Exegesis V08 Issues 031 to 040

Exegesis Volume 08 Issues #031-040

exegesis Digest Wed, 27 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 031

In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #30
#2: From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #24

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

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:46:48 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #30

>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,

I hope you are not including me, as these are two of the points I was also
trying to raise.

At some point in Sumerian history, the Baru preisthoood selected symbolic
imagery from what was previously a divinatory system. They assigned, to
each of these, a stage in the progressive development of human spirit. A
twelve-stage initiatory system thus emerged, which allegorically linked the
spirit's "lessons" within matter to the annual transit of the sun. In this
context, I have never seen any evidence of a belief that the signs acted in
their own right. Instead, they were reflective of internal impediments to
spiritual attainment, or reunion with the creator.

The zodiac, and included archetypes, originated as a global system.
Fragmentation was assured with the rise in popularity of natal charts. This
became the public face of astrology.

However, the core propostion of the zodiac still endures. If not, one would
have to wonder why it has remained allied, in varying degrees, with
virtually every major religion over thousands of years. This has certainly
not been the case with purely divinatory techniques.

Peter Nielsen

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

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #24
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:08:14 +0000

....To the "soul on the crossroad" of Geoffrey Dean (and to anyone in a
similar position) I have only one comment:
Sharing our common interest, and within the 'depth of your soul', you
know that you cannot dismiss the idea of astrology. If conducted tests do
not work, this does not contradict astrology but rather indicates that such
test was most likely poorly constructed and that you have to then design a
different one.

Jan-Sar Skapski astrol. ind.

End of exegesis Digest V8 #31

exegesis Digest Thu, 28 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 032

In This Issue:
#1: From: Rm8gg
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #29

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

From: Rachel
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:10:43 EDT
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #29

In einer eMail vom 8/26/2003 11:47:56 AM W. Europe Daylight Time schreibt
lists@exegesis.dyndns.org:

> 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

Speaking of archetypes and changes of culture. It seemsMars coming so close
towards the collective unconscious in more thant 60,000 years will be doing
exactly what you are implying here of new archetypes which will be created and
are being created. What I am interested in is the idea that perhaps there are no
new archetypes so much as there are definitions being refined and changed.
Sort of like incarnations if you will of the signs going through phases as much
as we go through cycles to discover itself or explore itself as we as humans
do. In some ways I suppose I am referring to the Hindu time scheme where things
have a ultimate sense of themselves such as acrhetypes but the expression of
them differs from cycle to cycle. They are created, they are destroyed, and
they emerge to serve what purpose we, as a society, place on them as well as to
give us an identification of what we are and how cycles happen. Ultimately
isn't that astrology's true purpose: to tell us about the cycles of human
evolution on a psychological level and to give insight into our own mysteries that
are of yet unexplainable? Well, it's an idea.

Rachel

End of exegesis Digest V8 #32

exegesis Digest Sat, 30 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 033

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #31,32

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #31,32
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 20:15:24 +1200

Patrice Guinard wrote:
> >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".

Peter Nielsen replied:
>I hope you are not including me, as these are two of the points I was
>also trying to raise.

Nor me. The dichotomy Patrice implies seems to be to reflect a division
between mainstream (symbol-driven) astrologers, who are users of astrology
rather than theoreticians. Personally, I see any time cycle as a "whole,
global system" containing an archetypal substructure, as I have often
explained in this list. This conception of the archetypal time cycle
provides a significant theoretical advance upon the work of Dane Rudhyar
(who seems not to have conceived this generalisation).

Peter continued:
> At some point in Sumerian history, the Baru preisthoood selected symbolic
> imagery from what was previously a divinatory system. They assigned, to
> each of these, a stage in the progressive development of human spirit. A
> twelve-stage initiatory system thus emerged, which allegorically linked
the
> spirit's "lessons" within matter to the annual transit of the sun. In this
> context, I have never seen any evidence of a belief that the signs acted
in
> their own right. Instead, they were reflective of internal impediments to
> spiritual attainment, or reunion with the creator.

An appealing account, and it would be nice to believe it. Lorenzo has
failed to ask for proof that it actually happened, so I guess I ought to,
despite being 99% confident that there is none!

I wrote:
> > 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.

Rachel replied:
> Speaking of archetypes and changes of culture. It seemsMars coming so
close
> towards the collective unconscious in more thant 60,000 years will be
doing
> exactly what you are implying here of new archetypes which will be created
and
> are being created. What I am interested in is the idea that perhaps there
are no
> new archetypes so much as there are definitions being refined and changed.

Rachel, I did not intend such an implication. Systems theory says that new
qualitative features emerge at higher levels of a system, and these may
indeed seem archetypal to observers. My belief is that the astrological
archetypes are too fundamental to be able to change. However, people (being
mutable) can change their perception & description of archetypes, which I
gather is what you are suggesting.

> Sort of like incarnations if you will of the signs going through phases as
much
> as we go through cycles to discover itself or explore itself as we as
humans
> do. In some ways I suppose I am referring to the Hindu time scheme where
things
> have a ultimate sense of themselves such as acrhetypes but the expression
of
> them differs from cycle to cycle. They are created, they are destroyed,
and
> they emerge to serve what purpose we, as a society, place on them as well
as to
> give us an identification of what we are and how cycles happen. Ultimately
> isn't that astrology's true purpose: to tell us about the cycles of human
> evolution on a psychological level and to give insight into our own
mysteries that
> are of yet unexplainable? Well, it's an idea.

Yeah, I think I agree to the gist of this. Context often changes our
perception of something. There are standard illustrations of this in
psychology textbooks, and Escher's famous drawings provide many classic
examples. Add to that the apparent modification of astrological archetypes
by others, and you can get a sort of kaleidoscope effect similar to
different coloured transparencies overlaying each other. The individual
archetypes don't change, but their effect seems to.

Dennis

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #33

exegesis Digest Sat, 30 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 034

In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #33
#2: From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #33

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

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:32:07 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #33

>> their own right. Instead, they were reflective of internal impediments to
>> spiritual attainment, or reunion with the creator.
>
>An appealing account, and it would be nice to believe it. Lorenzo has
>failed to ask for proof that it actually happened, so I guess I ought to,
>despite being 99% confident that there is none!
>

Lorenzo did ask, but I got side-tracked by the love gods. "From the great
above, she gazed down upon the great below." Bristling with auto-eroticism
some might say.

Yes, everyone has scutinized the existing literature. Still the nature of
the esoteric side of Sumerian religion remains obscure. No surprise. Look
what befell "our own" Christianity. What we are left with is probabilities
relative to the wider context.

There are hints in Sabian magic, and derivatives of the Arabic tradition,
such as the aforementioned Marsilo Facino's "Book of Life". These involve
calling down planetary and celestial influences using an elaborate system
of corespondences, including colors, metals, specified offerings ... and
time of year. Is it reasonable to assume these had no association with
spiritual development?

Then we have seven planets modulated in influence by their position
relative to the three "ways". Parallel associations in other cultures
between the seven planets and subtle nerve centres. Seven step zuggarats.
Intertwined serpents with seven linkages. Conversion circa 600 BCE to 12
part "zodiac". All documented for Sumeria. Traditions of 12 month
initiation cycles, notably in Egypt, and more recent examples of this
12-part theme.

That's not proof, but part of the solution is knowing what to look for.
Homing in from the overview, rather than beginning with a self-limiting
proposition.

Typically, we have not given ancient cultures the credit they deserve. If
we had such an all-inclusive metaphysical system today, it would be foolish
to think there was no tie-in with human development.

Now, a challenge to those contributors who rightlfully ask for proof. How
about some historical references that _dis-prove_ my proposition?
Recognizing that absence of proof is not proof of absence, I can
accommodate a few probabilities.

Peter Nielsen

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

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #33
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:14:09 +0000

I am trying to find a link that hopefully may bridge a philosophical
discussion with the work of practicing astrologers in a comprehensive and
contributory way. So far what with all this haughty exchange, I am getting
the impression that I may be living on another planet.

In Nature there are available only two choices, that of "Yes" or "No"
and we may express this also in a binary system of 1 or 0. There is no
other form or definition for "maybe" and everything that we may find in
between is some combination between "black" and "white" (using analogy)
, which come out in a shade of "grey".

Any imaginable "prototype" that we would like to look for must
originate from these "bi-choices", therefore there is place for only one
prototype (call it archetype if you wish). Consequently, to come with a
more coherent (and consistent) definition we have to rely on algorithms of
Symbols - and there is little else more complex than symbols. They must
encompass a multi-possibility of those binary combinations arising from our
primary single prototype.

Symbols, eventually, will allow us to develop a verbal concept, one of
possible interpretations (under existing circumstances) that again, will be
an outcome of the interaction between each symbol and the influence of the
actual environment.

There is no end to the resulting and evolving possibilities and for
this simple reason, well-defined symbols are the foundation of astrology,
while from any protolithic archetype or pseudo-archetype we cannot yet work
out a primitive interpretation of the horoscope.

Both the time we live in and time changes dictate mental abbreviations
in the form of Keywords, and the whole intermixture of these, that we call a
horoscope, will serve as a base. But for an astrologer it is merely a
starting point. While a horoscope is only a static picture, environment
and planetary patterns interact for the whole life of an individual and
each time seems to bring new information.

We don't live in a vacuum. The horoscope has some future similar to a
hologram. Besides this, we are born with an instinctive self-preservation
programme - "to be or not…" - we can find some related and very personal
specifics in the natal horoscope patterns and as we go through the various
processes of learning and acquisitions, we develop based upon and relative
habits, - we are like a piece of a puzzle that we awkwardly try to fit to
the whole maze of the World and the people around us, to the culture at
large. We are also, at all times, under kaleidoscopic influences of the
endless planetary changes, that we call transits... The process is never
ending and colours all at once. - We are born with directions and we are
born with talent, but we are not born with the predisposition to develop
either. - All this is describable with just a few planets and here is the
place for a skilful astrologer and the part that he/she may play.

As a source of the interpretation of all that may be relevant, I am
using planetary aspects, - the way they are represented by their
corresponding harmonic division (harmonic chart) and the related midpoint
structure that defines the very particulars of planets involved. I may
also say, that I ignore any references whatever to zodiacal division and
house systems (I am not using harmonics in John Addey's style or any
derived from any similar idea). Being indifferent towards zodiacal signs I
have one more reason not to be concerned with any idea of archetypes.

I may only add, gentlemen, that I know my subject reasonably well.

Jan-Sar Skapski astrol. ind.

End of exegesis Digest V8 #34

exegesis Digest Sun, 31 Aug 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 035

In This Issue:
#1: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34
#2: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34

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

Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 03:24:21 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34

> From: Peter Nielsen com.au>

> >> their own right. Instead, they were reflective of internal impediments to
> >> spiritual attainment, or reunion with the creator.
> >
Lorenzo has
> >failed to ask for proof that it actually happened, so I guess I ought to,
> >despite being 99% confident that there is none!

So I must I suppose provide the remainder. Easy.

> Lorenzo did ask, but I got side-tracked by the love gods. "From the great
> above, she gazed down upon the great below." Bristling with auto-eroticism
> some might say.

Or maybe good old-fashioned fore-play of dualism?

> Yes, everyone has scutinized the existing literature. Still the nature of
> the esoteric side of Sumerian religion remains obscure. No surprise.

Ah, because it does not fit your theory? If no one is creeping up on me
in the garden at night, I jolly well can not be expected to be surprised
by this no one.

> There are hints Sabian magic derivatives of the Arabic tradition,
Marsilo Facino's "Book of Life". Is it reasonable to assume these had
Ficino

no association with
> spiritual development?

Is it reasonable to assume they had any relation to the Sumerian? No.

> Traditions of 12 month
> initiation cycles, notably in Egypt, and more recent examples of this
> 12-part theme.
>
> That's not proof, but part of the solution is knowing what to look for.

Rather part of the solution is knowing what not to look for. Rather part
of the solution is to have a crystal clear methodology and not be
skipping all over the souvenier shop.

> Typically, we have not given ancient cultures the credit they deserve.

This is an argument which is called special pleading.

If
> we had such an all-inclusive metaphysical system today, it would be foolish
> to think there was no tie-in with human development.

This is an argument which is in the form "What if...?" What if Napoleon
were not born? What if...? !!

> Now, a challenge to those contributors who rightlfully ask for proof. How
> about some historical references that _dis-prove_ my proposition?
> Recognizing that absence of proof is not proof of absence, I can
> accommodate a few probabilities.

Actually the topos is 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Of cours. But is is *not* evidence, full stop.

Were one, like you to choose a pattern, one would find that pattern, one
seeks and finds what one seeks. Forcing evidence, or, lacking such, the
mere absence of evidence to fit the theory.

One of the great disproofs of your theory is the duality of divinity in
Sumerian religion (life/death, male/female). Another is the fact that
the Sumerians had, by some countings, 3600 gods. Nice *average* number
that, for more nice averages, see below.

There can not be 'a priori' evidence of your theory because your theory
rests on a post quam proposition. There can not be evicence of a 12
"whatnot" (Is it a Snark? Is it a Boojum? Or is it an hyparhetypos? Or
is it something quite beyond that, maybe to hen?!) *before* a 12
"whatnot" was constructed. Proto (hyparchetypical) ideas are attractive
perhaps, but convincing they are not.

Extra-ordinary claims *require* extra-ordinary evidence, and *not*
surely the absence of evidence.

Twelve is the *average* number of lunar months in a *roughly average*
solar year. Said months are *averaged* out to 30 days. A month and a
year are self defining terms. They are both only *averages*. They really
don't have to be worked together (quod videtur, Julian and Gregorian
calendars). They work well enough for *average* calculations
(book-keeping, planting crops, pay temple dues or taxes or rent or such
not). Twelve thus becomes important as an *average* measuring stick.
Nit-picking astronomers noted that there were sometimes 13 *non-average*
months (or perhaps, neamenea) to a solar year. They had to make
adjustments. But that's the history of calendaric systems, not
hyparchetypes or Boojums.

All else (signs, zodiacs and a lot of hypertense intertextual
combinations of baroque extrapolations) derives from this simple
*average*-- the convenience of being on average just about average so
the averages can be calculated and you can eat. Eating is the prime
mover of human endeavour.

Of course, by your reasoning, quod libet, the Sumerians had very precise
ideas about string theory and relativity. But I repeat myself.

Enough margaritas!

feliciter,

Lorenzo Smerillo

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

Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 04:17:10 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34

Jan-Sar Skapski wrote:
> As a source of the interpretation of all that may be relevant, I am
> using planetary aspects, - the way they are represented by their
> corresponding harmonic division (harmonic chart) and the related midpoint
> structure that defines the very particulars of planets involved. I may
> also say, that I ignore any references whatever to zodiacal division and
> house systems (I am not using harmonics in John Addey's style or any
> derived from any similar idea). Being indifferent towards zodiacal signs I
> have one more reason not to be concerned with any idea of archetypes.

Cycles, planetary aspects, midpoints. Yes, that is about all one needs.
Of course the laugh is which zodiac, constellational or sign? Moving
archetypes, dependent on measure? I think not.

The twelve based signs are an expression of lunatic motion.

feliciter,

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #35

exegesis Digest Mon, 01 Sep 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 036

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #35

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #34
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 20:45:45 +1200

> There are hints in Sabian magic, and derivatives of the Arabic tradition,
> such as the aforementioned Marsilo Facino's "Book of Life". These involve
> calling down planetary and celestial influences using an elaborate system
> of corespondences, including colors, metals, specified offerings ... and
> time of year. Is it reasonable to assume these had no association with
> spiritual development?

Yes & no, depending on user category. Most users were/are motivated by the
prospect of material gain and/or social advantage. Perhaps 5% of the human
race seems to be, at any historical period, motivated by spirituality (and I
realise this may be a considerable over-estimate). I do not mean religion,
which is normally merely robotic conformism.

> Then we have seven planets modulated in influence by their position
> relative to the three "ways". Parallel associations in other cultures
> between the seven planets and subtle nerve centres. Seven step zuggarats.

Never seen any surviving rationale for interpreting the qualitities of the 3
ways, would be interesting. Ziggurat levels were painted in the appropriate
planetary colours.

> Intertwined serpents with seven linkages. Conversion circa 600 BCE to 12

New to me, interesting.

> part "zodiac". All documented for Sumeria.

Well, Sumeria ceased to exist after the Akkadian incursion, although some
texts specify a revival of Sumerian culture in a subsequent period of
synthesis lasting 2 or 3 centuries prior to the 1st Babylonian empire in the
early 2nd millennium BCE.

> That's not proof, but part of the solution is knowing what to look for.
> Homing in from the overview, rather than beginning with a self-limiting
> proposition.

I agree. Nice to find someone else who knows what the right brain is for.

> Typically, we have not given ancient cultures the credit they deserve. If
> we had such an all-inclusive metaphysical system today, it would be
foolish
> to think there was no tie-in with human development.
>
> Now, a challenge to those contributors who rightlfully ask for proof. How
> about some historical references that _dis-prove_ my proposition?

I ain't a gonna tilt at this windmill! Peter, I've no problem with
surmising the reasons for cultural trends by means of analogic thinking and
extrapolating from the known into the unknown. Often a fertile strategy for
triggering intuitive insights. I felt it was necessary to highlight the
lack of proof, to compensate for your (tacit?) tactic of asserting your
belief as fact. Just using my Libran ascendant to redress the balance.

Actually this list was a damn sight more haughty some years back. Have you
tried any other online astrology discussion? I tried a few. Mainstream
astrologers are so predictable you may get bored to death, and there are
always plenty of other less-adequate participants. Hard to find a worthy
signal amidst the noise.

> In Nature there are available only two choices, that of "Yes" or "No"
> and we may express this also in a binary system of 1 or 0. There is no
> other form or definition for "maybe" and everything that we may find in
> between is some combination between "black" and "white" (using analogy)
> , which come out in a shade of "grey".

What about the chameleon? True, one can't deny the dualism in nature. The
bilateral symmetry of the left-right brain hemispheres is pretty stark, not
to mention that on the surface of the human body, and limbs. Not much in
the heart though, eh?

Once again, it is worth dwelling on the near-identical apparent size of Sun
& Moon. Just chance, this cosmic coincidence? That explanation is merely
the first refuge of the simple-minded sceptic. Any sceptics reading this,
your homework assignment for tonight is to calculate the odds against it
being a chance-produced natural duality. If you are that odd beast, a
sceptic poor at maths, here's a clue: work out the ratio of the solar/lunar
diameter to that of the entire circumference of the heavens.

> Any imaginable "prototype" that we would like to look for must
> originate from these "bi-choices", therefore there is place for only one
> prototype (call it archetype if you wish). Consequently, to come with a

Perhaps the toy kaleidoscope is a good model. The internal mirrors generate
the apparent visual complexity. Any emergent complex natural system will be
related to its more simple components in a similar manner. The astrological
archetypes are generated by the solar system, with component major bodies
(orbits) playing a similar structural role to the mirrors.

> more coherent (and consistent) definition we have to rely on algorithms of
> Symbols - and there is little else more complex than symbols. They must
> encompass a multi-possibility of those binary combinations arising from
our
> primary single prototype.

I guess `encompass a multiplicity of ensuing possible combinations' is
appropriately evocative of what happens. Symbols are problematic to me.
Too plastic, too culture-dependent. To err is human, and I prefer something
closer to the action (even if it starts to seem inhuman). Symbols attract
the psychological projections of people like dead meat in the sun attracts
flies. The overlay of mass projections obscures the essence beneath.

Dennis

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:46:38 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #35

>One of the great disproofs of your theory is the duality of divinity in
>Sumerian religion (life/death, male/female).
>

Lorenzo,

I recall, in a previous post, you seemed to attribute the emergence of
duality to Plato. Duality has been a conceptual level in the heirarchy of
virtually every religion, as reflected in their creation myths. And for a
good reason. In the beginning there was one, then two, etc. So, why is this
a "disproof".

>Another is the fact that
>the Sumerians had, by some countings, 3600 gods. Nice *average* number
>that, for more nice averages, see below.
>

And Christianity has lots of Saints, but only 12 Apostles. I fail to see
your point. Obviously, some gods were more important than others. This can
be said even without understanding their subjective significance.

Of course, Sumerians did have 12 names for their 12 (not 13) months. And
the months had associations with specific deities, which were linked
through mythology to categories of the human psyche.

>> There are hints Sabian magic derivatives of the Arabic tradition,
>>Marsilo Facino's "Book of Life". Is it reasonable to assume these had
>>no association with spiritual development?
>>

>Is it reasonable to assume they had any relation to the Sumerian? No.
>

See "The Wisdom of the Chaldeans" by Moses Gaster.

>There can not be 'a priori' evidence of your theory because your theory
>rests on a post quam proposition.
>

As far as I can tell, you have not provided any evidence it _is_ post quam.
That would have been the most interesting part of your response.

>All else (signs, zodiacs and a lot of hypertense intertextual
>combinations of baroque extrapolations) derives from this simple
>*average*-- the convenience of being on average just about average so
>the averages can be calculated and you can eat.
>

If you are making a qualitative distinction between an average and being
precise, I see your point. But then, we didn't learn to boil water by
studying its molecular structure. By your definition, anything someone does
or thinks is inherently suspect via its derivation by averages. A rather
average and imprecise rebuttal, I would say.

>Of course, by your reasoning, quod libet, the Sumerians had very precise
>ideas about string theory and relativity. But I repeat myself.
>
>Enough margaritas!
>

So how about an antidote for the hangover. Your bland diet isn't working.

Peter Nielsen

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #36

exegesis Digest Tue, 02 Sep 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 037

In This Issue:
#1: From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36
#2: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36

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

Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:54:43 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36

wrote > Dennis:

> The astrological
> archetypes are generated by the solar system, with component major bodies
> (orbits) playing a similar structural role to the mirrors.

If you mean the 12-fold zodiac, this is lunar based.
====================================================

wrote<nielsenp@in.com.au>:

LS:
> >One of the great disproofs of your theory is the duality of divinity in
> >Sumerian religion (life/death, male/female).
> >

> I recall, in a previous post, you seemed to attribute the emergence of
> duality to Plato. Duality has been a conceptual level in the heirarchy of
> virtually every religion, as reflected in their creation myths. And for a
> good reason. In the beginning there was one, then two, etc. So, why is this
> a "disproof".

Because it is not 12.

> >Another is the fact that
> >the Sumerians had, by some countings, 3600 gods. Nice *average* number
> >that, for more nice averages, see below.

As I said, "see below..." [YOU CUT ALL THAT MATERIAL OUT OF YOUR REPLY,
WHY YOU WOULD KNOW MOST SUBJECTIVELY]

> And Christianity has lots of Saints, but only 12 Apostles.

post quam propter hoc. uffa! Give us a less silly and irrelevant
example.

> I fail to see your point.

obviously.

>Obviously, some gods were more important than others.

Yes and no, but obviously that depends on when and where and how you
define importance, and if you wish to impose a 12 fold whathot after the
fact and then pretend that your pattern is somehow in a way subjectively
significant.

> This can
> be said even without understanding their subjective significance.

I should dearly like to see anyone's contemporary understanding of the
Sumerian's subjective significance. Are you telpathic and can you travel
in time?!
You can pretend to know the subjective of the Sumerians, but then that
is I suppose a pretense. You can no more know of their subjectivity than
you can of that of the person sitting next to you on a bus.

> Of course, Sumerians did have 12 names for their 12 (not 13) months. And
> the months had associations with specific deities, which were linked

> through *mythology to categories of the human psyche.*

[emphasis mine]

More modern imposition by Neilsen.

> >> There are hints Sabian magic derivatives of the Arabic tradition,
> >>Marsilo Facino's "Book of Life". Is it reasonable to assume these had

** M A R S I L I O F I C I N O **

> >Is it reasonable to assume they had any relation to the Sumerian? No.

> See "The Wisdom of the Chaldeans" by Moses Gaster.

Oh NO!!

> >There can not be 'a priori' evidence of your theory because your theory
> >rests on a post quam proposition.

> As far as I can tell, you have not provided any evidence it _is_ post quam.

If it's your theory, then it is by definition post quam as you are not a
Sumerian, unless of course you are telepathic and can time travel, which
seems to be more and more the claim you are actually making.

> That would have been the most interesting part of your response.

To state the obvious? Hardly.

> >All else (signs, zodiacs and a lot of hypertense intertextual
> >combinations of baroque extrapolations) derives from this simple
> >*average*-- the convenience of being on average just about average so
> >the averages can be calculated and you can eat.

> If you are making a qualitative distinction between an average and being
> precise, I see your point.

No, I am not: and, no, you don't. Read what I wrote.

> But then, we didn't learn to boil water by
> studying its molecular structure. By your definition, anything someone does
> or thinks is inherently suspect via its derivation by averages.

Let's not go into the territory of the silly and irrelevant. The
historical development of the 12-fold month system is an *average*
reckoning of time. Nothing to do with subjective meanings and other
tangential add-ons you wish to *read into* the process and texts.

> >Of course, by your reasoning, quod libet, the Sumerians had very precise
> >ideas about string theory and relativity. But I repeat myself.
> >
> >Enough margaritas!
> >
>
> So how about an antidote for the hangover. Your bland diet isn't working.

*margaritas* is Greek for 'pearls' the that which is cast before swine
[šah] ... sorry you misunderstood that-- as well.

Believe as you will. That's your rite. But a discussion of beliefs and
subjective feelings, projections and post factum patterns is as jejune
as to pick out pixilations in the clouds.

So, thank you for your replies, but enough. I close. I will not
reply. Enough.

feliciter,

Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo
Research Lector Late Antiquity
Biblioteca Nazionale Protocenobio Sublacense (ROMA)

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

Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 09:19:29 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36

>Never seen any surviving rationale for interpreting the qualitities of the 3
>ways, would be interesting. Ziggurat levels were painted in the appropriate
>planetary colours.
>

The three ways were associated with the major gods, Anu, Enlil and Enki.
Fire, water and air respectively. These were the elemental influences upon
the seven planets, and (for the spiritually intoxicated) the corresponding
subtle bodies of man. The fourth element was represented by the Earth.

>I ain't a gonna tilt at this windmill! Peter, I've no problem with
>surmising the reasons for cultural trends by means of analogic thinking and
>extrapolating from the known into the unknown. Often a fertile strategy for
>triggering intuitive insights.
>

Accordingly, the periodic table of elements, Lorenzo held aloft as the only
true archetype, was revealed in a dream after years of fruitless research.

Peter Nielsen

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #37

exegesis Digest Thu, 04 Sep 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 038

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #37

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #37
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:20:56 +1200

I wrote:
> > The astrological
> > archetypes are generated by the solar system, with component major
bodies
> > (orbits) playing a similar structural role to the mirrors.
Lorenzo commented:
> If you mean the 12-fold zodiac, this is lunar based.

No, I don't, and your comment is merely a half-truth. The zodiac, like the
calendar, was derived from the natural time cycles created by the solar
system. The primary one experienced on earth is the diurnal cycle,
generated by our planetary rotation. The secondary time cycle of our
experience is the lunation, the cycle of lunar phases. The tertiary time
cycle that structures human experience is the transit of the sun across the
galactic background of stars. These are commonly known as day, month, and
year(except that months as we know them derive from a mathematical
abstraction of the lunation cycle, and subsequent cultural customisation).

The structure of the zodiac arises from the relation between the apparent
lunar cycle and the apparent solar cycle. There are always 12 lunations in
a year, so the apparent path of the sun around the star-field was divided
into 12 equal sections. This early mathematical abstraction was the easiest
way to combine the two time cycles so as to structure the changing seasons
for mutual convenience. Social planning was required for reasons of
communal survival and profit, and a common temporal frame of reference
allowed hunting, agriculture & trading to be done at suitable times.

Thus the Rig Veda, early to mid 2nd millennium BCE, refers to the wheel in
the sky with 12 spokes. Scholars normally describe the Vedas as the
surviving record of the oral tradition of the 3rd millennium, recorded
centuries after the aryan invasion & settlement of northern India. It is in
reference to this context that we ought to consider the earliest surviving
record of the current form of the zodiac.

> historical development of the 12-fold month system is an *average*
> reckoning of time. Nothing to do with subjective meanings and other
> tangential add-ons you wish to *read into* the process and texts.

Lorenzo, you appear to here confuse the calendar and the zodiac. The
qualitative attributions and accretions, no matter how seemingly arbitrary
or illogical, have been historically attached to the latter. Your statement
is true only of the former. If you really wish to deny history, you are
wasting your time in this mailing list, and ours.

> Believe as you will. That's your rite. But a discussion of beliefs and
> subjective feelings, projections and post factum patterns is as jejune
> as to pick out pixilations in the clouds.

Check the parameters of this mailing list as specified on the website. You
will find that these things you wish to eliminate are not excluded. Like
weeds in a garden, they are natural. If you see them spoiling the
ecosystem, you work at minimising the damage. Sloppy mental practice can
indeed spoil discourse, but so can a hostile attitude.

I wrote:
> >Never seen any surviving rationale for interpreting the qualitities of
the 3
> >ways, would be interesting. Ziggurat levels were painted in the
appropriate
> >planetary colours.

Peter replied:
> The three ways were associated with the major gods, Anu, Enlil and Enki.

I knew that much.

> Fire, water and air respectively. These were the elemental influences upon
> the seven planets, and (for the spiritually intoxicated) the corresponding
> subtle bodies of man. The fourth element was represented by the Earth.

Hm, thanks. This is indeed a theoretical framework. The earth/fourth body
being the physical? Water being the emotional body, air the mental, fire
the spiritual?

Why correlate Anu (middle way) with Fire? Why attribute the other two to
south & north? Why no Ea (Capricorn) in this scheme?

> Accordingly, the periodic table of elements, Lorenzo held aloft as the
only
> true archetype, was revealed in a dream after years of fruitless research.

Lorenzo appears to have no idea what an archetype is. The periodic table
arises from the number of protons in the nucleus, plus the structure of
possible electron orbits. That is to say, it is a pattern of relationships.
It does have a basis in the archetypes of nature, inasmuch as the structural
configurations contain certain basic numbers and forms. It is this
composition of number archetypes and orbital orientations that atoms & solar
systems share.

Dennis

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #38

exegesis Digest Thu, 04 Sep 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 039

In This Issue:
#1: From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #38

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

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:53:42 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #38

>> Fire, water and air respectively. These were the elemental influences upon
>> the seven planets, and (for the spiritually intoxicated) the corresponding
>> subtle bodies of man. The fourth element was represented by the Earth.
>
>Hm, thanks. This is indeed a theoretical framework.
>
>Why correlate Anu (middle way) with Fire? Why attribute the other two to
>south & north? Why no Ea (Capricorn) in this scheme?
>

Dennis,

Would you know a "weed" if you saw it?

Ea and Enki are the same deity. And the elemental correspondences are
historical fact.

What you do with it is up to you.

Peter Nielsen

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #39

exegesis Digest Fri, 05 Sep 2003 Volume: 08 Issue: 040

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36
#2: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #39

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

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #36
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:37:45 +0000

....a bit late respond:

Jan-Sar wrote:
>I am trying to find a link that hopefully may bridge a philosophical
>discussion with the work of practicing astrologers in a comprehensive and
>contributory way. So far what with all this haughty exchange, I am getting
>the impression that I may be living on another planet.
Frank Dennis:
- Actually this list was a damn sight more haughty some years back. Have
you tried any other online astrology discussion? I tried a few. Mainstream
astrologers are so predictable you may get bored to death, and there are
always plenty of other less-adequate participants. Hard to find a worthy
signal amidst the noise.
Jan:
Hard to find? It is almost impossible. This was the reason why I am trying
to find something useful here…

Jan:
>In Nature there are available only two choices, that of "Yes" or "No" and
>we may express this also in a binary system of 1 or 0. There is no other
>form or definition for "maybe" and everything that we may find in between
>is some combination between "black" and "white" (using analogy), which
>comes out in a shade of "grey".
Frank:
- What about the chameleon? True, one can't deny the dualism in nature.
The bilateral symmetry of the left-right brain hemispheres is pretty stark,
not to mention that on the surface of the human body, and limbs. Not much
in
the heart though, eh?
Jan:
I don’t want to go into discussion that colours are equally shadows of grey.
Duality? Or maybe some kind of mirror imagining? It is not my area of
expertise anyway. I did, however, some exercise with horoscopes of conjoined
twins and this is an extremely mystifying and spooky corner of life.

Jan:
Any imaginable "prototype" that we would like to look for must originate
from these "bi-choices"; therefore there is place for only one prototype
(call it archetype if you wish). Consequently, to come with a…
Frank:
- Perhaps the toy kaleidoscope is a good model. The internal mirrors
generate the apparent visual complexity. Any emergent complex natural
system will be related to its more simple components in a similar manner.
The astrological
archetypes are generated by the solar system, with component major bodies
(orbits) playing a similar structural role to the mirrors.
Jan:
The kaleidoscope is an exceptionally good example for understanding how
symbols evolve. Symbols are these multifaceted crystals (and I am not
referring here to Jung in any way); their usefulness is in that when they
represent the same in principle, they change their meaning constantly in the
translation that depends upon time-space factor. This gives results in the
flexibility of Keywords, and how they convey this actual meaning.

Jan:
>For a more coherent (and consistent) definition we have to rely on
>algorithms of Symbols - and there is little else more complex than symbols.
>They must encompass a multi-possibility of those binary combinations
>arising from our primary single prototype.
Frank:
- I guess `encompass a multiplicity of ensuing possible combinations' is
appropriately evocative of what happens. Symbols are problematic to me. Too
plastic, too culture-dependent. To err is human, and I prefer something
closer to the action (even if it starts to seem inhuman). Symbols attract
the psychological projections of people like dead meat in the sun attracts
flies. The overlay of mass projections obscures the essence beneath.
Jan:
Yes, we all err “dear Brutus,” and there is nothing that shows this better
than astrology… Psychological projections are always unfinished and we never
can express ourselves within the full potential. You may call it our fate…
somewhere there must be a place for this articulation. Where would one find
use for an astrologer in a perfect world?

Referring to your intense discussion on the 12 signs I may add a tidbit of
another kind. There exists some perceptible physical, “seasonal,”
differences of some body parts that could be attached to, more or less, the
12 “signs.” They may have a link to seasons or to lunations or to something
else, but are rather more obvious in their allusion to women than to men. I
doubt if anyone will find here any spiritual references. I did a pilot
project on this subject in mid 80’s (The Ecliptic, B.C. Astrological Society
Journal). I have no knowledge of any others who have noticed these
differences.

Jan-Sar Skapski astrol. ind.

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #39
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:59:02 +1200

> >Why correlate Anu (middle way) with Fire? Why attribute the other two to
> >south & north? Why no Ea (Capricorn) in this scheme?
> Ea and Enki are the same deity. And the elemental correspondences are
> historical fact.
> What you do with it is up to you.

Well, I was hoping for a little more. That you had some comprehension of
the scheme and were willing to share it with us, for instance. It is true
that Sir Leonard Woolley is of the opinion that Ea and Enki were the same
deity, but other contributors to the literature do not share that opinion.

You correlated Enki with air, but Woolley describes him as "lord of the
waters" ("The Sumerians", p121) and "the water-god" (p137). This implies
that your assertion that "the elemental correspondences are historical fact"
is merely a personal opinion.

In any case, these Sumerian elemental correspondences seem to have no
logical correlation with the later elemental correspondences with the
tropics & equinoxes, which obviously weakens the argument in favour of the
historical pedigree of the zodiac.

Dennis

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #40

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