|
Exegesis Volume 09 Issues #011-020 |
exegesis Digest Wed, 24 Mar 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 011
In This Issue:
#1: From: Greg Schubert
Subject: [e] Re: URL corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Schubert
Subject: [e] Re: URL corrections
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 21:13:24 +1100
In Robert Tulips recent email (exegesis Digest V9 #9)
the first three
URLs he offers should be as follows:
http://www.astro-noetics.com/
http://cura.free.fr/
and
http://www.chaosastrology.com/
cheers
Greg Schubert
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #11
exegesis Digest Wed, 26 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 012
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: lack of
"objective" content in astrology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: lack of "objective" content in astrology
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:19:01 -0700
> #1: From: "Roger L. Satterlee" <rlsatterlee@stny.rr.com>
> But as to theories, I'm siding with
the skeptics concerning astrology's
> total lack of objectively derived content:
> Rog
Where are you getting your notions of astrological content,
Susan Miller's
website?
Astrological content is derived from case histories and
from historical
studies. Over time patterns are become aphorisms. Ptolemy
is worth reading
since the material holds up well in modern case studies.
Reading dull textbooks and doing studies was too rigorous
for the generation
just younger than mine so the astrology of archetypes
was invented while
prediction was disparaged. Most of the literature from
that era is elegant
nonsense.
The early writing on Chiron was based on Bullfinch's Mythology
and poorly
represented the real astrological effects.
Practicing astrologers who deal with actual cases, make
predictions, and do
the tedious studies are now beginning to interact informally
and are much in
agreement about how Chiron works. Generally, no "wounded
healer" although
it's conceded that there may be a subgroup for which
that is a functional
notion. No credible examples yet.
John Delaney is doing something related to archetypal
astrology but more
interesting since he proposes interpretations in advance
of the period
covered, posts them for comment by skeptical professionals,
and amends his
work. Using archetypal sources, by providing a starting
place, allows a
reasonably rapid approach to the many new bodies found
by the Hubble.
Of these, I'm finding that Quaoar and Asbolus are useful
in what i do. There
may be others over time.
Subjectivity, objectivity, sense, nonsense, pathology,
rapture -- all of
these can be found in astrology today. Objective content
has it's place but
few are interested. And it's hard to find.
Jane Axtell
http://www.startiming.net
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #12
exegesis Digest Wed, 26 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 013
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Jane Axtell,
brief info as requested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Jane Axtell, brief info as requested.
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 17:46:00 -0700
After the Associates in Arts, County Normal Program from
Bay City Junior
College, Bay City, Michigan, my academic qualifications
taper off. From
time to time, however, I become briefly notorious for
thinking in public. I
consider myself a lay philosopher. One of my special
areas of interest is
astrology. Another is the social modelling subsequent
to shifts in
cosmological metaphors. [Example is the emergence of
solar-kings in Europe
following acceptance of the heliocentric metaphor.] Other
threads of
interest have been the pragmatic functions of civilization
and pre-cursors.
Taken together these interests led me to develop material
relating to
possible galactic-dispersed astrologies. We can't speak
of galactro-centric
because of the nature of this disk of stars. Some of
this was published on
an AOL website until the Time-Warner people threatened
to claim rights in
perpetuity to my content, including the ability to transfer
these rights to
heirs and assigns. So the sites came down last summer
and i haven't had the
steam to restore them -- or the funds. Free sites generally
don't allow the
bandwidth we consume. Perhaps i'll end up throwing them
into startiming.net.
Nevertheless, we see new social modelling based on the
conflict between a
galactic modelled cosmology and the older helio metaphor.
We see fierce
resistance to new modelling as well. If the achievement
of space flight has
transformed consciousness permanently, then new modelling
will prevail, but
not necessarily as first proposed. So astrology today
becomes intertwined
with civilization studies and with all of philosophy.
Perhaps we will need
and create new definitions of what it means to be human
as well.
Cura and Exegesis can be tiring places to interact for
a low energy person
such as myself, but they are at present the only places
I can find useful
opposition and competent complaints about the thrust
of what i do.
Respectfully,
Jane Axtell
http://www.startiming.net
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #13
exegesis Digest Fri, 28 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 014
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #12
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #12
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:12:22 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Listar" <lists@exegesis.dyndns.org>
To: "exegesis digest users" <exegesis@exegesis.dyndns.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 6:46 PM
Subject: exegesis Digest V9 #12
> Where are you getting your notions of astrological content,
Susan Miller's
> website?
Sorry, never heard of her. Having googled her web
pages I see she plugs
the revamped A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator, the
original book being
my first actual astrology text...:)
>
> Astrological content is derived from case histories
and from historical
> studies. Over time patterns are become aphorisms. Ptolemy
is worth reading
> since the material holds up well in modern case studies.
I don't think the ancients had any kind of enhanced
insights, nor do I
think we should assume their legendary special knowledge
has been lost. But
I especially question the objectivity of isolated astrologers
doing informal
"case studies"...:)
>
> Reading dull textbooks and doing studies was too rigorous
for the
generation
> just younger than mine so the astrology of archetypes
was invented while
> prediction was disparaged. Most of the literature from
that era is elegant
> nonsense.
The astrology of archetypes has always been
there, we just called such
things rulerships, and made disjointed lists of attempted
associations
between planets and aspects, and, nouns and verbs. Elegant
astrology is the
quality of less disjointed, more holistic, lists of associations.
>
> The early writing on Chiron was based on Bullfinch's
Mythology and poorly
> represented the real astrological effects.
> Practicing astrologers who deal with actual cases,
make predictions, and
do
> the tedious studies are now beginning to interact informally
and are much
in
> agreement about how Chiron works. Generally, no "wounded
healer" although
> it's conceded that there may be a subgroup for which
that is a functional
> notion. No credible examples yet.
In short, we probably shouldn't be in any rush
to validate speculations
about the usefulness of asteroids (or planetoids), considering
it is dubious
as to whether or not we have even accomplished the exposition
of a
competitive "Mars Effect"....:)
>
> John Delaney is doing something related to archetypal
astrology but more
> interesting since he proposes interpretations in advance
of the period
> covered, posts them for comment by skeptical professionals,
and amends his
> work. Using archetypal sources, by providing a starting
place, allows a
> reasonably rapid approach to the many new bodies found
by the Hubble.
>
> Of these, I'm finding that Quaoar and Asbolus are useful
in what i do.
There
> may be others over time.
The psyche of the human being seems to have an
unlimited drive to connect
the objective world and our subjective responses to it.
The philosophy of
astrology, the "elegant nonsense" part..:), allows that
we may contemplate,
for instance, Sag and the 9th House as a focus on our
overall knowledge, and
here see that it comes in two flavors--subjective and
objective. For the
sake of simplicity we may as well tag that dichotomy
as mutually enhancing
realities of Science and Religion. Astrology's pseudo-scientific
matter will
of course stream into any religious void, propelled as
it is by the gravity
of the human psyche's ravenous need for a religious connectedness
between
self and other.
>
> Subjectivity, objectivity, sense, nonsense, pathology,
rapture -- all of
> these can be found in astrology today. Objective content
has it's place
but
> few are interested. And it's hard to find.
Apparently so, I have seen nothing that can be
reasonably substantiated.
But a middle-aged man does not part with either astrology
or the dream girls
that steal into the ultimate privacy of his occasionally
lonely and wholly
mysterious dream world.
Does Goya unconsciously project the pattern of
his natal chart in what he
called his "dark paintings" ...who can know?
http://home.stny.rr.com/pedantus/Goya_02a.gif
http://home.stny.rr.com/pedantus/Goya_01a.gif
But, what's more, it is likely no one can predict
what a person may paint,
and even less likely we can predict what one will live
out in their dual
role as the main character and the credited author of
their unwritten
autobiography.
Rog
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #14
exegesis Digest Fri, 28 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 015
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #14
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:49:43 -0400
Roger L. Satterlee,
I am new to this form of questioning, so I do not know
if I violate some
protocol, but I could not help but respond to your statement,=20
"> Astrological content is derived from case histories
and from=20
> historical studies. Over time patterns are become aphorisms.
Ptolemy=20
> is worth reading since the material holds up well in
modern case=20
> studies.
I don't think the ancients had any kind of enhanced
insights, nor do I
think we should assume their legendary special knowledge
has been lost.
But I especially question the objectivity of isolated
astrologers doing
informal "case studies"...:)"
For me, there is little more uncomfortable than the repeated
calls of
astrology to 'objectivity' and 'case histories', as though
it were
bidding to enter as an outcast, the upper class Club
of Social Sciences,
which themselves have long struggled for "Science" status.
It feels some
thing of the putting on of make up, so as to be like
an older half
sister who is disproportionately esteemed. When in fact
there is a
heritage of astrology (and of the epistemology upon which
its endurance
has been based), that is divergent from the Empirical
Sciences
themselves, which now reign as the authors of Truth.
Astrology is, and
always has been an interpersonal act (as might be argued
of all
knowledge), if only the example the presentation of a
reading to a King,
and its acknowledged receipt. Its authorship relies upon
the
triangulation of the knower, the seeker and the observed,
and the
effacement of the position of the "knower" that science
has in its model
attempted to obscure (hiding the fulcrum of its own power),
under the
auspices of "Laws" which the seeker can apply un-intercessed,
and the
resulting 'objectivity' undercuts the primordial creation
of meaning
that Astrology has throughout the millennia preserved.
"Case histories"
when taken as "proofs", given their narrow samples, become
nothing more
than the projection of the astrologers Intent, and at
best become
concretizations of their wisdom, at worst the charade
of 'Science', a
mimicking of method so as to attain the status of Truth.
It is rather
the sum of the repeated acts of interpretation, as they
are recorded and
find resonance within the context of the language and
the Culture of
their perpetuation, that determines the Truth of astrological
correspondence. For instance, if Chiron echoed throughout
its initial
decades as the figure of the 'wounded healer', yet now
is coming under
further transformation, this is not the 'objective' correction
of
'subjective' surmise. It is the Evolution of its meaning
in the context
of the addition of discovered bodies in competition over
the scrapes of
signification that once were neatly divided between much
fewer factors,
and the enveloping need for systemized application. The
'observed' has
produced a rupture in the Archetype, and no doubt Chiron
and others will
undergo repeated changes in the future, carried forth
from the genealogy
of meaning already in place. The Science that astrology
sometimes
aspires to is nothing more than the Mythology of our
age, and
Mythologies are of the realm where Astrology sometimes
holds court.
Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #15
exegesis Digest Sat, 29 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 016
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #14
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #14
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 22:56:25 +1200
> > Where are you getting your notions of astrological
content, Susan
Miller's
> > website?
>
> Sorry, never heard of her. Having googled
her web pages I see she plugs
> the revamped A to Z Horoscope Maker and Delineator,
the original book
being
> my first actual astrology text...:)
Never heard of her either. Followed Rog down the
trail of cosmic wisdom,
but unfortunately was unable to find time to read the
11,900 websites she
occupies, which rather prevents me from offering an informed
opinion. I did
copy this intriguing message:
Your astrologer uses a complex system of planetary charts
to create the
horoscopes for each of the 12 signs of the zodiac. Each
sign has its own
special attributes and influences. These are the Elements
of Earth, Air,
Fire and Water, the Qualities of Cardinal, Mutable, and
Fixed, and the 12
Sectors or "Houses."
Note that "your astrologer" is quite an iconoclast.
Creating a horoscope
for each sign of the zodiac is obviously a major innovation,
typical of the
glorious spirit of free-enterprise that has long characterised
american
astrology. Too bad the birth data of the signs
were not included.
> > Astrological content is derived from case histories
and from historical
> > studies. Over time patterns are become aphorisms.
Ptolemy is worth
reading
> > since the material holds up well in modern case studies.
>
> I don't think the ancients had any kind
of enhanced insights, nor do I
> think we should assume their legendary special knowledge
has been lost.
But
> I especially question the objectivity of isolated astrologers
doing
informal
> "case studies"...:)
Politely put. Isolated astrologers & their case
studies have never
demonstrated objectivity, but likewise for isolated scientists
and their
experiments. It is a communal context with disciplines
of conformity that
is the bare minimum for producing anything likely to
be consensually
identified as "objectivity".
Normally it requires the personal rigour of adherence
to agreed methods as
well. Such individual and collective disciplines
are unpalatable to
astrologers. Nowadays, of course, anyone familiar
with the trend of
scientific philosophy will be aware that objectivity
has become rather
discredited as a concept. Many are now aware that
all experience is
subjective. The practices of individual scientists
and astrologers produce
experiences, regardless that they may tout them as findings,
discoveries,
answers, etc. Such outcomes of mental process remain
subjective and
idiosyncratic unless others agree that they reveal "the
truth".
> > Reading dull textbooks and doing studies was too rigorous
for the
> generation
> > just younger than mine so the astrology of archetypes
was invented while
> > prediction was disparaged. Most of the literature
from that era is
elegant
> > nonsense.
>
> The astrology of archetypes has always
been there, we just called such
> things rulerships, and made disjointed lists of attempted
associations
> between planets and aspects, and, nouns and verbs.
Elegant astrology is
the
> quality of less disjointed, more holistic, lists of
associations.
Whilst partly agreeing with both of you, I believe that
the archetypes are
out there (and in here), regardless of how poorly some
people grasp them.
Identifying objective merit in astrology may be a waste
of time, but
progress is possible in some respects. Accurate
data is the basic
requirement, then a large body of case studies that provide
categories for
analysis. Astrodatabank seems sufficient to provide
this. It is the next
step that remains too hard: establishing criteria
for identifying
agreement. Astrology as we know it is probably
too flexible, variable,
prone to individual interpretation, to enable agreement.
For instance, anyone can see why Arnold Schwarzeneggar
always has effortless
career success. Jupiter trine the Midheaven alone
is normally sufficient to
elevate people to social prominence, but his is in double
grand trine with
Mercury & Venus rising, so he gets there via mouth
and charm. Jupiter in
the 5th provides good luck in entertainment, performance
& creative
self-express as the basis for the elevation of status.
Once you see the
chart, this is all glaringly obvious. But it could
only become objectively
true if other astrologers agreed with the explanation.
Instead, they prefer
to try and find other reasons.
For instance, people who think astrology works via rulerships
will dream up
some bullshit rulership scheme that is so implausible
that even other
astrologers who believe in rulerships will reject it,
instead constructing
another scheme of their own, equally incredible.
Those who use midpoints
will find a midpoint explanation. Those who use
asteroids may find an
explanation there, etc.
Even if something unprecedented happened, and those who
use a particular
technique actually agreed with each other for the first
time in history,
then we'd still be stuck with the replication requirement
of objectivity:
others with the same configuration must demonstrate the
same real life
success. But you can't find others with the same
configuration: everyone
is too different. As Rudhyar emphasised, astrology
deals with the unique
aspects of life. Statistical studies done in astrology
have been
unconvincing due to the suspect categorising of the database.
Such
allocations are performed by the subjective judgements
of those doing the
studies. This fact prejudices any objective outcome,
effectively aborting
the process at the very start! Putting people into
like categories is
liable to be too arbitrary a process for anyone to be
confident that it is
valid.
Dennis Frank
-----------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #16
exegesis Digest Sun, 30 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 017
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #16
Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 11:15:12 -0400
Dennis,
As one of those reckless American astrologers, as opposed
to those
purists who find themselves in latitudes where the seasons
are in
reverse of those that grounded the Western Astrology
we all study :), I
would point out that in reclaiming "Arnold's" chart from
rulership and
midpoint explanations, you have taken great liberties
in your
proclamation of the "obvious", which I suppose "proves"
the
impossibility of an agreed upon methodology, a supposed
first step in
"objectivity".
"For instance, anyone can see why Arnold Schwarzeneggar
always has
effortless career success. Jupiter trine the Midheaven
alone is
normally sufficient to elevate people to social prominence,
but his is
in double grand trine with Mercury & Venus rising,
so he gets there via
mouth and charm. Jupiter in the 5th provides good
luck in
entertainment, performance & creative self-express
as the basis for the
elevation of status. Once you see the chart, this
is all glaringly
obvious. But it could only become objectively true
if other astrologers
agreed with the explanation. Instead, they prefer
to try and find other
reasons.
For instance, people who think astrology works via rulerships
will dream
up some bullshit rulership scheme that is so implausible
that even other
astrologers who believe in rulerships will reject it,
instead
constructing another scheme of their own, equally incredible.
Those who
use midpoints will find a midpoint explanation.
Those who use asteroids
may find an explanation there, etc."
In my practice, you use an absurdly large orb (8deg22
sep) in creating
your "glaringly obvious" Venus/Jupiter/MC Grand Trine.
(Large orbs are
an epidemic these days as people are looking for the
greatest
flexibility in interpretation, but in systems that produce
fewer points
of relation, such as those that exclude rulerships, they
seem
practically a necessity).
And your Grand Trine, which you find so apparent that
no other
explanation need be sought, is based on a house system
and its MC, whose
us is at the very least...under debate.
Unfortunately, it feels as if you chose an example a bit
deficient, if
you wanted to expound on the elements a universally agreed
upon
Interpretation. But by your example you have, it seems,
proven your
larger point about the possible scientific status of
Astrology, with
which I am whole heartedly in agreement.
With care, Kevin
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #17
exegesis Digest Mon, 31 May 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 018
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #16
#2: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #16
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 09:36:51 -0400
> Politely put. Isolated astrologers & their
case studies have never
> demonstrated objectivity, but likewise for isolated
scientists and their
> experiments. It is a communal context with disciplines
of conformity that
> is the bare minimum for producing anything likely to
be consensually
> identified as "objectivity".
>
> Normally it requires the personal rigour of adherence
to agreed methods as
> well. Such individual and collective disciplines
are unpalatable to
> astrologers. Nowadays, of course, anyone familiar
with the trend of
> scientific philosophy will be aware that objectivity
has become rather
> discredited as a concept. Many are now aware
that all experience is
> subjective. The practices of individual scientists
and astrologers
produce
> experiences, regardless that they may tout them as
findings, discoveries,
> answers, etc. Such outcomes of mental process
remain subjective and
> idiosyncratic unless others agree that they reveal
"the truth".
Even if objectivity is yet another
ideal that is more easily conceived
than exhibited, there is no reason to assume that we
must accept the
bouyancy of a hot air balloon as proof of its secret
(and perhaps one day
powerful) anti-gravity properties....:) We
know in our heart of hearts
that its just plain reasonable and wise to encourage
a progressive increase
in the relative level of objectivity of one's perceptions.
We can use our
reasoning capacity, flawed as it may be with essential
relativism, to see
how intentionally warped perceptions are used by occult
practicioners to
accelerate from impulse power to warp speed. However,
the bridge of the
pioneering Enterprise remains wholly dysfunction set
of threatrical props,
inhabited by characters in costumes, and driven by a
director's vision of
some particular achetype-laden script.
[.....................................................]
>
> For instance, people who think astrology works via
rulerships will dream
up
> some bullshit rulership scheme that is so implausible
that even other
> astrologers who believe in rulerships will reject it,
instead constructing
> another scheme of their own, equally incredible.
Those who use midpoints
> will find a midpoint explanation. Those who use
asteroids may find an
> explanation there, etc.
>
> Even if something unprecedented happened, and those
who use a particular
> technique actually agreed with each other for the first
time in history,
> then we'd still be stuck with the replication requirement
of objectivity:
> others with the same configuration must demonstrate
the same real life
> success. But you can't find others with the same
configuration: everyone
> is too different. As Rudhyar emphasised, astrology
deals with the unique
> aspects of life. Statistical studies done in
astrology have been
> unconvincing due to the suspect categorising of the
database. Such
> allocations are performed by the subjective judgements
of those doing the
> studies. This fact prejudices any objective outcome,
effectively aborting
> the process at the very start! Putting people
into like categories is
> liable to be too arbitrary a process for anyone to
be confident that it is
> valid.
I appreciated Rudhyar for his abilty to say
what I was at least trying to
think....:) And, it spurred me to read about CP--the
more rigorous study of
categorical perception, with at least as much interest
as mythology, etc..
What I have actually wish to contribute to the discussion
of archetypes, as
used in astrology, is based on my impression that Myths
are like larger CP
constructs in that there are probably a collection of
simpler, more
atomistic than molecular, "parts" of the mythic images
and archetypes. Just
as sensory-motor stimuli are probably the root experiences
of a mature
mind's ultimate philosophical preferences, so the basic
drives of planets
like; action, expansion, restriction, etc., are the parts
of the myths--the
larger social contsructs. Thus the myth(s) we choose
as representative of
own experience are probably reducible to the basic differences
between the
simpler planet qualia and our hypothetically inherent
natal chart biases for
one planet flavor or another. Of course all basic
planet symbolisms are
probably just projections of first order divisions of
human psychological
qualia, thus planets, etc., are indeed the inside-out
archetype you mention
above. What astrology does, or attemtps to do,
is to shape/warp human
perception in an acquried learning manner with a specific
intention to
generalize the relationships between all things apparently
unique. In this
much, the aim of Science and Religion are one....:)
Rog
------------------------------
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #15
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 10:21:44 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Listar" <lists@exegesis.dyndns.org>
To: "exegesis digest users" <exegesis@exegesis.dyndns.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 3:00 AM
Subject: exegesis Digest V9 #15
Kevin,
I must consider astrology as an art which passes
for a philosophy whenever
it works hand in hand with science, and a religion when
it does not. At
times, it is as though my very sanity depends upon this
relationship seeming
self-evident. I simply do not want to spend my life as
one pursued by the
dark forces of politics, perhaps seemingly destined to
slip over the edge of
a flat Earth...all the while dreading the demon 'others'
fore and aft...:)
We are free to "observe" almost anything, but why da
heck does my only
language insist that to observe also means to obey?
Rog
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #18
exegesis Digest Wed, 02 Jun 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 019
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #17,18
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #17,18
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:08:29 +1200
(Some feedback to Kevin)
> As one of those reckless American astrologers, as opposed
to those
> purists who find themselves in latitudes where the
seasons are in
> reverse of those that grounded the Western Astrology
we all study :), I
> would point out that in reclaiming "Arnold's" chart
from rulership and
> midpoint explanations, you have taken great liberties
in your
> proclamation of the "obvious", which I suppose "proves"
the
> impossibility of an agreed upon methodology, a supposed
first step in
> "objectivity".
'Tis true, Kevin. Being a devil-may-care sort of
a guy (sometimes), I did
knowingly emit a provocation by claiming that my reading
was "obvious". It
was a blatant assertion of subjectivity!
> In my practice, you use an absurdly large orb (8deg22
sep) in creating
> your "glaringly obvious" Venus/Jupiter/MC Grand Trine.
(Large orbs are
> an epidemic these days as people are looking for the
greatest
> flexibility in interpretation, but in systems that
produce fewer points
> of relation, such as those that exclude rulerships,
they seem
> practically a necessity).
Fair enough. You express precisely the stance I
occupied myself for many
years. The trine between Venus and Jupiter is indeed
the weakest part of
the configuration. The trine between Jupiter and
the Midheaven is marginal
in respect to the orbs I myself normally recognise.
I see it as operational
in his life, which suggests a slightly earlier birth-time.
Birth-times, statistically speaking, have a general bias
toward late
reporting. People don't usually think of noting
the time until after the
event. Some people record the time that they look
at the clock without
making any mental subtraction of time elapsed since the
birth moment. If we
lived in a culture that recognised a reason for seeing
particular times as
important, this would not happen. Unfortunately
even news reporters and
journalists, who are supposed to give the facts of an
event, routinely fail
to include when it happened. People have been brain-washed
to believe that
the time that something happens is not important.
I have also learnt that there is an inclusion effect when
two astrological
configurations overlap or connect to reinforce each other.
This is quite a
widely-held view amongst western astrologers that I originally
didn't
accept. As years went by I kept seeing cases where
real-life correlation
with the chart suggested that it did happen. The
way I describe this in
conversation with other astrologers is that the technically-wide
orb is
"pulled in" by the overall configuration. This
seems a suitable description
of the experiential side of the psychodynamics of the
situation.
> And your Grand Trine, which you find so apparent that
no other
> explanation need be sought, is based on a house system
and its MC, whose
> us is at the very least...under debate.
My acceptance of Placidus cusps is based on accumulated
experience
(pragmatic, not ideological). I'm not aware of
any competent astrologer who
denies that the vertical axis of the horoscope is important.
One does meet
the occasional one who uses equal houses, and cosmobiologists
have a
tradition of ideological aversion to the concept of houses.
Sectarianism is
a normal part of society, and postmodern culture requires
minorities to be
included. Meaning, however, can only be shared
by those who subscribe to
the same context (frame of reference).
> Unfortunately, it feels as if you chose an example a
bit deficient, if
> you wanted to expound on the elements a universally
agreed upon
> Interpretation. But by your example you have, it seems,
proven your
> larger point about the possible scientific status of
Astrology, with
> which I am whole heartedly in agreement.
Indeed, perhaps you misunderstood my intent!
(Some feedback to Roger)
> Even if objectivity is yet another ideal that
is more easily conceived
> than exhibited <snip> We know in our
heart of hearts
> that its just plain reasonable and wise to encourage
a progressive
increase
> in the relative level of objectivity of one's perceptions.
We can use our
> reasoning capacity, flawed as it may be with essential
relativism, to see
> how intentionally warped perceptions are used by occult
practicioners to
> accelerate from impulse power to warp speed. However,
the bridge of the
> pioneering Enterprise remains wholly dysfunction set
of threatrical props,
> inhabited by characters in costumes, and driven by
a director's vision of
> some particular achetype-laden script.
True. Particularly evident in those remarkable collections
of sayings of
the current US President that have been circulating since
his election!
> I appreciated Rudhyar for his abilty
to say what I was at least trying
to
> think....:) And, it spurred me to read about
CP--the more rigorous study
of
> categorical perception, with at least as much interest
as mythology, etc..
> What I have actually wish to contribute to the discussion
of archetypes,
as
> used in astrology, is based on my impression that Myths
are like larger CP
> constructs in that there are probably a collection
of simpler, more
> atomistic than molecular, "parts" of the mythic images
and archetypes.
Just
> as sensory-motor stimuli are probably the root experiences
of a mature
> mind's ultimate philosophical preferences, so the basic
drives of planets
> like; action, expansion, restriction, etc., are the
parts of the
myths--the
> larger social contsructs. Thus the myth(s) we choose
as representative of
> own experience are probably reducible to the basic
differences between the
> simpler planet qualia and our hypothetically inherent
natal chart biases
for
> one planet flavor or another. Of course all basic
planet symbolisms are
> probably just projections of first order divisions
of human psychological
> qualia, thus planets, etc., are indeed the inside-out
archetype you
mention
> above. What astrology does, or attemtps to do,
is to shape/warp human
> perception in an acquried learning manner with a specific
intention to
> generalize the relationships between all things apparently
unique. In this
> much, the aim of Science and Religion are one....:)
Well put, Roger, & your views here are similar to mine.
I often wonder about the part played by will. In
principle, I believe we
can transcend our natal chart. In practice, I suspect
that this is
successful to a rather limited extent. I have myself
been subject to
apparent regression, at least for a time. Interludes
of progress and
interludes of back-sliding are probably normal.
The ideology of
transcendence, so fashionable in the '80s, is probably
due for some
pragmatic revaluation. Of course, it could be that
young astrologers have
never heard of it! Presuming there are any young
astrologers. Those who
grew up with television rather than books would probably
find a concept like
transcendence too hard to grapple with, let alone to
actually cognite.
Dennis
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #19
exegesis Digest Wed, 02 Jun 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 020
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #19
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:24:10 -0400
Dennis,
> In my practice, you use an absurdly large orb (8deg22 sep) in creating
> your "glaringly obvious" Venus/Jupiter/MC Grand Trine. (Large orbs are
> an epidemic these days as people are looking for the
greatest
> flexibility in interpretation, but in systems that
produce fewer
> points of relation, such as those that exclude rulerships,
they seem
> practically a necessity).
Fair enough. You express precisely the stance I
occupied myself for
many years. The trine between Venus and Jupiter
is indeed the weakest
part of the configuration. The trine between Jupiter
and the Midheaven
is marginal in respect to the orbs I myself normally
recognise. I see
it as operational in his life, which suggests a slightly
earlier
birth-time."
I just do not follow your reasoning. You start with an
"obvious"
reading, and you end up stating that the birth time should
be rectified
to support your "obvious" reading, which certainly smacks
of "I'm right,
don't both me with the facts."
More confounding is that you support your entire reading
upon the MC of
a birth time that is at least questionable. It was supplied
third hand
with an earliest reference in time being 32 years after
his birth
(1979). Others have rectified the time to a difference
of as eight hours
in order to support their predictions. To me this is
all ludicrous. If
the Trine of Venus to Jupiter is as you state "the weakest
part of the
configuration", then the Trine to the MC is utterly insubstantial
as the
defining aspect which holds together a configuration
that defeats all
other interpretations. What am I not seeing clearly here?
Sincerely, Kevin
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #20
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issues][Next Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2004 their respective authors.