|
Exegesis Volume 09 Issues #031-040 |
exegesis Digest Sun, 18 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 031
In This Issue:
#1: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Scientific
astrology?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:33:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Scientific astrology?
Jane Axtell [9:12]:
>>> 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 agree that astrological content _should be_ derived
from case histories
and historical studies, but it isn't now, at least not
by the overwhelming
majority of astrologers, and hasn't been in the past.
As for Ptolemy's
material holding up well in modern case studies, you've
got to be kidding.
Do you have any instances to cite?
Roger Satterlee [9:14]:
>> 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"...:)"
I, too, doubt that they had enhanced insights or
special knowledge that
has been lost. And, yes, most astrologers who do
case studies don't know
what they're doing. That doesn't, however, mean
case studies can't in
principle lead to important insights.
Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu [9:15]:
> 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.
The image of astrologers putting on scientific
dress to impress
recalls my own discomfort with it, and your observation
that the case
history is "the projection of the astrologer's intent"
accurately
describes, in my opinion, the way case histories are
typically done.
However, that's not the only way to do them, and wanting
to be accepted
is not the only reason to learn from science. I
think we should be
more scientific, not for the sake of approval but for
the sake of a more
effective astrology. Case histories can be a valuable
resource if we
know how to use them. Astrologers normally use
them to illustrate how
astrology works, whereas they should be using them to
_discover_ how
it works. If there actually are correspondences
between earth and the
heavens, it seems to me the soundest way to learn about
them is to
_observe_ them.
Planetary movements are regular. Anything
that corresponds to them
should also be regular. We can use biographies
(and histories) by
looking for something that recurs regularly at the same
intervals and
times as a given configuration. If we notice a
rhythm that averages
a little over seven years between recurrences, Saturn
should be in the
same degree area and quadruplicity each time. If
it's late mutable,
say, and natal Mercury is late mutable, the rhythm we're
seeing is the
"effect" of Saturn transiting hard-angle Mercury.
That observation,
recast as a prediction, will apply in all specifics only
to that person,
but should bear a general resemblance to the Saturn/Mercury
rhythm
in other people's lives. _That_ similarity, and
not the particulars
of one individual's Saturn/Mercury rhythm, is what we
can say about
the Saturn/Mercury rhythm _in general_, for any given
person.
For those who deny the relevance to astrology of
case studies and
empirical observation in general, I wonder what you offer
in its place
as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the
same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how
do you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other than
self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out
errors and nonsense?
Dales
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #31
exegesis Digest Sun, 18 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 032
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #31
#2: From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #31
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #31
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:03:12 -0400
Dales,
Scrub and scrub at the lens and no matter how hard that
you clean, you
will not clean away the fact that it is a lens, and that
as a lens it
draws into focus some elements and leaves out of focus
others. All
'facts' are poured through a lens before they reach us.
It is the
'distortion' of the perceived so as to attain a state
of meaning. What
you may describe as self-delusional symbolic interpretation,
I would
characterize a group-delusional symbolism, -an ideology,
an
(imagelogic)- and the 'truth' factor is resonance. As
an idea, method or
fact carries forth in time and its vibration lasts, its
truth is
attested to, but it is not a truth as you seem to imply,
that is the
hoped for removal of the glass through which we look.
It is the concert
of meaning with itself. The ideas and methods of Ptolemy
are not more
correct than what has occurred after them, but the endurance
of their
base tone, the structure of that astrology has proven
itself 'true' by
resonance. Beyond that one cannot speak, unless one has
recourse to
divine revelation, which can only be accepted or rejected.
As to the concept of chart comparisons of famous people
and transit
analysis, I have reservations about this latest passion
of objectifying
the chart and the rectification craze that is associated
with it. My
lord, they have rectified the chart of Christ to the
minute whose month
of birth is even contestable! The problem with rectification
pervades
even the simplest assessment of the famous. Without a
person to person
encounter with the client, it is impossible to know the
meaning of a
specific event and therefore how it would be reflected
in transits. As
much as we might be inclined to suppose that we know
that a marriage or
a blockbuster movie or a birth of a child means to the
overall life of a
person, these persons are souls and very often, as with
all of us, what
others think is significant is much less so and otherwise.
Such trolling
for significance ends up with reified meanings that have
taken us quite
far from the living human being and the vitality of our
art. We will end
up with a net full of shiny fish to be sorted, cooked
and canned and
very little understanding the beauty that lies below
our not so humble
boat.
All of this fretting about self-delusion and science
as its corrector to
me is avoidable when we turn away from the abstraction
and face the
client. As long as methods are grounded in self-consistent,
regularly
applied practice, whose boundaries keep the astrologer
from introjecting
too much of his or her consciousness, meaning will be
brought forth from
a depth that can only be described as transpersonal.
The analysis of the
grounds of methods is significant because often it can
trace the
preservation of a 'truth' over the ages as it has taken
on various
forms, and hence tap us into the resonance of a larger
and deeper whole,
but in the end we still hold in our hands a lens, the
glass through
which we are compelled to look.
Sincerely, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #31
Can you explain how symbolism
> can filter out
> errors and nonsense?
>
> Dales
only through experience of life first hand.
we're very fortunate that those that have gone before
us have left a record.
from there, all one has to do is: experinece (the
verb)
steven
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #32
exegesis Digest Mon, 19 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 033
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: Scientific
Astrology
#2: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #31
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: Scientific Astrology
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:54:06 -0700
In originally proposing both case studies and an examination
of the
tradition in astrology, I had no intention of becoming
scientific in the
19th century manner where too simple causation falsifies
experience.
You are correct that cases can be misleading. That's where
conversation
becomes valuable.
An example is the too urgent search for the homosexual
marker. Over
and over an astrologer will find some indicator common
to every
homosexual client. Over and over it will turn out that
the clients also
share a vocation or avocation which is primary. The "marker"
for
homosexuality has so far always failed when applied to
other people's
clients or study base of charts.
(Unlike psychologists and sociologists and speech therapists,
astrologers
find that removing names from case studies is not a sufficient
protection
for confidentiality. Thus we are driven to trust each
other when we say
that our cases do or do not confirm the pattern up for
discussion.)
Not very long ago, Neptune was considered a marker for
addiction. This
was operationally useful to astrologers working with
addicts because it
objectified the behavior patten -- placed it "out there"
away from core
personality. Unfortunately this correspondence did not
hold up. Every non
addict also has Neptune in the birth chart as well. And
astrologers using
Neptune as an indication for addiction could not point
to any
differentiation from one addict to the next that was
based on the configurations of Neptune.
We suspect that the addictive personality is a genetic
subset of humans and
no more visible in the birthchart than whether the subject
is a volcano, a
puppy, or a human.
When Chiron was first discovered, symbolic astrologers
rushed to publish
theories of a wounded healer, and with effort, the well-read
astrologer may
find something of that kind. However astrologers with
cases see Chiron
differently. A reinterpretation is being discussed out
of sight
but those of us who do cases are pretty much agreed with
the results. It's
just a matter of wording now -- and who has the time
to publish.
The nature of the publishing business determines what
gets into print -- and
for astrology this has meant mass market simplicity.
Over the long centuries
the very few books kept in use tend to be those of proven
value. But does
it work today in our context? So those of us who actually
practice, whether
commerically or in private settings, use the three tools
of the tradition,
the case study, and conversation.
Is this perfect? No. Is this enough? Not always. Are we misled? Sometimes.
Are we cosmic people? Yes. And perhaps if astrology only
asserts, against
common sense, that we are all cosmic people, then it
has some value.
Without being scientific, astrology can also be practical
in the hands of
the skillful. Or so they tell me. It's saved a situation
for me a few times, by
suggesting situation redescriptions and behaviors that
otherwise would not
have occured to anyone.
Astrology is the applied cosmology of every age. It's
interesting that it
might be more.
Jane Axtell
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:33:33 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Dale Huckeby
> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and
> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place
> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the
> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how
> do you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other than
> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out
> errors and nonsense?
>
> Dales
------------------------------
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #31
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:46:40 -0400
> From: Dale Huckeby
>Subject: [e] Scientific astrology?
[......................................]
>
> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and
> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place
> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the
> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how
> do you know that your interpretive statements are anything
other than
> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out
> errors and nonsense?
>
> Dales
Dale,
I've come full circle and once again think that
the "interpretive
statements" are indeed self deluding b.s. However,
I still seem to be Leo,
with a burdensome Capricorn Moon...and whatever astrology
*is* remains a
secret...:)
Rog
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #33
exegesis Digest Tue, 20 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 034
In This Issue:
#1: From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: Jane's
post
#2: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #33
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 04:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: dearbornhair
Subject: [e] Re: Jane's post
hello,
this is interesting, the views about sexuality in the
birth chart. i agree with your observations,
especially the part about other peole's
charts/friends/clients.
my group, rainbowstars (yahoogroup) is conducting a
survey about sexuality. the first results we hope
to
pull out of this study will be about BDSM.
(bondage-desclipline,sado-masochism)
although the survey is designed for everyone.
this link will take you there:
http://www.pennsmen.org/html/survey.html
steven in detroit
------------------------------
From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #33
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:54:47 -0400
Jane,
Your description of the use of 'case study' seems to fit
better perhaps
the phrase 'personal experience' or even 'personal analysis'.
When the
terms are conflated the tinge of scientific fact appears
to come to your
conclusions. These studies are not so large, nor their
techniques of
examination uniform enough to warrant the sense that
fact has been
arrived at. Secondarily, when you present the brief results
of 'case
study' you seem only to state what they don't reveal,
i.e. the marker of
addiction, homosexuality, the presence of the wounded
healer. What the
archetypes of Neptune or Chiron will not do is 'mark'
a certain state,
because that is working the equation from the wrong direction.
They will
illumine that state when it is discernable. When dealing
with an addict,
understanding the nature of the 12th house, Pisces and
Neptune in
general and by examining their placements, one can understand
the deeper
project that this person is attempting by getting high
or gamboling, and
will be able to, with hope, redirect these energies towards
their more
effective completion. When one encounters a 'wounded
healer', Chiron
most definitely will open a portal and explanation for
these powers and
give context and focus to this state, - at least by my
interaction with
this archetype I can say this is so. This is not to say
that it can do
the opposite and find shaman by simply scanning the data
of charts. The
'case study' that has attempted to establish markers
changes the
direction of Time's arrow. When we encounter a person,
this is a wave
breaking on the beach. When we examine the natal chart
we are staring
into a swell rising from the deep, and despite the illusion
of precision
-acutely defined angles, degrees measured to the second,
the
predictability of periodic cycles- these are still images
taking shape,
governed by the vectors of their origin, but in no way
determined by
them. In the end it is always in the person of the astrologer
that these
images become synthesized into a truth.
Sincerely, Kevin
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #34
exegesis Digest Sun, 25 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 035
In This Issue:
#1: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Scientific
astrology?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:35:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Scientific astrology?
I said in [9:31]:
>> Can you explain how symbolism can filter out errors
and nonsense?
Steven responded in [9:32]:
> only through experience of life first hand. we're very
fortunate
> that those that have gone before us have left a record.
from there,
> all one has to do is: experience (the verb)
Hmmmm. I've been experiencing life firsthand
for 58 years. I've
been pursuing astrology seriously for 32 years, for most
of that time
as a theorist. At what point do I suddenly see
the light? Bear in
mind that at one time symbolism made sense in my own
experience, but
I subsequently (think I) saw deeper. You haven't
responded to the
question, how can symbolism filter out errors and nonsense?
You've
merely expressed your faith in it, and in the notion
that sufficient
exposure will lead to a realization of its validity.
Kevin said in [9:32]:
> Scrub and scrub at the lens and no matter how hard
that you clean,
> you will not clean away the fact that it is a
lens, and that as a
> lens it draws into focus some elements and leaves out
of focus others.
> All 'facts' are poured through a lens before they reach
us. It is
> the 'distortion' of the perceived so as to attain a
state of meaning.
> What you may describe as self-delusional symbolic interpretation,
I
> would characterize a group-delusional symbolism, -an
ideology, an
> (imagelogic)- and the 'truth' factor is resonance.
As an idea, method
> or fact carries forth in time and its vibration lasts,
its truth is
> attested to, but it is not a truth as you seem to imply,
that is the
> hoped for removal of the glass through which we look.
It is the concert
> of meaning with itself. The ideas and methods of Ptolemy
are not more
> correct than what has occurred after them, but the
endurance of their
> base tone, the structure of that astrology has proven
itself 'true' by
> resonance. Beyond that one cannot speak, unless one
has recourse to
> divine revelation, which can only be accepted or rejected.
You misread me if you think I'm after a lenseless
knowing. My aim is
not to dispense with a lens altogether, which I think
is impossible,
but to replace the existing lens, or paradigm, with a
better one. All
you offer in place of what you think I'm after is nice
sounding phrases
whose meanings are elusive. An idea's, method's,
or fact's vibration?
The concert of meaning with itself? True by resonance?
If you have
points to make, can you make them less ambiguously?
> As to the concept of chart comparisons of famous people
and transit
> analysis, I have reservations about this latest passion
of objectifying
> the chart and the rectification craze that is associated
with it. My
> lord, they have rectified the chart of Christ to the
minute whose month
> of birth is even contestable! The problem with rectification
pervades
> even the simplest assessment of the famous. Without
a person to person
> encounter with the client, it is impossible to know
the meaning of a
> specific event and therefore how it would be reflected
in transits. As
> much as we might be inclined to suppose that we know
that a marriage or
> a blockbuster movie or a birth of a child means to
the overall life of a
> person, these persons are souls and very often, as
with all of us, what
> others think is significant is much less so and otherwise.
Such trolling
> for significance ends up with reified meanings that
have taken us quite
> far from the living human being and the vitality of
our art. We will end
> up with a net full of shiny fish to be sorted, cooked
and canned and
> very little understanding the beauty that lies below
our not so humble
> boat.
Okay, so we're both dismayed by the silly excesses
of rectifiers, such
as rectifying the chart to the minute when you're not
even sure of the
date. That aside, I think rectification should
be possible in principle,
evidently you don't. The principle is that we work
backwards from the
life as lived to the chart that best makes sense of it.
If we could see
7-year obscure periods in a person's life, for instance,
and if they
lined up at 29-year intervals, then the Saturn position
at the beginning
of these periods would be where the Asc is. That
would tell us the
birthtime. Astrologers normally don't look for
patterns, though. They
treat each event or characteristic in isolation.
The main problem with
rectification, though, is symbolism. I've seen
different people come
up with diffeent times for the same person, and each
person's argument
made perfect sense in terms of events and characteristics
fitting the
rectified chart. That's because with symbolism
you can explain a given
outcome with different charts, or you can take the same
chart and explain
different events. Symbolism can't tell us we're
using the wrong chart
or trying to justify the wrong event. Symbolistic
astrology in effect
predicts all events at all times, so the event that does
happen and the
time it happens are of course included. But an
astrology that predicts
all things at all times actually predicts nothing at
all.
The client interaction is _applied_ astrology.
It's not the source
of our knowledge, nor does it validate it. And
thanks to symbolism
we can't even tell if the client gives us the wrong birth
data or the
wrong year for an event. We can learn from experience,
but not if
we take each person, event, or characteristic in isolation.
We might
know that a child changed at age 7, but that observation
can't tell
us which transit, if any, is relevant. But we know
from developmental
psychology that there are developments that occur in
virtually all
children at that age. The way to account for something
that always
occurs at 7 is via something else that always occurs
at 7, such as
transiting Saturn opening square natal Saturn.
It's the _juxtaposition_
of events and characteristics that enables us to arrive
at general
conclusions, so that we can (in principle) say in a general
way what
the Saturn Return will mean in anyone's life.
> All of this fretting about self-delusion and science
as its corrector
> to me is avoidable when we turn away from the abstraction
and face the
> client. As long as methods are grounded in self-consistent,
regularly
> applied practice, whose boundaries keep the astrologer
from introjecting
> too much of his or her consciousness, meaning will
be brought forth from
> a depth that can only be described as transpersonal.
The analysis of the
> grounds of methods is significant because often it
can trace the
> preservation of a 'truth' over the ages as it has taken
on various
> forms, and hence tap us into the resonance of a larger
and deeper whole,
> but in the end we still hold in our hands a lens, the
glass through
> which we are compelled to look.
What we avoid if we fixate on individuals, events,
and characteristics
one at a time, in isolation, via symbolism, is the experience
of being
wrong and learning from it.
I wrote in [9:31]:
>> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and
>> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place
>> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the
>> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how
>> do you know that your interpretive statements are
anything other than
>> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out
>> errors and nonsense?
Jane responded in [9:33]:
> In originally proposing both case studies and an examination
of
> the tradition in astrology, I had no intention of becoming
scientific
> in the 19th century manner where too simple causation
falsifies
> experience.
I didn't think otherwise. However, your original
statement didn't
read like a proposal, but like a _description_ of how
astrology is
ordinarily done. I merely pointed out that it _isn't_
done that way,
but that it ought to be. If you think so, too,
then we're at least
on the same (epistemological) page.
> You are correct that cases can be misleading. That's
where conversation
> becomes valuable.
I'm not sure in what contexts the conversation
you refer to should
occur, what kind of conversation you're talking about,
or how it's
valuable. Also, the part of my post you quote doesn't
mention cases,
so I'm also not sure who you're agreeing with.
> An example is the too urgent search for the homosexual
marker. Over
> and over an astrologer will find some indicator common
to every
> homosexual client. Over and over it will turn out that
the clients also
> share a vocation or avocation which is primary. The
"marker" for
> homosexuality has so far always failed when applied
to other people's
> clients or study base of charts.
>
> . . .
>
> Not very long ago, Neptune was considered a marker
for addiction. This
> was operationally useful to astrologers working with
addicts because it
> objectified the behavior patten -- placed it "out there"
away from core
> personality. Unfortunately this correspondence did
not hold up. Every
> non addict also has Neptune in the birth chart as well.
And astrologers
> using Neptune as an indication for addiction could
not point to any
> differentiation from one addict to the next that was
based on the
> configurations of Neptune.
>
> We suspect that the addictive personality is a genetic
subset of humans
> and no more visible in the birthchart than whether
the subject is a
> volcano, a puppy, or a human.
"Marker", "indicator", and "signature" are different
ways of saying
"correspondence", so I don't have a problem with the
notion per se.
But there are two problems. One is that most astrologers
have a poor
understanding of probability, so that the indicator of
a given trait
or situation is a laundry list of which you only have
to have one, and
which therefore fits virtually every human on the planet.
The other
is that looking for signatures for given characteristics
is approaching
the matter backwards. It assumes that astrology
is relevant to every
one of those things. Instead of asking _how_ astrology
explains a given
event or characteristic, we should ask, What _does_ astrology
explain?
We can answer that question by looking for order (in
human life) per se,
and _then_ seeing if that order corresponds to some form
of planetary
order. The patterns we _do_ find might turn out
to be relevant to
_some_ of the things whose signatures astrologers have
looked for, but
not necessarily in anticipated ways. To sum up,
rather than asking
how or even if each of various outcomes is signified,
we should simply
look for evidence of order, and discover _what_ corresponds
with the
planets, and how.
> (Unlike psychologists and sociologists and speech therapists,
astrologers
> find that removing names from case studies is not a
sufficient protection
> for confidentiality. Thus we are driven to trust each
other when we say
> that our cases do or do not confirm the pattern up
for discussion.)
We should _not_ trust each other that way.
Instead, we should rely
on data, like published biographies, for instance, that
does not require
less than full disclosure.
> When Chiron was first discovered, symbolic astrologers
rushed to publish
> theories of a wounded healer, and with effort, the
well-read astrologer
> may find something of that kind. However astrologers
with cases see
> Chiron differently. A reinterpretation is being discussed
out of sight
> but those of us who do cases are pretty much agreed
with the results.
> It's just a matter of wording now -- and who has the
time to publish.
You say "symbolic astrologers" as if there was
some other kind. I'd
say non-symbolistic astrologers are _extremely_ rare.
I know of only
two or three besides myself, and I'm not even sure of
that. I've seen
so many astrologers who thought they were being empirical
-- basing their
interpretations on observations -- who weren't, that
I suspect your own
practice is more symbolistic and less effectively empirical
than you
realize. If I'm nistaken I'll apologize and rejoice.
> The nature of the publishing business determines what
gets into print
> -- and for astrology this has meant mass market simplicity.
Over the
> long centuries the very few books kept in use tend
to be those of proven
> value. But does it work today in our context? So those
of us who
> actually practice, whether commerically or in private
settings, use the
> three tools of the tradition, the case study, and conversation.
By conversation are you referring to the interaction
between the
astrologer and client, or between astrologers comparing
insights and
cases? The case study is a good tool if done right.
It almost never
is, though. Regarding conversation, it depends
on what you mean.
Tradition, however, is likely to be more hindrance than
help. What
we "know" tends to get in the way of seeing what might
be. What
we should take from the tradition is simply the notion
that there's
a connection between planetary and earthly order.
We shouldn't
use the handed-down meanings of the various factors,
nor should we
assume that the factors for which we have handed-down
meanings are
astrologically relevant. We should look for rhythms
and try in each
instance to see what "it" is that's being rhythmic and
what if any
planetary patterns it corresponds to.
> Is this perfect? No. Is this enough? Not always. Are
we misled?
> Sometimes. Are we cosmic people? Yes. And perhaps if
astrology only
> asserts, against common sense, that we are all cosmic
people, then
> it has some value.
>
> Without being scientific, astrology can also be practical
in the hands
> of the skillful. Or so they tell me. It's saved a situation
for me a
> few times, by suggesting situation redescriptions and
behaviors that
> otherwise would not have occured to anyone.
>
> Astrology is the applied cosmology of every age. It's
interesting that
> it might be more.
As researchers we have further to go than most
of us realize. As
for the skilled use of astrology, I think it's interpersonal
skill
rather than astrology that's the key. People who
work as consultants
have (if they're good) an understanding of people.
It may be that,
like psychics, our tacit knowledge ia accessed more easily
if we think
we're getting it from outside ourselves, from a crystal
ball or a
chart.
I wrote in [9:31]::
>> For those who deny the relevance to astrology
of case studies and
>> empirical observation in general, I wonder what you
offer in its place
>> as a means of discovering astrological correspondences
while at the
>> same time differentiating between sense and nonsense.
Rog, Kevin, how
>> do you know that your interpretive statements are
anything other than
>> self-deluding b.s.? Can you explain how symbolism
can filter out
>> errors and nonsense?
Rog respoonded in [9:33]:
> I've come full circle and once again think that
the "interpretive
> statements" are indeed self deluding b.s. However,
I still seem to
> be Leo, with a burdensome Capricorn Moon...and whatever
astrology
> *is* remains a secret...:)
Could you clarify? Presumably you're not
admitting to being a
fool, so I wonder if you're using the term "interpretative
statements"
in a figurative or ironic sense. Or perhaps what
you mean is that
you don't make "interpretive statements". But you
"still seem to be"
a Leo, so are you saying that we can't legitimately make
statements
_about_ Leos that aren't self-deluding b.s., but that
we know it when
we see it, that we can tell Leos from Capricorns even
if we can't
spell out what the difference is? (That, in Kuhnian
terms, would be
a defensible position, whether or not it's valid.)
Or . . .
Dale
ps. Jane, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who edits
the subject
line to reflect the actual subject when replying to a
post in a digest.
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #35
exegesis Digest Mon, 26 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 036
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #35
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kevin v" <kvdi@earthlink.net>
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #35
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 07:54:06 -0400
Dale wrote: If you have
points to make, can you make them less ambiguously?
The ambiguity of my points is perhaps due to the yardstick
you hold in
your hand. The difficulty lies at bottom with your attempt
to master the
Contingency. It is not masterable without the power of
narrative. If you
find this statement ambiguous, to me it is simply philosophical.
All are
writing narratives, even you. I wish you luck on your
better lens, but
what are you going to do with what you see?
Kevin
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #36
exegesis Digest Tue, 27 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 037
In This Issue:
#1: From: "tom"
Subject: [e] the easiest
way to prove the validity of the astrology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "tom" <tomgemin@otenet.gr>
Subject: [e] the easiest way to prove the validity
of the astrology
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:59:55 +0300
Dear friends, hello!
I have found a wonderful site (you might already know
it), that I think it
might be the best way to prove the validity of the astrology.
The site is
(www.astrofaces.com/astrofaces. You might also find it
as
www.habarbadi.com/astrofaces. You just go there, imput
the 3 basic signs
(Solar, Lunar and Asc.) of a person, the face of whom
you want to see, and
here you are! You get a whole series of faces with that
exact determined
combination!
I tried it with a lady that didn't beleive much in astrology,
I imput in
this site her Solar, Moon and Asc. sign and it came out
the face of a man
having her (96%)exact characteristics!
Please try to enrich this site, by sending photoes of
various persons
close -ups (faces) that you are absolutely sure you know
their 3 basic signs
(it doesn't matter if they are actors, pop stars e.t.c.)
This might be the best proof ever that astrology works!
Thomas Gazis
Athens Greece
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #37
exegesis Digest Wed, 28 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 038
In This Issue:
#1: From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis
Digest V9 #37
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #37
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 05:37:00 -0400
thomas,thank you so much for the site,am definitely going
to check it out.
regards
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #38
exegesis Digest Thu, 29 Jul 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 039
In This Issue:
#1: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Kitchen sink
posts
#2: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis
Digest V9 #25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:35:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Kitchen sink posts
Guys and gals, pleeze edit. Yesterday's digest
was 23k's (4 after
I edited out the extraneous material!), today's was 25k's.
Do we really
need to quote the _entire_ digest, including the ending
(and earlier
endings!), the table of contents, the headers of individual
posts, and
everything previous posters have left in? Not only
is it messy, this
infinite regress of quoting can be confusing. Good
list etiquette is to
quote _just_ the material you're responding to, with
a line indicating
the author and digest. (I don't mean to single
out just the two most
recent posters. Many listers don't think to edit.)
Succinctly yours,
Dale
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:12:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest V9 #25
In [9:25] Robert wrote:
> . . . . . In answer to Kevin's question "how do you
logically connect
> the influence of planetary cycles to the process of
evolutionary biology?"
> I would argue that life is sensitive to constant patterns,
and the orbits
> of the planets have been the most constant large scale
rhythm in our
> cosmic eco-system - hence their place as the 'niche
of the world'.
I connect the dots similarly. I think we
have motivational rhythms
of different wavelengths, which happen to correspond
to those of the
planets. In [1:11] I suggested that life needs
rhythm in order to live,
in which case it needs something to time itself with.
The planets, for
pretty much the reason you give above, that they're longterm,
stable
rhythms, are the most obvious means. Life has used
planetary periods
as temporal templates around which to organize itself.
As I noted then,
"How can processes dovetail in their timing so as to
coordinate with
one another unless they're organized in time?"
> . . . . . . .
>
> Based on these sources and others I believe that fractal
geometry provides
> a good model for a scientific explanation of astrology,
grounded in a
> logical connection between planetary cycles and evolutionary
biology.
Fractal geometry? How?
Dale
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #39
exegesis Digest Sun, 01 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 040
In This Issue:
#1: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: the easiest
way to prove the validity of astrology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 11:10:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: the easiest way to prove the validity
of astrology
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 Thomas Gazis wrote:
> I have found a wonderful site (you might already know
it), that I think
> it might be the best way to prove the validity of the
astrology. The
> site is (www.astrofaces.com/astrofaces. You might also
find it as
> www.habarbadi.com/astrofaces. You just go there, imput
the 3 basic signs
> (Solar, Lunar and Asc.) of a person, the face of whom
you want to see, and
> here you are! You get a whole series of faces with
that exact determined
> combination!
An intriguing site, but subjective judgments of
similarity don't prove
astrology. (They don't even prove the validity
of Sun, Moon and Asc
sign meanings.) The two people with my combination
didn't look at all
like me.
> I tried it with a lady that didn't beleive much in astrology,
I imput in
> this site her Solar, Moon and Asc. sign and it came
out the face of a man
> having her (96%) exact characteristics!
I really don't see how you could legitimately come
up with such a
precise number for such a subjective evaluation.
What did you do, make
a list of features and then say, Yep, eyebrows the same,
mouth the
same, etc.? And then divide the "hits" by the total
number of features
considered? In that case the percentage result
gives a false sense
of precision when it actually means nothing at all.
> . . . . .
>
> This might be the best proof ever that astrology works!
It merely suggests that astrologers are not knowledgeable
about what
constitutes proof. But welcome to Exegesis.
Glad to see new faces
here.
Dale
------------------------------
End of exegesis Digest V9 #40
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issues][Next Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2004 their respective authors.