on. Instead, we have anthropomorphic symbolism with its far richer
> meaning and interplay.

Well, the sign symbols were culturally-generated projections. These
provided a currency of meaning for the collective. The relation between
symbol & archetype was pretty loose, as we can see by the symbols
transformations over the centuries, plus the regional differences. This
strengthens the sceptic's view, of course.

If the archetypes were more human and less environmental, as you seem to
suggest, we'd take the concept of archetypes more seriously. If the
ancients depicted Capricorn as a carpenter, for instance, there would be a
match between contemporary theory and tradition. Builder of form, cardinal
earth. Instead, the Sumerian goat fish-tailed Ea sheds its tail after a
couple of millennia and climbs mountains, so modern astrologers say it is
the archetype of hierarchy.

> Let's use Saggitarius as an example. "I see" and "I collaborate" have been
> offered by others, with shades of hunting mixed in.

I cited the Sumerian original, from memory (archer). The centaur apparently
originated in the minds of viewers in the second/third millennium BCE who
had never seen horses before. Mass tribal invasions from the east imprinted
the unfamiliar horse/rider as a single beast, or so the modern theory goes.

> My interpretation is that what was originally intended is more like
> "outward concentration", and, inversely, the captivating influence of the
> target upon the archer. There is also a revealing deficiency of aim
implied
> by this particular imagery. The archer's concentration, however skilled,
is
> allied with maintaining tension, the pull of the bow. Accordingly, the
> lower half of the body remains undeveloped, an unstable platform. In some
> renditions, the horse is even depicted as stumbling. Concentration is
> present but mis-spent, as we mortals are inclined to do.

Too much of a contemporary projection, in my opinion. The primary impact of
environmental features shaped human consciousness. Secondary impact came
from culture (being from the social environment). When the bow & arrow took
over from the spear as primary hunting weapon, it created a more powerful
image (killing from a greater distance). Humans survived to evolve by
hunting in groups, plus the extended family was the original social
environment, so group coordination was a key survival skill from the
earliest times. It took a band of hunters to cull the maximum take from
migrating herds, which were usually passing by and thus an occasional
opportunity. Even with game animals in the same niche, a single kill from a
single hunter was little more than one meal for his family, so collaboration
maximised benefits.

Mutable fire, the Sagittarius archetype, is energy going in all directions,
which is why it motivates exploration. As a reaction to the embedded
commitment of Scorpio, it breaks free and moves about. In relation to the
ensuing stage of social process, Capricorn, it must achieve coordination to
build anything. People have to work together to build a community. Rather
than all heading off on solitary expeditions, they coordinate their
individual efforts into organisation. As Rudhyar correctly observed, the
state (government) is the consequence in the Capricorn stage of the process.

Helpful images for visualising this team-building process in Sagittarius are
imagining a whole lot of arrows pointing in random directions to begin with,
then aligning in a common direction. The effect that a magnet has on iron
filings, if you recall the school demonstration from your early teenage
years. The archetype emerges in the realm of the collective unconscious,
and it's effect is analogous to that of the magnet. Naturalists note how
schools of fish and flocks of birds seem to turn in unison, as though
coordinated by some directive agency.

Robert wrote:
> a structure for the annual seasonal rhythm of time. The dates of the sun
> signs are defined by the four points of the solstices and equinoxes, in a
> rhythm entrained by the monthly cycle of the moon, providing the perpetual
> structure of the seasons of earth. All genes on earth have evolved in
this
> context, which provides the framework of our ecological niche. The annual
> physical rhythm of the northern year can be analysed in terms of the
> archetypes of the signs, which precisely match the flow of the seasons.

Ptolemy used this premise in the Tetrabiblos, but since it is invalid in the
southern hemisphere astrologers from the south (including myself) are best
advised to promote a transcending view.

> In my own work, I have taken this annual rhythm as the entry point to
> understand the structure of time, arguing the annual structure finds a
> clear reflection in the bigger temporal framework of the precession of the
> equinox, marked by the 2150 year astrological ages.

The reflection you refer to has been popular amongst astrologers for a
century. The logic is simple: use the zodiac as template and apply to
another cycle. Thus the houses arose as a separate frame of reference nigh
on two millennia back, and aspects in more recent centuries. I decided to
rationalise this, simply by calling the theoretical structure of the zodiac
the `zodiacal archetype'. The premise is that all time cycles have it as an
archetypal substructure (with numeric and qualitative components).

This hypothesis will seem flimsy to a sceptic, yet it has the merit of
saving the appearance of traditional astrology. Doing this was pure
pragmatism on my part. Its weakness as ideology lies primarily in the lack
of justification for correlating the elements with particular tropics and
equinoxes. Its strength lies in the pragmatic acceptance of recognition and
use by the majority of astrologers over the centuries, being a sizable
cross-cultural consensus. It could be that this consensus has arisen
because those involved have tuned in to what is `out there' (and `in here'
in the collective unconscious). It could also be that the psychic realm
that connects humans is as much generated by participants as arising from
the natural world. Maybe that's why group meditations and creative
visualisations seem effective. Maybe that's why the collective cosmic
frames of reference created by human societies not only have such inertia,
but also seem to work for their users.

Dennis

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #27

exegesis Digest Sun, 24 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 028

In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #27

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:59:20 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #27

>You mean one's ego is composed of archetypes?
>

No Dennis, not that specific. Archetypes exist as hierarchies of
manifestational forces. An astrological influence, its subjective
tonality, and designated symbol represent three intensities of the same
expression. The mitigating factor is awareness.

>The relation between
>symbol & archetype was pretty loose, as we can see by the symbols
>transformations over the centuries, plus the regional differences. This
>strengthens the sceptic's view, of course.
>

Personally, I see the fact that they transformed so little as an indication
the archetypes remained relativley intact. If you are claiming the
archetypes, or understanding thereof, changed along with the symbols,
please provide some specific examples of this. Preferably without invoking
"modern astrology".

>Instead, the Sumerian goat fish-tailed Ea sheds its tail after a
>couple of millennia and climbs mountains, so modern astrologers say it is
>the archetype of hierarchy.
>

If you are interested in the _original_ meaning, check out a good book on
symbolism. I would say Capricorn is more a conscious occupier of form, than
a creator. As you mention below, it is a developmental progression on the
symbol of Saggitarius, which involves dissipation. To put things in
perspective, the ancients attributed far less creative power to man than we
do today.

>I cited the Sumerian original, from memory (archer). The centaur apparently
>originated in the minds of viewers in the second/third millennium BCE who
>had never seen horses before. Mass tribal invasions from the east imprinted
>the unfamiliar horse/rider as a single beast, or so the modern theory goes.
>

And I suppose this was because they hadn't invented eyeglasses yet :-) In
any event, a symbol is not necessarily derived from the "real" world.

>The primary impact of
>environmental features shaped human consciousness. Secondary impact came
>from culture (being from the social environment).
>

Ancient peoples viewed themselves as integral with the natural environment,
not a result of it. To adopt the later view is modern baggage, and would
tend to obscure their true perspective on the meaning of symbols.

Peter Nielsen

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #28

exegesis Digest Tue, 26 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 029

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #28

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #28
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:43 +1200

Peter Nielsen wrote:
> Archetypes exist as hierarchies of manifestational
> forces. An astrological influence, its subjective tonality,
> and designated symbol represent three intensities of the same
> expression. The mitigating factor is awareness.

Well, this sure seems to me like a jungian view. I could agree that
astrological archetypes probably manifest in the psyche in hierarchical
contexts. When they do, they may appear as manifestational forces to some
observers. I personally believe the archetypes of nature (including those
astrological) originate at a deeper level. Your second sentence seems
correct to me, and will to Patrice also I suspect. Couldn't decipher your
3rd sentence, even with the help of the dictionary!

> >The relation between
> >symbol & archetype was pretty loose, as we can see by the symbols
> >transformations over the centuries, plus the regional differences. This
> >strengthens the sceptic's view, of course.
> Personally, I see the fact that they transformed so little as an
indication
> the archetypes remained relativley intact. If you are claiming the
> archetypes, or understanding thereof, changed along with the symbols,
> please provide some specific examples of this. Preferably without invoking
> "modern astrology".

Oh no, I would never make such a claim. I guess social archetypes might
evolve, but I don't study them much. It seems to me that you consider the
sign archetypes to originate from the collective unconscious. This view was
popular in the '80s, and may still be so for all I know.

> >Instead, the Sumerian goat fish-tailed Ea sheds its tail after a
> >couple of millennia and climbs mountains, so modern astrologers say it is
> >the archetype of hierarchy.
> If you are interested in the _original_ meaning, check out a good book on
> symbolism. I would say Capricorn is more a conscious occupier of form,
than
> a creator. As you mention below, it is a developmental progression on the
> symbol of Saggitarius, which involves dissipation. To put things in
> perspective, the ancients attributed far less creative power to man than
we
> do today.

Yeah I did way back (& sometimes still do) check out the astrological
symbols in the various dictionaries of symbolism, and it can be helpful,
even if never revelatory. Fagan & Gleadow, amongst others, discovered more
and provide descriptions that are both more comprehensive & with more depth.
I think your last point is fair enough. Saturn ruled, and people had their
beliefs and expectations tightly confined by the cultural parameters of the
time/place.

> >I cited the Sumerian original, from memory (archer). The centaur
apparently
> >originated in the minds of viewers in the second/third millennium BCE who
> >had never seen horses before. Mass tribal invasions from the east
imprinted
> >the unfamiliar horse/rider as a single beast, or so the modern theory
goes.
> And I suppose this was because they hadn't invented eyeglasses yet :-) In
> any event, a symbol is not necessarily derived from the "real" world.

True, and anyone who examines the planet & constellation symbols of the
millennia BCE will encounter designs that are clearly artificial and/or
abstract, or fantasy. Also, treating your point about visual recognition
seriously, neuroscientists have taken to acknowledging the determining role
of the brain, and concluding that recognition is inherently subjective. We
often don't see what others (might) see.

> >The primary impact of environmental features
> >shaped human consciousness. Secondary impact came
> >from culture (being from the social environment).
> Ancient peoples viewed themselves as integral with the natural
environment,
> not a result of it. To adopt the later view is modern baggage, and would
> tend to obscure their true perspective on the meaning of symbols.

I get the feeling that you are disagreeing with me, but can't see why. I
agree with your first sentence here.

To change the subject a little, I have spent the past decade coming to the
view that the astrological archetypes are receding in their general
influence on people. Why? Well, in terms of general systems theory, it is
due to the globalising of culture. As subsystems cohere & integrate into a
more complex whole, higher levels of organisation occur. This increases the
variety of determining influences on the components of the subsystems
(including us, our groups & our societies). By determining I mean
partially, because all subsystems have degrees of freedom & autonomy that
are relative to their configuration within the whole.

Dennis
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #29

exegesis Digest Wed, 27 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 030

In This Issue:
#1: From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal Signs

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:06:59 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: Zodiacal Signs

I'm afraid that astrologers are not able to reason a bit far away than the more
trivial analogies (why not? : cancer, I pinch / scorpio, I bite / pisces, I swim
.... etc ...), always dualistic thought. So we have the contemporary "symbolic"
and/or pseudo-predictive astrology that can be found in the main astro
magazines, a symptom of their incapability to think Zodiacs as a whole, global
system, and not as some twelve supposed "archetypes".

Patrice Guinard

CURA
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #30

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