Exegesis Volume 08 Issues #051-055

exegesis Digest Fri, 19 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 051

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Dale Huckeby
  Subject: [e] Missing Post

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

Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:01:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Missing Post
 

  Would appreciate it if somebody would forward or, better yet, bounce
a copy of #48 to me, which I seem to have missed or something.

TIA,
Dale Huckeby
 
 

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #51
 

exegesis Digest Sat, 20 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 052

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #49

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #49
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:19:49 +1200

Bill Sheeran wrote:
> Astrology is in an odd position as it is still doing battle with
> modernism (which for the sake of this conversation I'll define as the
> consequences of the paradigm shift which occurred between the 17trh
> and first half of the 20th century). Rather than seeing postmodern
> perspectives as a challenge, they tend to be seen perversely as a
> source of relief. I would see them as demanding a radical
> re-visualising of the way astrology is conceived.

Oh, I see.

> Such a reappraisal of astrology within the context of an alternative
> paradigm will not happen as a direct consequence of argument. I agree
> with Max Planck, who suggested that paradigm shifts occur when those
> in positions of power who defend the old perspectives die out. Newer
> perspectives on astrology which emerge from within contemporary
> culture will eventually be assimilated because they make sense within
> that culture's intellectual sensibility. If astrology doesn't go
> extinct in the meantime, it will be the younger afficionados who pick
> up on creative developments in this respect. However, this obviously
> depends on those creative ideas being made available for perusal, even
> though they are likely to be initially ignored or rejected.

Hmm.  Would be nice to think that younger generations are producing some
individuals capable of dealing with the intellectual challenge.  I see no
evidence of it happening yet.  This mailing list, for instance, seems to be
the only suitable online forum for discussing such endeavours.  If I am
wrong about this, I would be delighted to be informed of any other providing
that function.

> =46or a good while I have felt the need for a different kind of meeting
> of astrologers, more in line with a think tank. The main problem is
> sponsorship. Locking 10 - 15 astrologers and others away in a suitably
> comfortable location to present points, brainstorm and so on with the
> goal of re-conceiving astrology and drawing order out of the chaos.

A nice idea, but it would only be productive if the participants already
were "re-conceiving astrology" individually.  Such commonality of approach
would be requisite to facilitate the meeting of minds in a crucible of
potential consensus.  Then there is the need for the germinal spark - new
concepts, which are more intuited by individuals than emergent from any
collaborative context.  Not trying to be a downer on collaboration (quite
the opposite).  I just feel that those who are potential contributors ought
to be evident from their solo efforts and predisposition.

Communal progress requires the discipline of collaboration to extend
individual insights into a new group like-mindedness.  The merit of the
think-tank approach therefore lies mainly in that the internal group
functional disciplines tend to constellate the new paradigm.  Participants
come to agree that they are seeing things the same way, even when individual
differences initially seemed to discourage prospects.  Where there's a will,
there's a way.  If participants share a common goal, that provides the
communal will, and the way ahead tends to naturally emerge.  [I have
experienced this for myself in various group contexts in the past.]

> The Internet can play a part in this regard, but I think that real
> time communication and exchange in the physical plane would be more
> productive.

Quite right.  A major finding from neuroscience in the past decade or so is
the role played by feeling in the emergence of intelligence.  [Daniel
Goleman's "Emotional Intelligence" providing a suitable overview of
developments.]  In the astrological paradigm, the element water fulfills
this function.  Communal discourse seems to be as much mediated by the
feelings of participants as by their ideas.

Online communication is overtly cerebral, but tacitly emotional.  Some
participants react to the emotional subtext more than to the explicit
concepts.  We have seen a couple of classic examples of this in Exegesis in
the past week or so!

> Total pluralism is an unsustainable position and is just as warped in
> that respect as absolute certainty. It is actually the condition of
> postmodern hell.

Yes.  My social consciousness was formed in the time when the norms of
convention prevailing were founded upon the presumption of certainty, and
now we live in a time when the prevailing norms presume uncertainty.  For
me, this dichotomy exists as an historical polarity in my psyche (in the
Freudian view, in the superego).  Younger folks lack this perspective, and
seem to always be mentally floundering in relativism.

What concerns me about this isn't so much that they are mired in this mental
swampland, more that they seem to be unaware of the existence of dry land,
and the possibility of getting there.

> As far as I can see, the nearest thing approaching a doctrine in
> astrology is the implicit acknowledgement and dependence on a doctrine
> of correspondences. Whether or not one sees this as having a 'core of
> reliable substance' depends on one's judgement criteria. But it does
> seem to have had a longevity in one form or another from astrology's
> beginnings up until the present.

As above, so below.  One can use the number archetypes theory to illuminate
this widely-held belief.  It is overtly dualistic (2), and tacitly holistic
(1).  Much as the Tao produces yin/yang, such synchronicity signals a deeper
meaning embedded in the total environmental context.

> In my view, there are two types of traditionalist. Those who
> resolutely espouse the pre-modern astrological perspective and who
> reject the influence of modernism and postmodernism on astrology (for
> example, the late Olivia Barclay and the English 'Lilly school').
> Secondly, there are those who have no bones to pick in principle with
> the influence of modernism on contemporary astrology, but who adopt a
> postmodern attitude by acknowledging the value of earlier knowledge
> traditions. Modernism is characterised by the notion of linear
> progress and the inherent inferiority of conceptualisations from the
> past. Postmodernism challenges this assumption.

I see.  My view of postmodernism has been too jaundiced, perhaps.  It was
derived from mainstream culture rather than reading contemporary philosophy,
so I learnt more about the downstream effects.

> Individuals like Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt fall into this
> postmodern group due to their revisiting of older astrologies with a
> view to clarifying the astrology of the present. I call them
> neo-traditionalists to separate them from the traditionalists who
> emphatically park their tents in the pre-modern conceptual field. In
> Schmidt's case, he's almost inventing a new astrology based on his
> translations of Greek texts.

Ok, I accept your distinction.  I guess I have reservations, in that
implicit fundamentalist presumptions often seem to colour the writings of
Hand & Schmidt.  Sure, original meanings get distorted by subsequent
interpretation by others, and even more by misinterpretation.  What if the
original meanings were incorrect?

> The challenge for astrologers is to let go of the heavens with all
> their uniformity and linearity for long enough to contemplate the
> extent of the subjectivity involved in the astrological process.
> Astrology will never make sense just by looking to the stars and
> assuming that astrological 'effects' come from 'out there'.

True, and an important point.  I see the effects as coming from `in here' as
well as 'out there'.  The archetypes mediate both realms because they emerge
from the unitary source that encompasses the whole.

> The fact that there is so much diversity in astrology, much of it
> mutually exclusive, suggests one of two things. Either astrology is a
> load of bullshit. Or the most important component in the astrological
> process is the astrologer. In the latter case, the fact of the
> diversity in terms of tools, techniques, reference frameworks,
> symbolically empowered bodies and so on is irrelevant. What counts is
> that the astrologer is engaged in a cognitively based subjective
> mapping process and uses the tools being used as a matter of
> preference and choice.

Astrological methodology then becomes artistry, with no possibility of
science involved.  Results become relative only to users of the art
(including client as well as artist).  Meaning of findings is insufficiently
objective to enable 3rd-party comprehension.

> On the face of it, this means one has to accept the argumentative
> weakness associated with the "it works for me" defence gambit. But
> this is only a problem if one assumes astrology has to be explained in
> terms of external mechanisms which directly connect the heavens to
> worldly affairs.

Yes, the problem is one of historical beliefs shaping current expectations.
People continue to believe in some kind of effect of the stars on human
life.

> It is in this respect that I believe astrology needs to be completely
> reframed. Certainly, if one places the astrologer at the centre of the
> astrological process and works outwards from there, the focus of
> attention rapidly moves to areas such as epistemology, semiotics,
> cognitive science and consciousness studies. From this perspective,
> and that of general cultural studies, the diversity we see in
> astrology is no longer a major problem. Which is not to say that it
> never requires weeding or reasoned debate. But the nature of the
> diversity problem has to be kept in proportion.

Seems like a productive approach, provided popular beliefs are kept in mind.
Academics are notorious for their collective inability to influence the
thinking of ordinary people.  Even if we agree on a contemporary definition
of astrology, it must be simplified sufficiently to translate belief "in
some kind of effect of the stars on human life" into a better capsule
description that is accessible to the public.

> Naturally, other problems emerge when one jettisons the causative
> framing of astrology. For example, where do the rhythmic patterns come
> from if not the planetary cycles which are seen to match them? I don't
> know!

My explanation of this has yet to fully gell.  I had a strong intuitive
perception of it (wrote my book on that basis), and that view persists, but
progressing it has been difficult.  The number archetypes are clearly (to
me), the conceptual basis of the explanation.  They obviously structure the
resonances of the solar system, and thus our experiential time cycles.  I
presume this external temporal structure emerges internally in
correspondence, since both derive synchronistically from the same source.
Explaining how the astrological archetypes emerge at higher levels of
complexity of the holarchy is the tough bit.

> Yes, I am an optimist. I think that in the long run astrology will be
> reconstructed according to modern (i.e. future contemporary)
> sensibilities. That it will recover from the profoundly disturbing
> impact of Cartesian thinking, materialism, rationalism, scientism and
> so on. The reason I remain optimistic is because I don't doubt
> astrology's functional value, which doesn't even depend on it being
> objectively 'true'. I believe the astrological process generates
> insights and added information about system dynamics.

Yes, astrology's impact on users seems vastly greater than psychology's.  As
regards "system dynamics", I expected general systems theory to progress
toward explanations of this, but it hasn't happened.  I guess complexity of
natural systems is sufficient to prevent any general structure from becoming
apparent.  Koestler's expansion of holism was helpful (the`janus-faces' &
picture of holarchy structure).  Explained the operation of the vertical
axis of the horoscope to my satisfaction (by providing the context of a
general theory outside astrology).

Thanks, Bill.  Think I'm getting a more balanced view of astrology &
postmodernism now.
 

Dennis Frank

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #52
 

exegesis Digest Mon, 22 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 053

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Bill Sheeran
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #52

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

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #52
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:32:36 +0100

Hi Dennis

>This mailing list, for instance, seems to be
>the only suitable online forum for discussing such endeavours.

Yes, I haven't come across another discussion group that covers the
same territory, though there are individual sites where new ideas are
proposed or get an airing (e.g. CURA).

It may simply be reflecting the trend I noticed when a scientist. That
most scientists aren't interested in the philosophy of science or
looking at basic metaphysical assumptions about reality with a
critical eye. Mind you, there is more theoretical discussion within
science, but that isn't too surprising as science is tailor-made for
it. Also, the academic world does provide an environment which makes
intellectual discourse much easier.

Astrology and astrologers have just about every obstacle one can
imagine working against them in this respect. As a result there are
only a very small number of astrologers grappling with what are very
challenging conceptual issues. They tend to be far flung and isolated,
which means that each is usually unaware of what the others are up to.
There is little potential for cross fertilisation of ideas or the
emergence of a common template. Which is a shame, because it would be
great if the few engaged in such projects could benefit from some
co-ordination.
>
>A nice idea, but it would only be productive if the participants already
>were "re-conceiving astrology" individually.  Such commonality of =
approach
>would be requisite to facilitate the meeting of minds in a crucible of
>potential consensus.  Then there is the need for the germinal spark - =
new
>concepts, which are more intuited by individuals than emergent from any
>collaborative context.  Not trying to be a downer on collaboration =
(quite
>the opposite).  I just feel that those who are potential contributors =
ought
>to be evident from their solo efforts and predisposition.

I suppose I've just repeated this point you made. Perhaps a first step
would be making the effort to discover who is working on what ideas.
And then try to set up a network so that a potential for synergy and
emergence can come into play (the product begins to acquire a
character which is greater than the sum of its individual parts).
There has to be communication and information exchange for this to
happen.

>Participants
>come to agree that they are seeing things the same way, even when =
individual
>differences initially seemed to discourage prospects.

Yes. The differences are important in maintaining a critical tension,
but as you say, it would be nice if such differences could
nevertheless be accomodated within a broad consensus. That in itself
would be a major achievement.

Such a consensus would have to be generated on a very basic level.
Part of the problem is the fact that unlike the scientific project,
astrology involves the inter-penetration of the physical and symbolic.
In a western cultural and intellectual context, these two fields have
been polarised into opposites. As a consequence, there are those
astrologers who are grappling with an elaboration of the astrological
process by focusing on the physical and/or mathematical aspects, while
there are others looking at astrology and psyche.

The basic consensus has to emerge from a consideration of astrology on
its own terms, which means looking at the overall process. This
includes animate and inanimate (even purely abstract) contexts and
interpreting astrologers as much as it includes stars and planets or
symbols on pieces of paper.

It would be a good start if if agreement could be found on what
constitutes the astrological process. For me, it includes the whole of
astrology's history. The starting point would be the question "what do
all astrologies have in common?". The issue of diversity (Chinese,
Mayan, Vedic, Graeco-Babylonian, sidereal vs tropical, Campanus vs
Placidus, asteroids yes or no, etc.) is an unnecessary distraction
which obscures the fundamental metaphysical questions.

It is for this reason that I have chosen to focus on the astrologer as
the central element in the astrological process, as opposed to for
example the heavens which is obviously a common thread among
astrologies too. The experience of that aspect of our environment has
changed enormously over the millennia. On the other hand, I feel that
as an astrologer I am engaged in the same task (and process) as a 12th
century Arab astrologer, a Chinese astrologer, or a Mayan astrologer.
Astrology is concerned with increasing the range of 'seeing' and
always has been. So who is doing the seeing? The client?

=46rom the point of view of my own favourite form of intellectual
masochism, I am not particularly interested in how the planets
'influence' the psyche or genes of the client, or modulate the
fortunes of Iraq. My whole focus in terms of elaborating judicial
astrology is on what the astrologer is actually doing. If the
astrologer is ignored or taken out of the equation, what is left
behind in my view is astronomy.

This tendency to ignore the astrologer when considering the nature of
astrology is simply a consequence of the deep influence of Cartesian
thinking on astrologers in the modern era.

>My social consciousness was formed in the time when the norms of
>convention prevailing were founded upon the presumption of certainty, =
and
>now we live in a time when the prevailing norms presume uncertainty.  =
For
>me, this dichotomy exists as an historical polarity in my psyche (in the
>Freudian view, in the superego).  Younger folks lack this perspective, =
and
>seem to always be mentally floundering in relativism.

That's a fair point, though it's difficult to know to what extent this
is a projection. It may be that those born into a cultural context
which is in the throes of turbulent 'transients' as relativism
proceeds to a phase of stabilisation will be the ones who oversee the
stabilisation. Order emerges out of chaos. In other words, the younger
folk may not experience the relativism the way we do.
>
>What concerns me about this isn't so much that they are mired in this =
mental
>swampland, more that they seem to be unaware of the existence of dry =
land,
>and the possibility of getting there.

They will construct the dry land, and it will look foreign to us
(though we'll probably be dead before its nature becomes clear).
>
>> As far as I can see, the nearest thing approaching a doctrine in
>> astrology is the implicit acknowledgement and dependence on a doctrine
>> of correspondences. Whether or not one sees this as having a 'core of
>> reliable substance' depends on one's judgement criteria. But it does
>> seem to have had a longevity in one form or another from astrology's
>> beginnings up until the present.
>
>As above, so below.  One can use the number archetypes theory to =
illuminate
>this widely-held belief.  It is overtly dualistic (2), and tacitly =
holistic
>(1).  Much as the Tao produces yin/yang, such synchronicity signals a =
deeper
>meaning embedded in the total environmental context.

I am very interested in some of the ideas emerging within cognitive
science and cognitive linguistics. These broadly fit into and support
a 'constructionist' view of reality and are based on empirical
research. To give a simple example of constructionist thinking,
objectively speaking, the sky has no colour. We 'construct' a sea of
blue from wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, lighting
conditions, colour cones in the retina and neural processing. Color
concepts are interactional and ultimately rooted in our physical
embodiment. Green-ness is not a property of grass in the external
objective sense.

This approach is extended by some researchers to the point where most
of the main philosophical and metaphysical assumptions about reality
are over turned. The more radical exponents such as George Lakoff,
Mark Johnson, Humberto Maturana and Francesco Varela focus attention
on the connection between the construction of reality as a rational
process and human physical embodiment. This bridges the Cartesian
divide between mind and matter.

To me this is a promising field of exploration as regards making sense
of astrology. The doctrine of correspondences, man as a microcosmic
mirror of the macrocosm and so on would seem to resonate with these
ideas which postulate the construction of reality models based on
physical embodiment.

I've just started reading 'Philosophy in the Flesh' by George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson (Basic Books, 1999) which lays out the ideas in some
detail. It's very readable. Lakoff is a cognitive scientist from  the
University of Berkeley, California while Johnson is a cognitive
scientist from the University of Oregon. One of the many things I find
fascinating about their viewpoint is that it challenges both
analytical philosophy and postmodern philosophy. It rejects both
objectivism and relativism by insisting that truths acquire stability
and the possibility of common consensus due to the mind's physical
embodiment. This means that the notion of relativistic truths being
inevitably a consequence of cultural variation is misguided, as all
humans share at root the same experience of physical embodiment.
Similarly, the postulated (and apparently empirically supported)
theory of the embodied mind destroys objectivism.

These ideas aren't new, as I first came across them in the early 1980s
while reading 'Metaphors We Live By', written by the same authors and
published by the University of Chicago Press. All that has happened in
the meantime is 20 years of further empirical research which has
supported the thesis.

I'm sure that Lakoff, Johnson and the rest have their critics.
However, it is not surprising that such radical ideas should be
emerging from cognitive science, neuroscience and consciousness
studies, as these are the leading edge of scientific endeavour. They
are addressing the most complex aspects of the human condition, and
are the consequence of the evolutionary path science has taken from
the simplicities of mechanical physics through chemistry and then the
biological sciences, each stage being systemically more complex than
the previous. So an equivalent of Darwinian evolutionary theory or
relativity theory will come into view at some stage and it will be
equally challenging to earlier concepts of reality.

=46or astrologers though it presents a fertile ground for contemplation,
particularly as it transcends the Cartesian split that cracked
astrology wide open and has caused problems for it ever since. In
other words, it provides an alternative and modern conceptual
framework within which astrology can be considered. One which is not
tied to older models from physics or psychology.

I think you might find the contents of 'Philosophy in the Flesh' very
stimulating if you haven't already come across the ideas which lie at
its heart (or even if you have).
>
>Ok, I accept your distinction.  I guess I have reservations, in that
>implicit fundamentalist presumptions often seem to colour the writings =
of
>Hand & Schmidt.  Sure, original meanings get distorted by subsequent
>interpretation by others, and even more by misinterpretation.  What if =
the
>original meanings were incorrect?

I would use the phrase 'no longer appropriate' rather than incorrect.
Maybe the ideas worked well in their day. But to use the Lakoff
perspective, the common ground which binds us to our ancestors
(physical embodiment as humans) is also modulated by a cultural
overlay. Thus some 'truths' within astrology will seem perennial,
while others have a transient value.
>
>>What counts is
>> that the astrologer is engaged in a cognitively based subjective
>> mapping process and uses the tools being used as a matter of
>> preference and choice.=3D20
>
>Astrological methodology then becomes artistry, with no possibility of
>science involved.  Results become relative only to users of the art
>(including client as well as artist).  Meaning of findings is =
insufficiently
>objective to enable 3rd-party comprehension.

Yes, I think astrological interpretation definitely involves artistry
and craft skills. I'm not sure that this negates the possibility of
3rd party comprehension altogether, but it may put a spanner in the
works when it comes to reproducibility in a scientific sense.
Astrologers appreciate interpretative artisitry when they see it, even
if it involves techniques which they don't use themselves. So there is
at least the possibility of post facto comprehension of the
interpretative route which has been followed.

>Yes, the problem is one of historical beliefs shaping current =
expectations.
>People continue to believe in some kind of effect of the stars on human
>life.

I think that will change (is changing) as a prevailing attitude among
astrologers and it is up to them to shift the public perception in
this respect. It is complicated by the fact that the physical solar
system does effect our quality of experience, but that is more physics
and astronomy than astrology.
>
>Academics are notorious for their collective inability to influence the
>thinking of ordinary people.  Even if we agree on a contemporary =
definition
>of astrology, it must be simplified sufficiently to translate belief "in
>some kind of effect of the stars on human life" into a better capsule
>description that is accessible to the public.

Yes, that is quite a challenge. I think it would help if the heavens
were seen as an integral part of the human environment rather than
being outside it and 'up there'. In which case one can start to see
the astrological process as involving a largely imaginal reading of
one's environment in an holistic sense (the parts of the whole are
interconnected; the part reveals something about the whole; this part
reveals something about that part). Astrology as revelation rather
than causation, which is another of my hobby horses.
>
>> Naturally, other problems emerge when one jettisons the causative
>> framing of astrology. For example, where do the rhythmic patterns come
>> from if not the planetary cycles which are seen to match them? I don't
>> know!=3D20
>
>My explanation of this has yet to fully gell.  I had a strong intuitive
>perception of it (wrote my book on that basis), and that view persists, =
but
>progressing it has been difficult.  The number archetypes are clearly =
(to
>me), the conceptual basis of the explanation.  They obviously structure =
the
>resonances of the solar system, and thus our experiential time cycles.  =
I
>presume this external temporal structure emerges internally in
>correspondence, since both derive synchronistically from the same =
source.
>Explaining how the astrological archetypes emerge at higher levels of
>complexity of the holarchy is the tough bit.

This is one area where the new ideas from cognitive science and
philosophy may open doors for your perceptions. I haven't reached the
point in the book yet, but I'll be surprised if it doesn't address the
concept of number awareness.

>As
>regards "system dynamics", I expected general systems theory to progress
>toward explanations of this, but it hasn't happened.  I guess complexity=
 of
>natural systems is sufficient to prevent any general structure from =
becoming
>apparent.  Koestler's expansion of holism was helpful (the`janus-faces' =
&
>picture of holarchy structure).  Explained the operation of the vertical
>axis of the horoscope to my satisfaction (by providing the context of a
>general theory outside astrology).

You will find the exploration of verticality as a feature of human
embodiment and its comparison with 'horizontality' interesting. Left
and right are not as topologically differentiated as up and down or
front and back, etc..

I don't think that systems' theories will 'explain' astrology but I do
think they have a relevance for how astrology is practised. Simply
because astrology entails mapping onto complex systems. These theories
help one to understand system behaviour and help to keep expectations
in proportion, especially but not solely as regards prediction. The
structures of systems theories are really geometric process-structures
which take up room in multidimensional phase space (attractors). In
the physical domain a typical example of a process structure would be
a vortex which forms out of the flow dynamics. I use the vortex
regularly as an analogy when discussing horoscopes.

All the best,

Bill

http://www.radical-astrology.com
 

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #53
 

exegesis Digest Tue, 23 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 054

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #53

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

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #53
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:21:06 +1200

> I suppose I've just repeated this point you made. Perhaps a first step
> would be making the effort to discover who is working on what ideas.
> And then try to set up a network so that a potential for synergy and
> emergence can come into play (the product begins to acquire a
> character which is greater than the sum of its individual parts).
> There has to be communication and information exchange for this to
> happen.

Well, I've been looking for such a process a long time.  Transcending the
ego is another hurdle.  We intellectual entrepreneurs get attached to our
own theories.  If these seem to have merit, one finds oneself promoting
them.  [I used to (naively) assume others would see the merit without my
pointing it out, so it took me a few years to realise that this wasn't
happening due to the obscurity of the conceptual material.]  The
psychodynamics of groups are such that egos tend to compete, and this
process becomes inevitable if concerns are ignored rather than addressed.  I
have found that groups become productive when participants acknowledge merit
(even if relative) in the ideas of others.  Amongst astrologers, this
phenomenon is fairly rare (Exegesis is typical).

> >Participants
> >come to agree that they are seeing things the same way, even when =
> individual
> >differences initially seemed to discourage prospects.
>
> Yes. The differences are important in maintaining a critical tension,
> but as you say, it would be nice if such differences could
> nevertheless be accomodated within a broad consensus. That in itself
> would be a major achievement.

I have led groups of astrologers that did achieve such consensus, so I know
it can be done.  Online may be harder, because participants are more often
strangers to each other.

> It would be a good start if if agreement could be found on what
> constitutes the astrological process. For me, it includes the whole of
> astrology's history. The starting point would be the question "what do
> all astrologies have in common?". The issue of diversity (Chinese,
> Mayan, Vedic, Graeco-Babylonian, sidereal vs tropical, Campanus vs
> Placidus, asteroids yes or no, etc.) is an unnecessary distraction
> which obscures the fundamental metaphysical questions.

I suppose the answer is use of the heavens for divination purposes.

> It is for this reason that I have chosen to focus on the astrologer as
> the central element in the astrological process, as opposed to for
> example the heavens which is obviously a common thread among
> astrologies too. The experience of that aspect of our environment has
> changed enormously over the millennia. On the other hand, I feel that
> as an astrologer I am engaged in the same task (and process) as a 12th
> century Arab astrologer, a Chinese astrologer, or a Mayan astrologer.
> Astrology is concerned with increasing the range of 'seeing' and
> always has been. So who is doing the seeing? The client?

No, the astrologer.  The client may see something too, but usually not the
same thing.

> =46rom the point of view of my own favourite form of intellectual
> masochism, I am not particularly interested in how the planets
> 'influence' the psyche or genes of the client, or modulate the
> fortunes of Iraq. My whole focus in terms of elaborating judicial
> astrology is on what the astrologer is actually doing. If the
> astrologer is ignored or taken out of the equation, what is left
> behind in my view is astronomy.

(Don't mind me, I'm just reacting.)  What's left behind is the residue of
the reading (advice given, or gist of analysis).

> This tendency to ignore the astrologer when considering the nature of
> astrology is simply a consequence of the deep influence of Cartesian
> thinking on astrologers in the modern era.

Folks traditionally assume astrologers give the same answer, in principle.
[In practice, we know it ain't so.]  Residual expectations consequent of
traditional allocation of astrology as a science (to some extent).  Even for
those who knew it wasn't, the technique, because it was based on
calculations, seemed to promise an objective answer (even if fraudulently)..

> I am very interested in some of the ideas emerging within cognitive
> science and cognitive linguistics. These broadly fit into and support
> a 'constructionist' view of reality and are based on empirical
> research. To give a simple example of constructionist thinking,
> objectively speaking, the sky has no colour. We 'construct' a sea of
> blue from wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, lighting
> conditions, colour cones in the retina and neural processing. Color
> concepts are interactional and ultimately rooted in our physical
> embodiment. Green-ness is not a property of grass in the external
> objective sense.

Why are there 7 colours in the rainbow?  Guess if you're an hermeticist,
because there are 7 planets.

Ok, we construct our reality, based on what we see and believe.  Agreement
on the fundamentals breeds culture.  But let's not forget Bateson's dictum:
the map is not the territory.  Sure looks like it though!  We model it on
the territory as closely as possible.  Evolution drives this convergence,
since those who get it wrong get weeded out.

> To me this is a promising field of exploration as regards making sense
> of astrology. The doctrine of correspondences, man as a microcosmic
> mirror of the macrocosm and so on would seem to resonate with these
> ideas which postulate the construction of reality models based on
> physical embodiment.

Yes, an internal model of the (local) cosmos.

> I've just started reading 'Philosophy in the Flesh' by George Lakoff
> and Mark Johnson (Basic Books, 1999) which lays out the ideas in some
> detail. It's very readable. Lakoff is a cognitive scientist from  the
> University of Berkeley, California while Johnson is a cognitive
> scientist from the University of Oregon. One of the many things I find
> fascinating about their viewpoint is that it challenges both
> analytical philosophy and postmodern philosophy. It rejects both
> objectivism and relativism by insisting that truths acquire stability
> and the possibility of common consensus due to the mind's physical
> embodiment. This means that the notion of relativistic truths being

Oh good, sounds like progress.  I have been at pains to make this point in
Exegesis, using the notion of `relative objectivity'.  Our maps are
essentially subjective, being self-created, but become effectively identical
to those of others because they are modelled via sensory input, from the
same environmental source.  [Disregarding the variations due to local
space/time perspectives, of course!!]

> inevitably a consequence of cultural variation is misguided, as all
> humans share at root the same experience of physical embodiment.
> Similarly, the postulated (and apparently empirically supported)
> theory of the embodied mind destroys objectivism.

I'm reading "Coming to our Senses:  Body and spirit in the hidden history of
the West" (Morris Berman,'89).  It's quite a revelation.  I do a few pages
every now & then, savouring the various profundities encountered.  Rare to
find a writer of such deep insight.  Densely-packed stuff, highly relevant
to your point above.

> These ideas aren't new, as I first came across them in the early 1980s
> while reading 'Metaphors We Live By', written by the same authors and
> published by the University of Chicago Press. All that has happened in
> the meantime is 20 years of further empirical research which has
> supported the thesis.

I'll check both out when I get the opportunity, thanks.

> =46or astrologers though it presents a fertile ground for contemplation,
> particularly as it transcends the Cartesian split that cracked
> astrology wide open and has caused problems for it ever since. In
> other words, it provides an alternative and modern conceptual
> framework within which astrology can be considered. One which is not
> tied to older models from physics or psychology.
>
> I think you might find the contents of 'Philosophy in the Flesh' very
> stimulating if you haven't already come across the ideas which lie at
> its heart (or even if you have).

Indeed.  I wonder if you are willing/able to clarify your suggestion ("it
provides an alternative and modern conceptual
framework") further?

>>Sure, original meanings get distorted by subsequent interpretation
>> by others, and even more by misinterpretation.  What if the
>>original meanings were incorrect?
>
> I would use the phrase 'no longer appropriate' rather than incorrect.

Heh heh, hardly surprising.  I'm perversely old-fashioned when I feel the
need!

> Yes, that is quite a challenge. I think it would help if the heavens
> were seen as an integral part of the human environment rather than
> being outside it and 'up there'. In which case one can start to see
> the astrological process as involving a largely imaginal reading of
> one's environment in an holistic sense (the parts of the whole are
> interconnected; the part reveals something about the whole; this part
> reveals something about that part). Astrology as revelation rather
> than causation, which is another of my hobby horses.

Apart from an internal model of our (cosmic) environment, I suppose there
must be a dimension of meaning accompanying it.  Interface between personal
subconscious & collective unconscious, somehow.

> You will find the exploration of verticality as a feature of human
> embodiment and its comparison with 'horizontality' interesting. Left
> and right are not as topologically differentiated as up and down or
> front and back, etc..

Hmm.  The front/back polarity may be loosely correlated with the temporal
orientation too, at least for those of us who tend to look ahead.

> I don't think that systems' theories will 'explain' astrology but I do
> think they have a relevance for how astrology is practised. Simply
> because astrology entails mapping onto complex systems. These theories
> help one to understand system behaviour and help to keep expectations
> in proportion, especially but not solely as regards prediction. The
> structures of systems theories are really geometric process-structures
> which take up room in multidimensional phase space (attractors). In
> the physical domain a typical example of a process structure would be
> a vortex which forms out of the flow dynamics. I use the vortex
> regularly as an analogy when discussing horoscopes.

As a metaphor?  I thought there might be more to it.  It is an attractor, at
least.  I was interested to learn that the vortex model was originally used
to explain spiral galaxies, but it fell out of favour for mathematical
reasons (I think).  I suspected an archetype might be involved, so wondered
if the scientists were wrong to throw it out.  They explain the coriolis
force as a cumulative effect of molecular interactions driven by chance
(somewhat unconvincingly, in my opinion).  I had hopes for "The Vortex - Key
to future science" (Ash & Hewitt, '90), but it failed to deliver the
substance the title promised.
 

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

End of exegesis Digest V8 #54
 
 

exegesis Digest Wed, 24 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 055

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #54

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

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #54
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:41:43 -0400
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Listar" <lists@exegesis.dyndns.org>
To: "exegesis digest users" <exegesis@exegesis.dyndns.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:00 AM
Subject: exegesis Digest V8 #54
 
 

Hi, Dennis, Bill, All,
  Having read the above, I can only imagine astrologers achieving any kind
of a consensus if they adopt an agnostic position--at this time, we cannot
know the how and the why of  "influences" (whatever). All subjective beliefs
seem to have a "religious" quality: astrology may indeed warm my heart but
astrologers alienate my politically secular mind....:)
   Anyway, here is what seems the most objective demonstration of astrology
(whatever it may be). I put up this illustration on May 25, 1997:
http://www.geocities.com/pedantus/kahlo_1.html
   Kahlo's birth *time* was not available on the web due to her relative
obscurity, but after this year's release of the movie "Frida," the
bd-selling Lois Rodden went searching after it of course.  So, now we know
the birth certificate says 8:30am, exactly as I had "perceived" it.  I'm
inclined to think of this as an act of projection on the part of the
*intentionally expressive* artist, and an act of perception by an
intentionally receptive astrologist..:)   These two conditions seem to be a
must for any kind of formal investigation. This means, to me, that
psychology is the only field equipped to study such a phenomenon, regardless
of any postulated physical basis for it.  If Jung had been able to do this,
the academic world would have been rocked on its ear...all the anti-Mars
effect type scientists would have published a blizzard of contradicting
critical proofs...:)  But at least some psychologist would have tried to
better define the category of expressive vs. non-expressive performance, and
better define what "should" be perceived as evidence of any hypothesized
astrological perception activity on the part of experimental subjects.
   I can envision this type of "astrological" research in the future, for if
I can think of it, surely someone a lot smarter than I am will have similar
experiences.  But perhaps not, if astrologers themselves "believe" this
approach to be absolutely insignificant..."Oh, how nice, now lets move on to
some "real" astrology." <uhg...:( >

Rog
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #55
 

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

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