Exegesis Volume 11 Issues #011-020

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 17:09:37 -0400
From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Cosmos And Psyche.

I would like to have some more comments from the group list about what the Astrologers on the list think about Richard Tarnas new book titled Cosmos And Psyche.David Roell at www.astroamerica.com  called The Astrology Center Of America,did not give Cosmos And Psyche a very good review.Would appreciate feedback about this book. Thanks, Charles Hillman

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 12

Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:40:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Cosmos and Psyche
 

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 Charles Hillman spoke:

> I would like to have some more comments from the group list about what the
> Astrologers on the list think about Richard Tarnas new book titled Cosmos And
> Psyche. David Roell at www.astroamerica.com called The Astrology Center Of
> America, did not give Cosmos And Psyche a very good review. Would appreciate
> feedback about this book. Thanks, Charles Hillman

   After reading your note I went to a bookstore and browsed _Cosmos and Psyche_,
then came back and read Roell's review, and, for comparison's sake, his review
of Cornelius's _The Moment of Astrology_.  I found much to agree with in his
critique, which made me think he had a sharp and critical mind.  But his review
of _Moment_, which I think is beneath contempt, was entirely uncritical.  He
thinks Cornelius is brilliant, I think he's an astrological flat-earther.  His
discerning eye for pretentiousness and jargon failed him with Cornelius, so
I think his review tells more about his taste in astrology than about Tarnas's
book.  My own very tentative opinion, since it's based on such a brief look,
is that it's pretentious and over the top but promising.  He leans too much on
symbolism -- who doesn't? -- but is not oblivious to empirical insights.  I
also think he overemphasizes the Uranus/Pluto cycle at the expense of the more
significant (in my opinion) Uranus/Neptune cycle, but who knows what I might
have missed during my page flipping?  Anyone with a background in history who
tries to correlate historical developments with outer-planet cycles is at
least worth checking out.  I think the notion that it'll be at the top of the
list of books worth reading several hundred years from now is pure BS, and
I'm inclined to doubt that his concept of astrological revolution is at all
similar to mine, but I think the book is worth scanning at greater length.

Dale
------------------------------

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 12

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 13

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:07:09 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] symbolism

> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:56:56 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Dale Huckeby
> Subject: [e] Symbolism, mostly

>    Okay, we agree on the invalidity of rulerships.  But archetypes as
> you've tried to explain them I've never been able to make sense of.
> I think I may have mentioned him before, but the only person who has
> written about archetypes in a way that makes sense to me is Anthony
> Stevens.  Have you read his book _Archetypes_?

No, although I'm aware of it & him being a psychologist.  I'll check it out.
I assumed he was merely a Jungian (trend-follower, therefore nothing new)
but perhaps I was wrong.

>    The problem with symbolism is the slipperiness of those keywords, and
> that slipperiness is due to figurative usage.  For example, "ambition" has
> come to be associated with Saturn, thanks to the _observations_ of Grant
> Lewi.  When his descriptions (_not_ interpretations) of configurations are
> taken in their entirety, in the context of his writings as a whole, it's
> clear that by "ambition" he means career success.  Yet "ambition can be
> and has been used to refer to sex drive ("sexual ambition") and could in
> principle be used to refer to gluttony (an "ambitious eater"), in which
> case the term has no meaning because it can be used to mean anything.

Yes, that kind of sloppiness with the use of keywords always bothered me.

>    <snip> events
> that fit the symbolism in one conjunction period won't necessarily
> resemble events that fit the symbolism in other conjunction periods.
> Completely different kinds of events can fit the same symbolism,

True.

> with fitting the same symbolism being the _only_ thing they have in
> common.  Knowing what happened in one Uranus/Neptune conjunction
> period, from a symbolistic perspective, tells us nothing about what
> other conjunction periods will be like.  Two, symbolism doesn't
> enable us to differentiate between the conjunction periods and the
> periods in which Uranus and Neptune aren't conjunct.  Events from
> randomly chosen periods can be made to fit the symbolism as easily
> as events from the "right" periods.

Partly true.  Depends on user competence.

>    Keywords are not helpful, because we associate each with a given
> factor _regardless_ of how it (the word) is used and regardless
> of what it's thereby made to mean.  What is helpful is to observe
> what _regularly_ coincides with a given factor, and if something
> does _that's_ what the factor reliably predicts.  It doesn't matter
> which words are used to convey what that something is.  Different
> words can be used to describe the same thing, which is more useful
> than the same word being used to refer to things that are not at
> all alike and therefore not predictively meaningful.

Dunno about that.  Saturn = structure, limits, boundaries etc.  We can
intuitively recognise Saturn readily in being confronted by a bone, a cop
car pulling us over for speeding, or a brick wall.  Not at all alike, but
the archetype is evident and the common factor specified and communicated by
keywords.

>    Fire and plasma aren't the same.  Fire is the heat and light produced
by
> oxidation.  It's not a state of matter per se.  Plasma is an ionized gas
> in which a significant number of electrons have been stripped from atomic
> nuclei and are free to move about.  "When enough atoms are ionized to
> significantly affect the electrical characteristics of the gas, it is a
> plasma."  <http://www.plasmacoalition.org/what.htm>  But not bad.  Of
> course, this doesn't explain the means by which the ancients discovered
> that signs correspond to different states of matter, the ways in which
> the correspondence works, or indeed the supposed fact that signs are
> themselves valid and have meanings, so the main thing these interlocking
> concepts share is a lack of evidence.

Evidence is subjective.  If it weren't, scientists would replace juries in
court.  The distribution of elements and modalities among the signs of the
zodiac was a social construct, by persons unknown.  An intellectual tour de
force at the time, no doubt, but merely an artifice to the modern mind.  Why
haven't I rejected it?  Good question, and I did spend a few years back in
the '80s wondering about it.  Purely pragmatism, Dale.  It seemed to work.
Sorry about that!!

Yeah, I learn about plasma in school 40 years ago.  However it does occur in
nature more often than you might think.  Lightning, which to primitive man
was observably a common source of bush-fires.  The aurora, although only
observed in higher latitudes.  Comets & meteors.  Haven't read of any
scientific measurement of the amount of plasma in normal fires, but there
would be some.  Are you aware how easily how many atoms & molecules lose an
electron in natural processes?  That's all it takes.  Anyway, the main point
was that primitive people experienced 4 types of matter, which eventually
were called elements, and later these 4 categories were called states by
scientists.

>    I'm assuming that any belief system that has remained unchanged for
> a long period of time, which hasn't incorporated subsequent insights and
> discoveries, and which is based on no visible empirical foundations is,
> _ipso facto_, largely invalid and ineffective.  It might once have seemed
> valid and been reasonable.  Ptolemy wasn't deluded in thinking that the
> sun circled the earth.  At that time it was reasonable to think so.  But
> given what we know now, both in terms of facts and in terms of how to
> reason about facts, his astronomy is neither valid nor reasonable, ditto
> for his astrology (and that of other traditions which haven't changed
> with the times.)

Again, I was tempted to this view once.  The reason I didn't go for
wholesale rejection of astrology was that I felt I had to respect the extent
of consensus astrologers had actually developed.  We can discuss the
features of a chart in groups and all be on much the same wavelength,
despite individual differences on the details of interpretation.  I know
this because I have experienced it many times.  What I object to is that
most astrologers not only take it for granted, they assume that this
consensus makes astrology valid in its current fossil form.

>    It's always intrigued me that so many people take Nostradamus
seriously.
> Whatever he knew or thought he knew, either via astrology or far more
> likely via a shrewd sense of which way the political winds were blowing,
> you are probably right in that it wouldn't have been politically wise
> to predict that the Duke of Lombardy was going to get conked next spring.
> But his ambiguity was not only expedient but a reflection of his lack
> of specific knowledge.  His approach was not really different from that
> of a modern mundane prognosticator.  Write so figuratively and ambiguously
> that anything that happens will seem to fit, and then you can claim, or
> your intellectual descendents/admirers can claim for you, that that's
> what you meant.  <snip>
> what he was doing was symbolism personified, which is probably why so
> many astrologers are so mesmerized by his writings.  What it comes down
> to is this.  Astrologers haven't outgrown that kind of reasoning, and
> astrology won't take its place in the world as an effective discipline
> until enough (a critical mass?) do.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote, but do not resile from what I
wrote either.  That's why he's so fascinating - either positive or negative
views may apply.

A final comment on symbolism, Dale.  One reason I was never keen to concur
with you in Exegesis was the extent of your aversion to it.  Without
symbolism there'd be no maths, and without maths, no science.  The letters
of an alphabet are symbols, and without them we cannot communicate.  Even in
sign language the signs symbolise something.  Some would even argue that
without symbolism we'd be pre-human, and I've read books where the author
says as much.
 

Dennis Frank

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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:39:02 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re:  Cosmos and Psyche

> From: "Charles Hillman"
> Subject: [e] Cosmos And Psyche.
>
> I would like to have some more comments from the group list about what the
Astrologers on the list think about Richard Tarnas new book titled Cosmos
And Psyche.David Roell at www.astroamerica.com  called The Astrology Center
Of America,did not give Cosmos And Psyche a very good review.Would
appreciate feedback about this book. Thanks, Charles Hillman,

Yeah, the review by Roell was quite amusing.  He's obviously an
arch-traditionalist (check the rest of his stuff) and feels terribly
threatened by an erudite and sophisticated progressive authority figure.
His world would be much more secure if progress didn't happen.  Note his
habit of describing anything he doesn't understand as gibberish.

For an alternative view, check out the listing on Amazon.  Lots of raves
there, some by other astrologers.  I recall that essay by Tarnas in which he
tried to equate Uranus with Prometheus, rather a tortuous attempt to force a
square peg into a round hole.  But gee, what a noble literary endeavour it
was!  Heroic, even if misconceived.

Then there was his earlier book, a philosophical view of the history of
western culture.  I quite liked it even if it didn't give me much in the way
of new insights.  He tends to be profound, but his style remains accessible.
The new one has not reached our bookstores yet but I might order a copy.
It'd be interesting to see what he makes of the historical correlations,
apparently similar to the effort made by Dale Huckeby and described online,
and that published by the Glastonbury astrologer Palden Jenkins (Historical
Ephemeris, 1993).  However I'm more interested in how he advocates the
astrological belief system.  Not that I'm particularly optimistic - he may
seem rabidly progressive to David Roelle but no doubt he's really just a
Rudhyarian traditionalist.  After 30 years in California, how could you be
anything else?
 

Dennis Frank

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 14

Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:05:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Symbolism, mostly

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 Dennis Frank wrote: >
that I wrote: >>

>>    The problem with symbolism is the slipperiness of those keywords, and
>> that slipperiness is due to figurative usage.  For example, "ambition" has
>> come to be associated with Saturn, thanks to the _observations_ of Grant
>> Lewi.  When his descriptions (_not_ interpretations) of configurations are
>> taken in their entirety, in the context of his writings as a whole, it's
>> clear that by "ambition" he means career success.  Yet "ambition can be
>> and has been used to refer to sex drive ("sexual ambition") and could in
>> principle be used to refer to gluttony (an "ambitious eater"), in which
>> case the term has no meaning because it can be used to mean anything.
>
> Yes, that kind of sloppiness with the use of keywords always bothered me.

   I'm not talking about sloppiness.  I'm talking about the way everybody
who adheres to symbolism uses words to make connections between celestial
and terrestrial correspondents.  And virtually everybody does adhere to
symbolism.  Other than possibly Andre and Patrice, I know of no exceptions.
That's why I prefer not to call it sloppiness, because it's as illogical
to say everybody's sloppy as it is to say everybody's short.

>>    <snip> events
>> that fit the symbolism in one conjunction period won't necessarily
>> resemble events that fit the symbolism in other conjunction periods.
>> Completely different kinds of events can fit the same symbolism,
>
> True.

>> with fitting the same symbolism being the _only_ thing they have in
>> common.  Knowing what happened in one Uranus/Neptune conjunction
>> period, from a symbolistic perspective, tells us nothing about what
>> other conjunction periods will be like.  Two, symbolism doesn't
>> enable us to differentiate between the conjunction periods and the
>> periods in which Uranus and Neptune aren't conjunct.  Events from
>> randomly chosen periods can be made to fit the symbolism as easily
>> as events from the "right" periods.
>
> Partly true.  Depends on user competence.

   I don't think user competence has anything to do with it.  Either
all symbolistic astrologers are incompetent, or symbolistic astrology
simply works, for _everybody_, the way I describe above.  Since you
are NOT incompetent, in my opinion, nor are a number of other highly
knowledgable, well-trained practitioners that I know of, the latter
makes more sense to me.

>>   Keywords are not helpful, because we associate each with a given
>> factor _regardless_ of how it (the word) is used and regardless
>> of what it's thereby made to mean.  What is helpful is to observe
>> what _regularly_ coincides with a given factor, and if something
>> does _that's_ what the factor reliably predicts.  It doesn't matter
>> which words are used to convey what that something is.  Different
>> words can be used to describe the same thing, which is more useful
>> than the same word being used to refer to things that are not at
>> all alike and therefore not predictively meaningful.
>
> Dunno about that.  Saturn = structure, limits, boundaries etc.  We can
> intuitively recognise Saturn readily in being confronted by a bone, a cop
> car pulling us over for speeding, or a brick wall.  Not at all alike, but
> the archetype is evident and the common factor specified and communicated
> by keywords.

   Saturn does NOT equal structure, limits, and boundaries, in my opinion.
Nor a bone, a brick, or a cop.  Thinking that way tells us nothing about
the processes that have a Saturn periodicity, and is not conducive to
progress.  Rather, we should ask, what recurs regularly, in a given life,
as Saturn conjoins, squares, opposes, squares, conjoins, etc. its natal
place...or natal Sun, or Moon, or Mars, etc.?  If we can see such rhythms
in a number of lives, we can then ask, in what sense are the recurrent
developments in A's life similar to B, and C, and D, etc.?  Alternatively,
we can look at a single transit, say the Saturn Return, in a number of
lives, and ask, in what sense were their experiences, during this period,
alike (and therefore predictable)?  With regards to transits of planets
to their natal places, that is, age transits, we have an existing body of
research to consult: developmental psychology.  Piaget and Vygotsky, in
particular, offer deep insights into what _generally_ occurs just before
the second birthday, the first Mars Return, the period around the third
birthday, Jupiter square Jupiter, a several-month period beginning around
the seventh birthday, Saturn square Saturn, and the months leading up to
the twelfth birthday, the first Jupiter Return.  We should observe the
particulars first, _then_ generalize, rather than looking for particular
applications of handed down generalizations.  If we approach research
and theory this way I firmly believe that we can gain deep insights into
how things work and create an astrology that's a coherent and effective
body of knowledge.

>>    I'm assuming that any belief system that has remained unchanged for
>> a long period of time, which hasn't incorporated subsequent insights and
>> discoveries, and which is based on no visible empirical foundations is,
>> _ipso facto_, largely invalid and ineffective.  It might once have seemed
>> valid and been reasonable.  Ptolemy wasn't deluded in thinking that the
>> sun circled the earth.  At that time it was reasonable to think so.  But
>> given what we know now, both in terms of facts and in terms of how to
>> reason about facts, his astronomy is neither valid nor reasonable, ditto
>> for his astrology (and that of other traditions which haven't changed
>> with the times.)
>
> Again, I was tempted to this view once.  The reason I didn't go for
> wholesale rejection of astrology was that I felt I had to respect the extent
> of consensus astrologers had actually developed.  We can discuss the
> features of a chart in groups and all be on much the same wavelength,
> despite individual differences on the details of interpretation.  I know
> this because I have experienced it many times.  What I object to is that
> most astrologers not only take it for granted, they assume that this
> consensus makes astrology valid in its current fossil form.

   It's not a very tight and effective consensus.  Astrologers can agree
that Lincoln's chart is that of a great man, because they all already know
that he's a great man.  But five astrologers will offer five different
explanations of what in his chart explains his greatness.  And those five
astrologers (let's assume they're all competent), if asked to rectify
the birthtime of a person whose life course is well known, will probably
suggest five different times, and make a plausible case for each and
every one of them.  Because of symbolism's _inherent_ loosness, numerous
times will "work".  Everytime we try to anticipate the future, or figure
out something we don't already know, this looseness turns around and
bites us in the ass.  And you're right, the existence of consensus, even
though astrologers will differ on the, ahem, details of interpretation,
makes it seem valid in its "current fossil form" (of which symbolism is
a part).  That's one of the reasons I speak out, so the consensus will
seem less monolithic and be less stifling of thinking outside the box.

>>    It's always intrigued me that so many people take Nostradamus
>> seriously.  Whatever he knew or thought he knew, either via astrology
>> or far more likely via a shrewd sense of which way the political winds
>> were blowing, you are probably right in that it wouldn't have been
>> politically wise to predict that the Duke of Lombardy was going to get
>> conked next spring.  But his ambiguity was not only expedient but a
>> reflection of his lack of specific knowledge.  His approach was not
>> really different from that of a modern mundane prognosticator.  Write
>> so figuratively and ambiguously that anything that happens will seem
>> to fit, and then you can claim, or your intellectual descendents/admirers
>> can claim for you, that that's what you meant. <snip>  what he was doing
>> was symbolism personified, which is probably why so many astrologers are
>> so mesmerized by his writings.  What it comes down to is this.  Astrologers
>> haven't outgrown that kind of reasoning, and astrology won't take its
>> place in the world as an effective discipline until enough (a critical
>> mass?) do.
>
> I can't disagree with anything you wrote, but do not resile [?] from what I
> wrote either.  That's why he's so fascinating - either positive or negative
> views may apply.
>
> A final comment on symbolism, Dale.  One reason I was never keen to concur
> with you in Exegesis was the extent of your aversion to it.  Without
> symbolism there'd be no maths, and without maths, no science.  The letters
> of an alphabet are symbols, and without them we cannot communicate.  Even in
> sign language the signs symbolise something.  Some would even argue that
> without symbolism we'd be pre-human, and I've read books where the author
> says as much.

   Dennis, I'm criticizing astrological symbol-ISM, not symbol usage as such.
When I observe recurrent transits and corresponding recurrent developments,
when I try to see what "it" is that's recurring regularly, and when I write
sentences and paragraphs trying to explain what I think I've seen, I'm using
symbols.  When I discuss these things with you, and critique your viewpoint
and try to explain mine, I'm using symbols.  Everytime I reason or talk I'm
using symbols.  When I do math, or read books about science or psychology or
history, I'm using symbols.  We can't reason without using symbols, but that
doesn't mean that all kinds of reasoning, all kinds of symbol usage, are
equally effective.  Illogical and poorly thought out arguments are a misuse
of symbols.  So is astrological symbolism.  The approach to research and
theory, to reasoning, that I outlined earlier is, it seems to me, a far more
disciplined and coherent way of using symbols, of thinking about astrology,
than is astrological symbolism.

Yours in discourse,
Dale

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 14

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 19:27:49 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Symbolism, mostly

> From: Dale Huckeby
> Subject: [e] Symbolism, mostly

>    I'm not talking about sloppiness.  I'm talking about the way everybody
> who adheres to symbolism uses words to make connections between celestial
> and terrestrial correspondents.  And virtually everybody does adhere to
> symbolism.  Other than possibly Andre and Patrice, I know of no
exceptions.
> That's why I prefer not to call it sloppiness, because it's as illogical
> to say everybody's sloppy as it is to say everybody's short.

Okay, your critique is directed at the general practice of astrologers.  I
have been insufficiently precise in regard to my own critique, which seemed
likewise to me, but I agree mine is instead more about how they perform
their practice.

>    I don't think user competence has anything to do with it.  Either
> all symbolistic astrologers are incompetent, or symbolistic astrology
> simply works, for _everybody_, the way I describe above.  Since you
> are NOT incompetent, in my opinion, nor are a number of other highly
> knowledgable, well-trained practitioners that I know of, the latter
> makes more sense to me.

Yes, I see.  I would agree, if it weren't for my belief in the existence of
astrological archetypes.

> > Dunno about that.  Saturn = structure, limits, boundaries etc.  We can
> > intuitively recognise Saturn readily in being confronted by a bone, a
cop
> > car pulling us over for speeding, or a brick wall.  Not at all alike,
but
> > the archetype is evident and the common factor specified and
communicated
> > by keywords.
>
>    Saturn does NOT equal structure, limits, and boundaries, in my opinion.

Right, here's the crux of the differences between our views.

> Nor a bone, a brick, or a cop.  Thinking that way tells us nothing about
> the processes that have a Saturn periodicity, and is not conducive to
> progress.  Rather, we should ask, what recurs regularly, in a given life,
> as Saturn conjoins, squares, opposes, squares, conjoins, etc. its natal
> place...or natal Sun, or Moon, or Mars, etc.?  If we can see such rhythms
> in a number of lives, we can then ask, in what sense are the recurrent
> developments in A's life similar to B, and C, and D, etc.?  Alternatively,
> we can look at a single transit, say the Saturn Return, in a number of
> lives, and ask, in what sense were their experiences, during this period,
> alike (and therefore predictable)?  With regards to transits of planets
> to their natal places, that is, age transits, we have an existing body of
> research to consult: developmental psychology.  Piaget and Vygotsky, in
> particular, offer deep insights into what _generally_ occurs just before
> the second birthday, the first Mars Return, the period around the third
> birthday, Jupiter square Jupiter, a several-month period beginning around
> the seventh birthday, Saturn square Saturn, and the months leading up to
> the twelfth birthday, the first Jupiter Return.  We should observe the
> particulars first, _then_ generalize, rather than looking for particular
> applications of handed down generalizations.  If we approach research
> and theory this way I firmly believe that we can gain deep insights into
> how things work and create an astrology that's a coherent and effective
> body of knowledge.

Your view seems like the classic approach to science:  empirical
investigation.  Admirable, really, but almost unprecedented in the
astrological field.  Gauquelin tried it, but he didn't call himself an
astrologer.  Do you?

Would you deny that such words as saturnine, jovial & martial refer to both
human and planetary qualities?  If not from the planets, where then do you
think these qualities came from?  Why did they enter everyday use by
non-astrologers if they were merely imaginary qualities?

> > Again, I was tempted to this view once.  The reason I didn't go for
> > wholesale rejection of astrology was that I felt I had to respect the
extent
> > of consensus astrologers had actually developed.  We can discuss the
> > features of a chart in groups and all be on much the same wavelength,
> > despite individual differences on the details of interpretation.  I know
> > this because I have experienced it many times.  What I object to is that
> > most astrologers not only take it for granted, they assume that this
> > consensus makes astrology valid in its current fossil form.
>
>    It's not a very tight and effective consensus.  Astrologers can agree
> that Lincoln's chart is that of a great man, because they all already know
> that he's a great man.  But five astrologers will offer five different
> explanations of what in his chart explains his greatness.  And those five
> astrologers (let's assume they're all competent), if asked to rectify
> the birthtime of a person whose life course is well known, will probably
> suggest five different times, and make a plausible case for each and
> every one of them.  Because of symbolism's _inherent_ loosness, numerous
> times will "work".  Everytime we try to anticipate the future, or figure
> out something we don't already know, this looseness turns around and
> bites us in the ass.  And you're right, the existence of consensus, even
> though astrologers will differ on the, ahem, details of interpretation,
> makes it seem valid in its "current fossil form" (of which symbolism is
> a part).  That's one of the reasons I speak out, so the consensus will
> seem less monolithic and be less stifling of thinking outside the box.

Well put;  here we agree.

>    Dennis, I'm criticizing astrological symbol-ISM, not symbol usage as such.

Fine - just wanted to clarify that.

> When I observe recurrent transits and corresponding recurrent
developments,
> when I try to see what "it" is that's recurring regularly, and when I
write
> sentences and paragraphs trying to explain what I think I've seen, I'm
using
> symbols.  When I discuss these things with you, and critique your
viewpoint
> and try to explain mine, I'm using symbols.  Everytime I reason or talk
I'm
> using symbols.  When I do math, or read books about science or psychology
or
> history, I'm using symbols.  We can't reason without using symbols, but
that
> doesn't mean that all kinds of reasoning, all kinds of symbol usage, are
> equally effective.  Illogical and poorly thought out arguments are a
misuse
> of symbols.  So is astrological symbolism.  The approach to research and
> theory, to reasoning, that I outlined earlier is, it seems to me, a far
more
> disciplined and coherent way of using symbols, of thinking about
astrology,
> than is astrological symbolism.

Indeed, it would be.  Unfortunately, I suspect it requires a rigour beyond
not just most people but almost all.  I doubt if astrology is a suitable
subject for the application of reason alone.  In fact, now that I think
about it, it seems the philosophical difference between us may rest on the
extent to which we allow right-brain function to be incorporated in our
attitude to the subject.  I get the impression that your approach is pretty
much entirely left-brain!  My intuitive approach is more right-brain than
left.  Pattern recognition is essential to detection of the archetypes.  My
critique is that too many astrologers fail to spot the correlations between
the two (or more) manifestations of the pattern in any particular
synchronicity, consequently they misidentify and misallocate keywords and
archetypes which results in the sloppiness in their application of the
language of astrology.

Thanks Dale, I feel we have clarified our respective points of view
sufficiently.  I feel the need for contributions to this topic from other
astrologers.  Anyone out there with a multi-disciplinary track record who
can add a further dimension to this discussion?
 

Dennis

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16

Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:46:19 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15

Dennis,

   Perhaps all I can hope to communicate effectively is that I challenge
anyone's mastery of a meaningful conception If we cannot correctly
perceive a person well enough to imagine, correctly, an approximated
natal chart. The desire to see physics when and where only questionably
observable metaphysics seems to exist, seems self-defeating, or at least
some sort of denial based on some deep emotional need. How many
distortions of reality is the ego willing to perform in its quest for
acceptance? Hell, we only want the unconditional love and undivided
attention of whatever God the Almighty..."is"...:)

   I think we have to focus on defining what behaviors (whatever) may
actually be useful as "evidence" of astrological pattern--the signal
emerging from the noise. That would probably involve the objectifying a
much better definition of human *Individuality* than is apparently
available, or at least operatively substantiated by some foundational
consensus.

   What is the nature of astrological "thinking"? My best effort to
categorize the most probable explanation for how we come to recognize
the our pet instances of (subjectively?) convincing correlations between
native and natal chart is a due to human creativity, which is very
difficult to separate, at root, from modern man's perilous dependence
the presence of genetically propagated schizophrenia.
"[..] 100,000 years ago we became human, and technical, religious,
artistic, military and criminal abilities emerged. The first modern
humans migrated from Africa to Eurasia and Australasia, carrying with
them the genetic basis of schizophrenia, the only major illness found to
the same extent in all racial groups. [..]"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0593046498/ref=dp_image_text
_0/104-8491031-2013508?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

  Most likely astrology remains less than acceptably objective because
when we think "astrologically" we are simply "creating" thoughts which
are (intentionally?) eluding our metacognitive skills...all that which
ought to more properly monitor our fertile and convincing "correlative"
thought creatures...:) These mental events are in truth more analogous
to ambigram construction...not a repeatable mental experiment that is
stable and unvarying in essential character from person to person. So,
something like the graphic image of an ambigram perhaps best diagrams
relationship between astrology's signifiers and that which is intended
or assumed to be correctly signified.
http://www.johnlangdon.net/asymmetrical.html
 

  Art vs Science. We have to accept that the creative process, Art, is
that which is to be vivisected by our surgical tools of science. "Dead
art" is useless as evidence. All that which does not effectively express
the presence of a unique individual ala astrological correlation is
"dead" art...the corpse which has no processes of life to be observed in
action. Gauqueline was observing dead art...the Mars effect, to be
"real" has to observed in art that is not dead, on the basis of a living
individuated creative expression. Measuring social activities in terms
of assertiveness is analogous to walking across a skeet range picking up
the expended shot shells and looking to know the volume and explosive
secret of the now missing powder...:) He was not measuring the
"presence" of an individuated Mars.

   So, what, then, is the most productive way to conceptualize a kind
astrological symbolism which can can be isolated more successfully. It
will probably be an individualistic creative behavior with a
quasi-quantifiable uniqueness. It will probably be some form of
amalgamated output. Mars,in isolation, will never be expressed with any
consistency, thus it will remain undetectable as a proper representative
of its hypothetical, keyword-style, attributes. Some combination of
natal planets will be the minimum quantum-like packet which can cross
the threshold from potential to kinetic expression. The import of natal
Mars is perhaps observable only in its humanly individuated context.

   If I wish to say Mars is a directing and directed force, I need a
symbol for it. Barring that, I need at least a class of close-enough
kind of symbol set whose elements which share convincing family
resemblances between them.

Her is Mars as the dominant constituent of some planet/aspect amalgam,
pointy "thing(s)" indicating a specific direction:

http://pedantus.free.fr/Kahlo_F_01a.gif

  Mars opposite Sun+Neptune in Cancer (the breast area). I know this
"works" because I was able to determine her unknown birth time to the
minute simply by this visual comparison. This is Rosetta stone type of
art. If you want to find the "power" prediction in it, you have to
"predict" the verifiable birth time. It was months before I had
confirmation of this one, but, heh, it was worth the wait..:)

   If one can not make an astrologically intelligent as to the birth
time as expressed in these two illustrations, then what can I say, we
probably are doomed to continued failure. And perhaps rightfully so.
http://pedantus.free.fr/Horoscopic_Expressionism_03/
http://pedantus.free.fr/Horoscopic_Expressionism_01/

   These three samples came to me in rapid succession; this one
http://pedantus.free.fr/sneeze_01a.gif

  is the initial observation which spurred me to question which comes
first-- astrology, or the observations of planets which merely allows
the psyche map maker to have an observable expression of the
metaphysical "map" which is the property and prefferred medium of the
never-to-be-linguist Self...the soul thought to be the immaterial
operator, or captive, which is signally it presence in a sensibly
observable, socially clever, biologically accommodating gene-vehicle.

   Mars as a pointy thing/"fang" and the familiar Jungian sun symbol
seems coordinated enough that one should have very little difficulty
using the expressed individual behavior to closely "predict" the
native's birth time. This type of human drawing behavior maybe at least
a fetal state of "evidence" development, but perhaps as "astrological
patterning" it might be all that one, at present, can reasonably hope to
elicit from a willing and able psyche upon demand. These specimens are a
kind of ambigram--an intent-laden design facilitating tow co-creating
signals...neither of which can exist without the other. In the
schizophrenic reality of the creative psyche the drawings *are*
signatures, not signifiers..existences not "causes".

Rog..:)

For those who feel a little better when an author seems to have some
kind of responsible endorsement, I got this nice email a couple of days ago:

"[..]
You obviously have an intuitive, perhaps even spiritually synchronized
gift,of seeing the connection between the metaphysical and the
psychological, which is indissolubly merged with creative forces, what
we might say is the generative substrate of cosmic process. I am
fa[s]cinated by your capacities, which should be respected, validated,
and used for positive pursuits.

Best, Jon

JON MILLS, Psy.D., Ph.D., ABPP
President, Section on Psychoanalysis
Canadian Psychological Association
Editor, Contemporary Psychoanalytic Studies
1104 Shoal Point Road
Ajax, Ontario L1S 1E2, Canada
Web: www.processpsychology.com   [..]"

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 22:33:17 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 16
 

> Today's Topics:
>
>    1.  Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 15 (Roger L. Satterlee)

> Dennis,
>
>    Perhaps all I can hope to communicate effectively is that I challenge
> anyone's mastery of a meaningful conception If we cannot correctly
> perceive a person well enough to imagine, correctly, an approximated
> natal chart. The desire to see physics when and where only questionably
> observable metaphysics seems to exist, seems self-defeating, or at least
> some sort of denial based on some deep emotional need. How many
> distortions of reality is the ego willing to perform in its quest for
> acceptance? Hell, we only want the unconditional love and undivided
> attention of whatever God the Almighty..."is"...:)

Hi, Roger, thanks for your interesting response.  Firstly, "we cannot
correctly
perceive a person well enough to imagine, correctly, an approximated natal
chart."  That is a rare talent which you apparently have (other readers see
below) but few others.  Sceptics would wish to test this ability of yours in
repetitive situations, but I'm happy to take your word for it.  Perhaps I
could rationalise it as a psychic ability?

Secondly, if you are referring to me rather than others generally, I guess
my motivation to comprehend astrology in quasi-scientific terms (not really
physics) is some sort of life-quest.  I don't really think it is ego-driven,
even if producing my book partly was.  I tend to have internal recognition
of the difference between ego & self, inasmuch as I can see my ego doing
it's thing when it grabs the helm of the ship of self.  Not always of
course, sometimes I see the performance more in retrospect after having my
consciousness fully engaged in the situation!  There probably is a "deep
emotional need" to pursue the life-quest, but I can't see that it is
"self-defeating", or a "denial" of something important.

>    I think we have to focus on defining what behaviors (whatever) may
> actually be useful as "evidence" of astrological pattern--the signal
> emerging from the noise. That would probably involve the objectifying a
> much better definition of human *Individuality* than is apparently
> available, or at least operatively substantiated by some foundational
> consensus.

Indeed, but this "objectifying" requires words, does it not?  What
consensual form would they be in?  I have always assumed that the concept of
astrological keywords was invented in the mid-20th century for exactly that
purpose.

>    What is the nature of astrological "thinking"? My best effort to
> categorize the most probable explanation for how we come to recognize
> the our pet instances of (subjectively?) convincing correlations between
> native and natal chart is a due to human creativity, which is very
> difficult to separate, at root, from modern man's perilous dependence
> the presence of genetically propagated schizophrenia.
> "[..] 100,000 years ago we became human, and technical, religious,
> artistic, military and criminal abilities emerged. The first modern
> humans migrated from Africa to Eurasia and Australasia, carrying with
> them the genetic basis of schizophrenia, the only major illness found to
> the same extent in all racial groups. [..]"
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0593046498/ref=dp_image_text
> _0/104-8491031-2013508?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Yes, an excellent book.  I read it from the library a couple of years ago
and was so impressed I eventually picked up my own copy.  Incidentally,
after much examination I have come to the opinion that the
multiple-personality disorder phenomenon poses a substantial challenge to
astrology.  Regardless, the case for correlating exceptional artistry with
an unstable psyche is well made.  Perhaps it is relevant to observe that we,
the people, are systems operating far from equilibrium.  Technically, that
is, according to current systems science.  Plus chaos theory established
that creativity emerges in natural systems at the boundaries between
competing attractors (we live on the surface of earth, boundary between
planet & space - the cosmos).

>   Most likely astrology remains less than acceptably objective because
> when we think "astrologically" we are simply "creating" thoughts which
> are (intentionally?) eluding our metacognitive skills...all that which
> ought to more properly monitor our fertile and convincing "correlative"
> thought creatures...:) These mental events are in truth more analogous
> to ambigram construction...not a repeatable mental experiment that is
> stable and unvarying in essential character from person to person. So,
> something like the graphic image of an ambigram perhaps best diagrams
> relationship between astrology's signifiers and that which is intended
> or assumed to be correctly signified.
> http://www.johnlangdon.net/asymmetrical.html

Patrice coined the term "impressionals" to address the same point, and I
agree.  Putting it in my own words, we are talking about the consequence of
the pattern-reflection astrology attempts to describe.  As above, so below,
the pattern of the sky is constellated within the psyche.  The astrological
archetypes produce facets of the whole internally, and it is these that
Patrice calls the "impressionals" (do correct me if I'm wrong Patrice).  The
way I see it, the astrological archetypes emerge concurrently in both
macrocosm & microcosm, because they are 'deeper' than both manifestations.
They emerge from the informational realm of potential.

"These mental events", as you describe them, are produced by the emergence
of the archetypes in the psyche, but our thoughts are consequential to that
impact.  They are prompted by the generative influence of the impressionals
(secondarily) and the archetypes (primarily).

You wrote "when we think "astrologically" we are simply "creating" thoughts
which are (intentionally?) eluding our metacognitive skills", which sounds
good but raises issues of process.  If you mean ordinary thoughts prompted
by astrological influences, I think we should specify that this is
unconscious process that intention & metacognition do not govern or
interfere with.  If you mean astrological reasoning or intuition produced by
astrologers, I suspect intention & metacognition do both moderate the
process.

>   Art vs Science. We have to accept that the creative process, Art, is
> that which is to be vivisected by our surgical tools of science. "Dead
> art" is useless as evidence. All that which does not effectively express
> the presence of a unique individual ala astrological correlation is
> "dead" art...the corpse which has no processes of life to be observed in
> action. Gauqueline was observing dead art...the Mars effect, to be
> "real" has to observed in art that is not dead, on the basis of a living
> individuated creative expression. Measuring social activities in terms
> of assertiveness is analogous to walking across a skeet range picking up
> the expended shot shells and looking to know the volume and explosive
> secret of the now missing powder...:) He was not measuring the
> "presence" of an individuated Mars.

True.

>    So, what, then, is the most productive way to conceptualize a kind
> astrological symbolism which can can be isolated more successfully. It
> will probably be an individualistic creative behavior with a
> quasi-quantifiable uniqueness. It will probably be some form of
> amalgamated output. Mars,in isolation, will never be expressed with any
> consistency, thus it will remain undetectable as a proper representative
> of its hypothetical, keyword-style, attributes. Some combination of
> natal planets will be the minimum quantum-like packet which can cross
> the threshold from potential to kinetic expression. The import of natal
> Mars is perhaps observable only in its humanly individuated context.

The problem lies in the unique context of each horoscope, true.  I think
keywords emerge into collective consensus in much the same way as everyday
language.  It'd be easy if, say, natal Sun trine Mars was always assertive
and natal Sun square Mars was always provoking conflict and natal Sun
opposite Mars was always polarising aggressively and natal Sun conjunct Mars
was always active.  The problem lies in modification by other astrological
archetypes in the particular configuration of each whole psyche.

>    If I wish to say Mars is a directing and directed force, I need a
> symbol for it. Barring that, I need at least a class of close-enough
> kind of symbol set whose elements which share convincing family
> resemblances between them.

Yeah, keywords are such a set.

> Her is Mars as the dominant constituent of some planet/aspect amalgam,
> pointy "thing(s)" indicating a specific direction:
>
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Kahlo_F_01a.gif
>
>   Mars opposite Sun+Neptune in Cancer (the breast area). I know this
> "works" because I was able to determine her unknown birth time to the
> minute simply by this visual comparison. This is Rosetta stone type of
> art. If you want to find the "power" prediction in it, you have to
> "predict" the verifiable birth time. It was months before I had
> confirmation of this one, but, heh, it was worth the wait..:)

Yeah but it's only apparent to you!  Your particular intuition or psychic
ability produces the correlation.  Because you cannot export this to others
it cannot be used by them, thus cannot generate consensus via application.

>    If one can not make an astrologically intelligent as to the birth
> time as expressed in these two illustrations, then what can I say, we
> probably are doomed to continued failure. And perhaps rightfully so.
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Horoscopic_Expressionism_03/
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Horoscopic_Expressionism_01/
>
>    These three samples came to me in rapid succession; this one
> http://pedantus.free.fr/sneeze_01a.gif
>
>   is the initial observation which spurred me to question which comes
> first-- astrology, or the observations of planets which merely allows
> the psyche map maker to have an observable expression of the
> metaphysical "map" which is the property and prefferred medium of the
> never-to-be-linguist Self...the soul thought to be the immaterial
> operator, or captive, which is signally it presence in a sensibly
> observable, socially clever, biologically accommodating gene-vehicle.

Sorry, you lost me here.

>    Mars as a pointy thing/"fang" and the familiar Jungian sun symbol
> seems coordinated enough that one should have very little difficulty
> using the expressed individual behavior to closely "predict" the
> native's birth time. This type of human drawing behavior maybe at least
> a fetal state of "evidence" development, but perhaps as "astrological
> patterning" it might be all that one, at present, can reasonably hope to
> elicit from a willing and able psyche upon demand. These specimens are a
> kind of ambigram--an intent-laden design facilitating tow co-creating
> signals...neither of which can exist without the other. In the
> schizophrenic reality of the creative psyche the drawings *are*
> signatures, not signifiers..existences not "causes".

Again, I can only observe that this visual process seems to work for you,
but has no apparent bearing on the rest of us.  Has that not occurred to
you?  Do you actually know other astrologers who can do the same thing?  I
doubt it.  Fran, you have once or twice referred to Roger as your teacher,
so can you do this??

> Rog..:)
>
> For those who feel a little better when an author seems to have some
> kind of responsible endorsement, I got this nice email a couple of days
ago:

Those presumably including yourself?  :)

> "[..]
> You obviously have an intuitive, perhaps even spiritually synchronized
> gift,of seeing the connection between the metaphysical and the
> psychological, which is indissolubly merged with creative forces, what
> we might say is the generative substrate of cosmic process. I am
> fa[s]cinated by your capacities, which should be respected, validated,
> and used for positive pursuits.
>
> Best, Jon
>
> JON MILLS, Psy.D., Ph.D., ABPP
> President, Section on Psychoanalysis
> Canadian Psychological Association
> Editor, Contemporary Psychoanalytic Studies
> 1104 Shoal Point Road
> Ajax, Ontario L1S 1E2, Canada
> Web: www.processpsychology.com   [..]"

Cool!  That's a pretty good credit.  Didn't know that the ranks of
psychoanalysts now included lateral-thinkers.  They sure as hell ejected
poor old Jeffrey Masson for such ability when he was the blue-eyed boy back
in the '70s.  His account ("Final Analysis", 1990) is a terrific read.
 

Dennis

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 18

Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:33:53 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17
 
 

Dennis,
   Here is some research dedicated to the David Horrobin (author: The
Madness of Adam and Eve;..... ) by one Bradley S. Folley
http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/students/doopm/fatty_acid.pdf

In response to todays posts:

   In the interest of readability and completeness of detailed response,
I hope it is acceptable for me to simply tack on my email of this
morning to one :
Bradley S. Folley
Vanderbilt University
Clinical Psychology
301 Wilson Hall
111 21st Ave. South
Nashville, TN 37240

  It begins with his response to my previously emailed description of my
personal experiences with "creativity"  (of my experience of horoscopic
expressionism, whatever..:)  :

==============Begin attached email correspondence=================
Re: Schizophrenia and Creativity
Brad Folley wrote:
 > Roger,
 > Thank you for sharing your won experience with us. I think what you
have described is an excellent example of creativity because you are
making novel associations that are useful. I cannot explain how it
works! (Admittedly, I am not familiar with astrology). I do believe that
there are millions of associations that are "floating out there" and it
takes a truly novel mind to find the tools to make the connections. The
beauty of art is that it can be expressed without deference to science,
and to that end it is truly "expressed".
 >
 > Thank you,
 >
 > ~Brad
 >
 > ______________________________
 > Bradley S. Folley
 > Vanderbilt University
 > Clinical Psychology
 > 301 Wilson Hall
 > 111 21st Ave. South
 > Nashville, TN 37240
 >
 >
 >

Dear Brad,
   Thank you for your much for your deeply appreciated reply...:) I
received another nice email a couple of days ago, probably the one which
tip my scales and prompted/encouraged me to seek out persons more
involved in objective research of creativity and individualistic
behavior. It's a little woo-woo fluffy, but effectively to the point.

=======================================================
Subject: Re: The False Dasein: From Heidegger to ...

Roger,
You obviously have an intuitive, perhaps even spiritually synchronized
gift, of seeing the connection between the metaphysical and the
psychological, which is indissolubly merged with creative forces, what
we might say is the generative substrate of cosmic process. I am
facinated by your capacities, which should be respected, validated, and
used for positive pursuits.

Best, Jon

JON MILLS, Psy.D., Ph.D., ABPP
President, Section on Psychoanalysis
Canadian Psychological Association
Editor, Contemporary Psychoanalytic Studies
1104 Shoal Point Road
Ajax, Ontario L1S 1E2, Canada
Web: www.processpsychology.com

======================================================

    So, here then is an example of my conceptualization...that which
tentatively  passes for an "experiment" considering the void of
objective information we actually have concerning the objective,
positively observable, substance of creatively expressed Individuality,
and my personal lack of better resources. (See an explanation of the
"experiment" in the lower half of this email.)

Illustration of a successful result:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Ligal_E_01a.gif

Description:
   Subject has apparently engaged in an unconscious expression of what
is popularly called astrological symbolism. The primary indicator is the
"Moon" object projecting from the head of the whimsical self portrait.
The secondary indicator is the female indication of "Mars" as a ignition
switch located at the right side of the "neck" , as depicted. A third
indicator, which is more rarely observed, is the symbolically parallel
projection of the "Neptune" symbol ostensibly depicted as a
flower-shape, and which I *speculatively* perceive as perhaps resembling
electric power "wall plug" in terms of shape and its "astrologically"
implied symbolic object functionality. Thus it is but a three-point
"soul print" at best, but it is enough to establish birth time within
four minutes...a .03% error...:)

Source of observed specimen (paintings):
http://www.ligal.it/english/galleria-english.html

Source of accurately calculated chart:
http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?rs=3&btyp=w2gw&&cid=wy0file2p4c95
-u1145886723

Confirmation of "guess" accuracy; anemail from the subject artist:

==============begin email confirmation==============
Subject  R: Individuality, Art, Birth Time

Dear Roger L. Satterlee
I was born on 17th May 1958 at 3:10 PM. Does this makes any sense to
you? I hope so.
Thanks for yours appreciations and many greetings for yours studies.

Ciao
Emanuela Ligal

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Roger L. Satterlee
Inviato: sabato 11 ottobre 2003 17.23
A: emanuela ligal
Oggetto: Individuality, Art, Birth Time
 

Dear Emanuela,
   I am writing to ask if I may know your time of birth. I am comparing
astrology charts to paintings to see if charts are in some way useful in
helping me to understand the non-classic psychology of individuality.
Your paintings are wonderful, and the ones I think most helpful to me
are; Cerebral Gear, Coscience Rest , Nobody, and Fish Number One.  With
these I have tried to guess your birth time, but I don't have very  much
confidence in my conclusion.  I'm guessing that you were born about 5:14
PM.  If thisis not correct, maybe I can learn something from my
mistake...:)  Thank you very much for your help with this study.

Rog
Elmira, NY
=================== end of email confirmation========================
 

Background and Introduction (or skip to "experiment" desription below..:) :

   Though I was not able stay in college (1975-78) long enough to
complete the degree requirements, for many reasons, I did attempt a
double major in Psychology and Geography, as this was my way to
construct a curriculum suitable to my quirky "astrological" interests. I
have a lot of my life invested in this quixotic quest for an
understanding my own individualistic perceptions....that which makes me
something of a dubiously objective and therefor less than acceptable
"superstitious" person...:|
  I learned about the rigors of Science--the objectively, critical
stance required of experimenters, and , unfortunately, I learned the
near impossibility of sufficiently objectifying the hopelessly
subjective seeming phantoms of my suppositions. My first attempt to show
that individualistic artistic self projection can correlate with self
perceptions was a simplistic but well received (by class and Prof)
project, a required "experiment" for my class in Developmental Child
Psychology. I was allowed to collect data from fifth grade students by
having them complete the Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory and then
having them draw a self portrait.  Using ideas I found previous employed
in psych research journals, I constructed my own objective system of
drawing evaluation based not just on "content" but on elements of
drawing style/technique.  I used five elements of form and five elements
of line, thus a total of ten categories of potential "error". So, things
like obvious aversions of anatomical symmetry, or line "mistakes" like
attemted erasures and such, allowed a way to at least rate the drawing
more or less objectively.  The correlated well, the lowest self esteem
score was 35 0f 50 and the male child in question actually drew what he
called "a monster"...it did most the potentially self critical drawing
"errors".
   Now, the biggest drawback to any attempted objective studies of
artistic self expression is that , to my mind, the presence of
Individuality is not welcomed, not operatively, and perhaps only
definded, as in the example above, in the negative context. All instance
of individual behavior are to be consider as forever confined to the
realm of the merely anecdotal evidence, and the delivery of unique
anecdotes while  on is in the persona of entertain social speaker...:)
I say, what if Individuality *can* be positively identified, thus not by
just a observing a number of "mistakes" commited during a subject's
performance of some probably irrelevant task.  What in our linguistic
tradition most generally addresses the uniqueness of a person? There is
probably no traditional set of qualifiers more devoted to Individuality
than this thing called astrology. As reluctant as I was to be infected
with such superstitious nonsense, at the age of 20, my desire to
understand Individuality in a more "meaningful" frame of reference has
prodded me into the dreaded abyss of our all too human irrationally
rational artistically perceived holism...our metacognitive knee jerk
acceptance of personal uniqueness which seems ironically comprised of
universal building material--the self as an obligatory, artistic,
composition. How dearly I would have liked to correct Jung on some
critical points cocerning his superfiscial attempt to employ the
promising psychical content of astrology's perceptual tradition; this
knowing full well the impossibility of such an fanciful eventuality, as
he was at least as committed to his "errors" as I am to my
"corrections". And, he and I just happen to share the same birthday...:)

   Now, in any attempt to actually observe and ostensibly measure
Individuality, we have to concede that the apparent irreducibly broad
range of "artistic" media which in effect does indeed enable an ego's
sense of convincing existential being-ness...however one may like to
name this phenomenal experience.  There seems a silent non-linguistic
mantra repeated in our psyche, if only for our personal edification, or
validation, whatever.  We might imaginatively translate it as , "I am
here. This *is* me." This Self-sustaining message must find
satisfactorally individuated manifestations of self-expressive
creativity.  In short, I have seen this "creative" act in such mundane
seeming things as the way a person meticulously placed a knife and a
stalk of celery on her plate to indicate that the task now complete to
her personal satisfaction....("I am here...this is me...I have done this
well.")

   How we define a quite possibly objective instrument which may at
least address some part of the apparently un-workable breadth of
creativity, a virtual sea of diverse life expression, poetically
speaking, and cast a net designed to capture a particular act of
(S)self-expression which does seem to be a bit to fishy for Science. We
might have to educate a scientist or too concerning a certain amount of
politically motivated ignorance, for a start. Here then (below) is my
best attempt to show that I am almost acceptably rational and have
employed critical thinking to evaluate a single subject "experiment":

===================begin description of "experiment"==========

Objective: To identify the most likely birth time of an artist when only
the birth date is a given.

Proceedure:

1.) Search the web for instances of paintings which seem to employ the
parallels of Jungian "astrological" symbolism as have been tentatively
identified in previous "research" (see Personal Island Kingdom Drawing,
etc..)

2.) Evaluate one or more specimens made available by the artist and
define the most likely birth time (diurnal, time of day) by using the
Astrolog chart erecting program.

3.) Contact the artist by email, and request birth data *while*
informing s/he of your purpose and your birth time guess.

Control issues:
   Control information. Never inform the artist of your actual birth
time guess, rather, intentionally introduce a controlled "error" so as
to disquise the response you seek. Confirmation can a be the result of a
distortion on the part of the artist, many persons are moved to falsely
affirm astrology on the basis of the personal bias which favorite it
above "Science".
   To this end, I suggest the usual errors which occur in the time
calculations of chart erection, i.e., the perfunctory time zone and
daylight savings time adjustments...each can introduce at a one hour
"error". These are naturally occurring routinely occuring mistakes in
the normal chart erecting proceedure, and can be succesfully employed as
an intention disguise of the actual birth time guess. Hopefully the
ostensibly understandable temporary confusion will be factually
corrected by the responding artist.

Comments:
   Additionally, one can at least potentially elicit another fact
concerning the artist's own preference for which of s/he's works is
should be considered as especially representative of their individual
self-expression. To accomplish this, never tell the artist which work
has actually been chosen as the specimen of the chart-painting comparison.
     Citing three or more other works as being most of interest  *may*
encourage the artist to spontaneously affirm the the work the
experimenter has decided most appropriate to the rating of "most
expressive". (This of course comes under the heading of icing on the
cake...:)
   The poetic content of painting titles can also be additionally
indicative of the artist's expressive intention. Titles such as Fida
Kahlo's self portrait entitled "Roots" is not unlike the Jungian
psychological concept of "rhizome" the root source of psyche's selfhood.
Emanuela Ligal, (above) chose the title, "Self Regeneration", this is
consistent with the speculation that she intends to be addressing the
idea of selfhood and identity.

=================end description of "experiment"=============
 

Rog...:)

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 18

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 19

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:31:51 +0100
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] symbolism
 

> Why,
>for instance, has there been almost no discussion of the epistemological
>status of astrological symbolism?  I've raised this issue a number of times,
>arguing that symbolism is inherently flawed and on occasion explaining
>why I think so, but no one has offered an articulate defense of it.  How
>is astrology to evolve and improve if we are impervious to critiques of
>its foundations (and to proffered alternatives)?

Hi Dale and everyone,
Seeing as the opportunity to shout from the rooftops is going to
reduce dramatically with the ending of Exegesis, I thought I'd join in
the party. First of all to thank Fran, and secondly to pour a
bucketful of ideas and notions into the punchbowl and give it a good
stir. Hopefully this won't induce too much nausea or terminal
hangovers, but from what has been written recently, I know my
contribution is more grape than grain (or is it the other way round?),
and wine and beer don't mix too easily in the head!

I think that one of the reasons why little effort has been made to
discuss the epistemological status of astrological symbolism is
because it's a very complex subject. To get to grips with it requires
substantial knowledge and understanding from other fields such as
semiotics or cognitive science. There are symbols and there are
symbols, if you know what I mean.

You mentioned in your last post to Dennis that you use symbols every
time you reason, communicate, calculate, and that it is not symbols
which you reject, but symbolism.

So presumably the use of symbols in mathematics or abstract reasoning,
for example, is not symbolism. From a semiotics point of view, there
is a difference between a mathematical or scientific symbol, or a word
that re-presents an entity for purposes of communication, and imaginal
symbols such as a cross, a circle (cycle), fire, ivy, or whatever.

The former are closer to signs than symbols, in the sense that they
are used to signify the signified entity in a direct and definitive
sense. NaCl *is* salt, which of course it isn't, but the designation
is not ambiguous.

Similarly, the word 'dog' equals the canine animal we all know and
love (but also the image in a photo of a dog or a drawing of a dog -
unlike NaCL, this word doesn't give rise to an unambiguous
designation. The context is important). And so on.

However, I find it hard to see how one can fully separate the sign
from the symbol, given the way we cognise. Symbolising is a human
cognitive activity. I reckon it is impossible in normal discourse to
prevent words assuming subjectively expanded meanings. They can mean
different things to different people. Dog as a symbol of fidelity,
friendship; or dog as a symbol of guardianship; dog as a symbol of a
rogue, and so on.

>From what you have written, it seems that it is this ambiguity
associated with symbol meanings that has led you to avoid astrological
descriptions based on figurative language, and abandon the notion of
an astrology which relies on symbolism.

My take on astrology is profoundly different from your own, though
there are points of contact and overlap.

I do agree, and have argued for years that the forms astrology has
taken are modulated by cultural and contextual factors. Whether or not
this makes me a social constructionist I'm not sure. However, the
intersubjectivity consensus you mention I would see as 'locally valid'
rather than visualising it on a global scale.

In other words I would not dismiss, say, Chinese astrology out of
hand. The fact that it has a radically different form from western
astrology is a consequence, to use your terms, of social
constructionist pressures within the cultural/contextual/environmental
milieu. I would note with interest, for example, the fact that Chinese
astrology has a pronounced 'verticality' that is not so emphasised in
the west. Thus the zenith and circumpolar stars play a major role. Of
course, China is more mountainous than Mesopotamia, which is
geophysically horizontal. So horizon events dominate. There's no right
or wrong about this, only the fact that in an observational sense the
astrologies are bound to diverge from pretty much the word go.

I also agree that planetary cycles in real time have a place in
astrology, and always have done. But I'm not sure that by rejecting
their symbolic nature you escape ambiguity and subjectivity in your
observations of correlating patterns of events in life. The
identification of "functional similarities" isn't a simple straight
'reading' of history, but a selection process, a projection of
(probably socially constructed) significance.

In the same way a machine can only measure what it has been designed
to measure (the root of self-fulfilling prophecy in science), you can
only see what you can see. And in both cases there is always more
going on "than meets the eye". I personally don't have a problem with
the idea that you can generate useful insights in this way, but I
wonder about the idea that you can *identify* what the planetary
cycles "describe" re: functional similarities in world events. In
other words, that you can 'label' the cycles in some way that is more
solid (more real) than their attached symbolist meanings.

I find it odd too, from the point of view of a possible coherent
model, that you feel comfortable saying that in your view the
Uranus-Neptune cycle is "more important" than the Saturn-Pluto cycle
which has attracted Richard Tarnas's attention.

In many respects we each are coming to astrology from opposite ends of
a spectrum. Rather than succumbing to (and then reacting to) the
socially constructed pressures of old style modernity, which rejects
astrology completely because it doesn't fit the notions of ontological
possibility, objectivist philosophy, and all the rest that informs
that world view, I take astrology at face value. I think astrology is
exactly what it looks like: unreasonable.

And this is what I try and understand, based on my experience of
astrological practice. I don't bother with the fact that it is absurd
when stuck into a different context from the one in which it
flourishes.

I think the symbolism, with all its ambiguity and lack of consistency,
is actually the main strength of astrology, and the reason why it
continues to survive and have any functional value. The fact that a
symbol can be meaningfully associated with an almost infinite number
of contextual themes, though paradoxically remain constrained by a
finite boundary separating it from what it does not mean, is the
reason why it is so useful.

For this idea to sit comfortably in one's mind, astrology has to be
wrested from the heavens and brought down to earth - to where it has
been formed. I believe that astrology is a human creation, a system
which has evolved in various forms out of a need to generate a sense
of order in the experience of change in the phenomenal world.

The heavens provide a template for the way astrology has been
conceptualised. But astrology is not in my opinion an objective
feature of the external world, or an aspect of Universal Reason (as
mathematics is often conceptualised) that defines the lawful
structuring of reality.

Astrology is not discovered "out there". It is an emergent property of
human cognitive functioning, and has evolved in response to selection
pressures at the interface between cognition and environment.

Or so I believe.

In which case, astrology becomes astrologer-centred. Rather than the
non-participatory observer who reads the astro-data coming in from
'solar system space' and translates it into communicable information,
I would see a complex comprising the interpreting participating
astrologer (seer), the context and the astrology, each influencing
each other. And whatever type of astrology that happens to be, too.

I don't think it matters in a crucial sense what form of astrology one
uses, because at the heart of the astrological process is the
astrologer, not the heavens or the horoscopes derived from them.

But I do think that the astrologer will only be able to make useful
astrologically-derived statements if he or she works very hard at
developing their relationship with the astrological system they are
using.

They will be able quite honestly to say "this works for me", but what
they actually mean is "I work with this". Astrology doesn't work.
Astrologers do (or not depending on their abilities).

I accept that these kinds of ideas get some astrologers, and certainly
their critics, frothing at the mouth. It actually requires a denial of
the dominant philosophy of the modern era to be able to hold these
views, so in a sense the approach is heretical, even among
astrologers.

This is because the attitudes among western astrologers in general are
clearly culturally modulated. Perhaps the main symptom of this is the
common denial that astrology has a divinatory aspect, divination being
devoid of any causal potency in the material sense. Even the tradition
of horary, although it is the residual form of divinatory astrology in
the west, is seriously rule bound and tied to classicism. This doesn't
interfere in itself with the process of divining through the use of
horary, but it does diminish being able to see the divination occuring
in nearly all other areas of astrology.

I'm not actually interested in horary astrology per se - the idea of
laws of astrological practice repels me. But I do believe that
whenever I am reading a horoscope, there is part of my cognition
functioning that is not rational, and which underlies whatever seeing
I manage to come up with.

The veneer of the ritual; of the use of the ephemeris with its neat
rows of numbers nicely ordered; of the geometry; of the emphasis on
precision and accurate data - all these and more provide intellectual
comfort and act in a way that masks what is actually going on. It is
easy to convince oneself that what is being used is the solar system
itself, rather than a horoscope which bears very little relation if
any to celestial reality at time 't'. The use of the causal language -
planetary effects and influences, the energy of Neptune, etc. helps
too - it all sounds so reasonable.

I think these kinds of rituals are important as they help to focus
cognition on the task at hand, but I believe they mask what is
happening on a cognitive level. The insights are actually
unreasonable.

Which is why astrology is not taken seriously by rationalists.

But I'm not a rationalist. I am very curious how it is that I can make
statements about a context that are not based on traditional
analytical reasoning, and be right on the mark. It is bizarre.

"All anecdotal evidence, and therefore inadmissable!" scream the
sceptics. Yeah ... sure. "It's the Barnum Effect!"  Yeah ... sure. But
any practising astrologer will know what I'm talking about.

Whatever it is that I am doing, it is not logical.

I actually believe that what is called divination - using non-rational
(or pre-rational) cognitive faculties to see more than can be
delivered by rational analysis - is happening for everyone to one
degree or another, but very unconsciously. I also believe that
throughout history the cognitive process involved has been 'amplified'
by the use of systematic devices as exemplified by the yarrow stalks
of the I-Ching, Tarot cards, and so on.

The actual device or system is not important. What is important is
that the system is used ... and used ... and used.

I think it is a very important aspect of the real process (rather than
the mythic version) of scientific progress. The creative scientists
were and are in effect (and unwittingly) seers who rely on imaginal
cognition to gain insights into seemingly intractable problems, or
whatever. I think a lot of the intense intellectual work (the
amplifying device inadvertantly used by scientists) creates conditions
suitable for seeing. The powers of unreason click in.

Having had the insights - the illumination - they then fall back on
rational and analytical powers to model them so that they can be
communicated to peers. When the article is published in the journal,
there is no mention of the role of illumination in the process.
Science is based on rational analysis and the correct methodology (and
don't you forget it!).

Or so I believe.

Reasoning never generated any novelty; it only confirms the
significance (or not) of what has been newly imagined. William Blake
was right - the imagination is the well source of human creativity.

If you've read this far, you will have realised that I would have a
lot more respect for Geoffery Cornelius than you and Dennis seem to
have. I find it strange that he can be dismissed as "a mere
traditionalist" when the purpose of his book 'The Moment of Astrology'
is to deconstruct and undermine the influence of Ptolemy on
contemporay astrological practice!

It's obviously an iconoclastic work, by any standards. Although
Cornelius (Capricorn Sun) may like to follow Lilly in terms of his
horary practice, his philosophical take on astrology is more
influenced by phenomenology,  Merleau-Ponty, Levi-Bruhl, etc.. At
least it was when I last spoke to him, admittedly in the last century.

I think there are points he makes in the book which are important,
whether or not one is interested in horary, or even symbolism.

I'd better stop. At the back of all this is the notion I subscribe to,
which is that the 21st century will be the one when non-rationality
will be rehabilitated. This will happen because of work in the
cognitive sciences. As a consequence, astrology will become a focus of
attention, because it is the primary repository of applied
non-rational (imaginal) cognition in western culture.

Against this kind of backdrop, Cornelius becomes a visionary of sorts.

The exam question in the future will be about comparing and
contrasting the contribution of astrologers and mathematicians to
structuring the human experience of change in the phenomenal world.

I meant to say something about the epistemological status of
astrological symbolism, but that will have to wait till later in the
wake.

All the best,

Bill

http://www.radical-astrology.com

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

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:49:49 +1000
From: "Robert Tulip"
Subject: [e] Basis of Astrology
 

Friends
The discussion on the status of symbols in astrology prompts me to
comment from my own inter-disciplinary perspective, combining
philosophy, science, theology and astrology.  I am reading Dennis
Elwell, Cosmic Loom, and Michel Gauquelin, The Spheres of Destiny, both
of which are relevant here. I have long been convinced of the validity
of astrology, and somewhat bemused by the low quality of public
discussion.
A common example of ignorant criticism is the observation that the stars
are too far away to determine signs, and that anyway precession makes
the signs invalid.  This view shows ignorance of the nature of the
tropical zodiac - the basis of the signs in the northern seasons
determined by equinoxes and solstices - which is simply not known by
many so-called scientific experts.  Conventional western astrology has
nothing to do with the stars, except regarding precessional ages, of
which more anon.
Accepting the tropical zodiac, with its four points of change at the
solstices and equinoxes, the question arises, why are there twelve signs
and not four or eight?  Elwell offers an unsatisfactory and rather
mystical answer, stating "to postulate the zodiac as a rhythmical
modulation in the energy field set up between the earth and the sun
could tempt us into a falsely mechanistic version of what is really
happening" (p10).  He appears to suggest the Gauquelin research is of
limited value- although his book is subtitled 'the new science of
astrology'.  Contra Elwell, I believe such a 'rhythmic modulation' is
indeed worth postulating, grounded in observations of chaos theory,
cosmology and evolution.
To explain this claim, it is essential to place human life in cosmic
context.  If I imagine myself as the sun, the earth would be the size of
a pea ten metres away, Jupiter would be an apple about forty metres
away, and the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, would be on the other side
of our planet earth.  If our solar system - out to the Pluto orbit -
were the size of a small pebble, we could imagine a God in space looking
at our system as the size of his eye, holding it in the fingers of his
hand, and skipping it like a stone across the cosmic lake - 100 metres
away to the nearest star, or 4000 kilometres across the Milky Way, just
one of the billions of galaxies. (So that image of God is too small!)
If our solar system were a one inch disc, the next star would be 100
metres away and our Milky Way galaxy would be the size of the
continental USA. The point here is that our solar system is incredibly
isolated in cosmic terms.  And within our isolated system, 99.8% of
which is in the sun, we have near total stability of the planetary
orbits, which have had only marginal change since the major catastrophes
of four billion years ago when the earth-moon system was established by
major collision - creating the earth's stable tilt causing the seasons.
Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe - presents a
brilliant scientific summary of our astounding origins (reviewed at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0387952896/102-9320110-2888925?v=glance
&n=283155
In the midst of a hostile galaxy (considering SETI failure to date), we
know the spinning whirlpool nebula of our sun coalesced five billion
years ago into our stable solar system.  After the first billion years,
life evolved on earth, and then remained microscopic for almost 3.5
billion years until the Cambrian evolutionary explosion 560 million
years ago.  Over this long period, the moon has orbited the earth more
than fifty billion times, and the equinox has precessed around the
zodiac more than 150,000 times.  All the DNA of earth has evolved in
this stable cosmic context.  Richard Dawkins argues persuasively in The
Selfish Gene and other books that cumulative adaptation to subtle
environmental factors is a sufficient explanation for the evolution of
life - and that an organism which is better adapted to even a minor
factor will in the long run out-compete another organism which lacks
that adaptation when both live in the same niche.  I agree with Dawkins
on this, and note that the stable rhythms of the seasons and planets
have been a near-permanent unchanging part of the context of all life.
The planets have less immediate effects than terrestrial factors, but
they compensate by permanent stability, so it can be expected that
organisms which are adapted to their rhythms will have acquired a subtle
advantage.  The point here is that our adaptation - considered in
genetic terms over billions of years - is to our local cosmic
environment, which is not the earth in isolation but the solar system.
Gauquelin's 'The Cosmic Clocks' gives a number of examples - for example
mussels taken from the Atlantic to a dark room in Chicago adapted to the
25 hour cycle of the moon in the new location, and there are numerous
statistical examples of planetary effects.
Our unity with our cosmic context can be illustrated by comparing us to
trees, which exhibit fractal self-similarity at all levels from the
trunk down to the veins of each leaf.  A human being is like a leaf on
the tree of the sun, exhibiting self-similarity with the system and an
organic connection to the whole.  To illustrate what this means for
astrology, consider this experiment in fluid dynamics.  Fill a vat with
nine heavy viscous liquids, each a different colour and different
quantity, and rotate the vat at a fixed speed.  At random intervals
drill a core sample of the mixing fluids, like a glacial ice core.  It
should then be possible in principle to determine precisely when each
core was taken, by study of the amount of mixing of colours.  The unique
character of each moment in time will be displayed, with each moment
having definite links to its origin.  If the core samples are then put
back in the vat, they will evolve with the rest of the mix, but the
contents of each sample will be marked uniquely by the shock of its
moment of separation.  Our natal chart is like a core from the vat -
displaying the moment when we budded from the cosmic whole - like an
exposed photographic film.  Our chart also displays the genetic decision
of the foetus as to the moment of birth that would best suit its
character and purpose, as Gauquelin demonstrates by the non-appearance
of planetary effects in statistical samples of induced births.  (For
this reason I consider needless choice of caesarean and induced births
and failure to record exact birth times to be breaches of the rights of
the child).
So back to the matter of why there are twelve signs.  The question is
why should the fourfold seasonal division of the tropical year be
divided in three to produce the twelve signs?  The issue here is the
relative power of the different rhythms of time, and whether there is
any factor dividing the year in three to 'interfere' with the duple
solar division.  It is here that the moon's relation to earth comes into
play.  The moon, our partner planet, circles the earth about three times
each quarter, establishing the month.  I interpret this in terms of the
idea from complexity theory of 'entrainment', on which
http://www.thecompounder.com/binauralbeats.html#entrain provides a
useful overview.
So what is "entrainment"?
http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS349/alex.pdf explains
that when pendulums or clocks are 'coupled' through contact with one
wall, they fall into step or are entrained, through common vibration.
The description of entrainment of firefly lights is also worth reading -
showing that events can be linked in surprising ways, as in astrology.
Another good example is that soldiers break step when marching over
bridges, because the natural vibratory oscillation of the bridge might
become entrained with the soldiers' steps, and the bridge could become
increasingly unstable and collapse. (That is, the bridge would be
destroyed due to bad vibes.)
The relevance to the moon and the signs is as follows.  The seasons of
the earth have a regular permanent rhythm, marked by the four points of
the equinoxes and solstices each year.  This may be compared to the
natural vibratory rate of the bridge in the example above.  On top of
earth's annual rhythm, the moon orbits earth once a month, creating a
second rhythm.  This is like the soldiers marching in step in the
example, interfering with the annual earth-sun rhythm to cause it to
oscillate to the earth-moon beat.  These two rhythms, the month and the
year, together with the day and the great year, are the primary temporal
structures of the earth.  All life has cumulatively adapted to these
permanent unchanging rhythms.  If we think of the year as like the
bridge in the example, oscillating around four points, and overlay the
moon, dividing each quarter in roughly three, it makes sense -
considering the complexity and sensitivity of life - that over the
immense period of the four billion years of life our genes would have
combined these two cycles deep within their nature, through cumulative
adaptation, to form a natural twelve part annual rhythm of life.  This
is what we call the tropical zodiac signs.  Note that the soldiers' step
does not have to be an exact fraction of the bridge period of
oscillation to set up a sympathetic vibration in the bridge -
entrainment results from a rough match.  The 354 day lunar year is close
enough to the solar year to entrain it against the month.  The effects
of other planets are small by comparison to the sun and moon, but still
very real, especially at the subtle level of the psyche.  The near-total
stability of the seasons is the primary rhythm.  In a sense this primary
period 'looks for' a natural division within each quarter.  The biggest
physical regular period within each quarter is of course the lunar
month, which causes the quarter to naturally divide in three equal
parts, creating the signs.
http://ludix.com/moriarty/entrain.html comments "The moon and sun are
the most pervasive entraining influences in our environment. The entire
planet is under their sway. But you don't need a cosmic mass to initiate
entrainment. Even a very modest rhythmic impulse, given the right
frequency and insistent repetition, is enough to coax any elastic system
into significant oscillation. The destruction of the Tacoma Narrows
bridge by a passing breeze is a compelling case in point."
The natural binary rhythm of the seasons is entrained to the lunar
rhythm - "locking" the earth's perpetual rhythmic vibration to the
outside source of the moon.  Without such entrainment the statistical
findings of Sachs
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0752826956/102-9320110-2888925?v=glanc
e&n=283155) would have no scientific basis. The moon has circled the
earth 50 billion times, since before life evolved.  The result is that
the division of each season naturally falls into three because of the
moon's effect, giving the physical basis for the twelve signs of
astrology.  Because of my interest in the possibility of a rigorous
astrology, I emphasise here the scientific astronomical nature of the
signs.
Within this twelve-fold annual rhythm, what else can we see?  Elwell
(p15) observes that nurses are statistically more likely to be born in
the caring even signs (water and earth) than in odd signs (fire and
air).  So the twelve naturally divides in an odd-even pattern.  Does it
have triple and fourfold divisions too?  Here the claim is that the four
elements (fire, earth, air, water) combine with the triple pattern
(cardinal, fixed and mutable) to form a real natural annual twelve-fold
rhythm.  There are two sine curves overlapping each other in a
four/three rhythm. All the symbolism of each sign falls out of these
twelve combinations, from Aries as cardinal fire to Pisces as mutable
water.
For discussion on precession and symbolism, see papers at my website
http://www.geocities.com/rtulip2005/Theology/
Robert Tulip

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 19

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 20

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 17:09:06 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] symbolism

Hi Bill,

As always you have provided a most thought-provoking response.

I have unfortunately been too busy to follow the posts since Fran's
announcement, so I hope my hurried response doesn't miss the context.

Moreover I've only read your post once, and quickly.  I hope I haven't
entirely missed the point or mistaken the trend.

The idea of astrology as unreasonable is most interesting, and I would
tend to agree with the characterisation of science and everyday living as
containing something of the same quality, as you describe it.

However you mention "human cognitive functioning" and the "interface
between cognition and the environment".

I won't presume how exactly you conceptualise this, but the word itself
(cognition) scares me enough to mutter about the Cartesian dualism at
the back of 'cognitivism', at least as it is usually understood in
psychology.  Be mindful I regard what follows as a tangent rather than a
response to what you wrote.

In general there is in cognitive psychology a computer-like notion of
the brain as receiving inputs from the environment, which it then
processes into a kind of virtual world ('cognitive schemata'), and
possibly into a set of behavioural responses (outputs) of some kind.
Reason of course is neither an essential nor a dominant component of the
processing.

Implicit in this appears to be a sense of the 'self' (nowdays replaced
by a brain) on one hand, and the environment on the other, as though the
two are able to be separated.  The brain 'perceives' and possibly
'responds to' the environment, rather than being part of the environment
in any compelling way.

(This leads to a cognitive-behavioural model for therapy, in which
people are individual and idiosyncratic in their perceptions and models
of the world, and therapy consists of 'adjusting' these idiosyncracies
when and if they become problematic).

(In passing, I will mention that 'discursive psychology' has mounted a
strong critique of 'cognitive psychology'.  Indeed, an interesting
aspect of the clash (IMHO) is that to date there has been little one can
explain that the other cannot explain equally well, despite the wide
gulf in their respective assumptions).

Now one of the intriguing aspects of Dale's ideas of time and temporal
templates is that the very notion of a "cognising being" allows
planetary cycles to plug straight into the "cognising machinery" of that
being.  This is - as I pointed out some years ago in this forum - provided
that one grants that (a) having fundamental timing cycles of some sort
are likely to be a huge convenience to any living entity; and (b) that
the best cycles to use for the purpose not only of running one's own
life processes but also interacting with other entities can only be
those that are (relatively) universal and _highly_ non-transitory.

It need hardly be said that planetary cycles meet these requirements
extremely well, as they are 'local' but not so local that they are
present one moment and gone the next.  The speculation one needs to
accept here is that the 'brain' (or whatever one likes to call it) will
'naturally' tend to find the most stable and non-transient signals it
can from its environment, and further that - somehow - living entities
are able to detect _planetary_ signals from out of that environment.

All this being the case then there actually would be an empirical basis
for astrology; or if one prefers, an empirical "aspect to" astrology.

The further implication is that the cognising brain doesn't merely
'respond to' but is in a very real and intimate sense 'built upon' or
part of the environment.

Good to hear your voice again Bill - and those of Dale, Roger, Patrice,
Dennis and so on recently.  Judging from the response, one might almost
suspect a clever ruse on Fran's part!

Andre.

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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 01:56:00 -0400
From: "Francis Kostella"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 17
 

In V11 I17 Dennis Frank  wrote:

>
> Again, I can only observe that this visual process
> seems to work for you, but has no apparent bearing
> on the rest of us.  Has that not occurred to you?
> Do you actually know other astrologers who can do
> the same thing?  I doubt it.  Fran, you have once
> or twice referred to Roger as your teacher, so can
> you do this??
>

Well, "teacher" is a bit more formal than I'd ever put it. Rog and I
worked on a couple of interesting projects together in the past under
Rog's broad direction. He's also sent me a number of interesting
"puzzles" where one starts with an artist's work and uses the
expression of symbols there to "reverse-engineer" a birth chart. Once
you start doing it becomes easier and you shift into a frame of mind
where the symbols are a bit more vivid. I think it is a skill that
can be developed, but probably requires that one has developed the
intuitions a bit. I've always encouraged him to publish his works in
this area [and my offer to assist editing still stands, Rog!] since I
think it strengthens the "symbol brain" and pays off in other areas.

A couple of things we did in the past still stand out in my mind.
Back in 1996 we did a chart for the Roswell event to determine what
had happened there. Based upon the chart, Rog made a conjecture that
there was an experimental aircraft crash along a specific path. The
50th anniversary hype had just barely begun and at that time I knew
next to nothing about Roswell. Since then I've read plenty, and Rog's
reading of the chart seems to me the best description of what likely
happened at that event.

Another thing we worked on around the same time was trying to predict
a birth chart for the Unabomer. We started with all the published
writing and artifacts, including the just then published manifesto,
and a detailed chronology of events. Rog made a few hypothetical
configurations that would match the "expressions" while I worked the
transits and the chronology. We found some transits that synchronized
with the events pretty well, and Rog came up with a candidate chart
that fit. We were still refining it when the actual man was captured.
We later compared the candidate chart with the actual birth chart and
all of the major features of the charts matched. That is, the planets
participating in Rog's reading were in the same positions and had the
same important aspects and chart orientation. It was off by a year,
but was a pretty good fit. It would have been nice to publish that, a
pity we didn't have the chance before event intruded. It would have
been fun to call the FBI with some evidence from astrology.

So, could I do what he does by myself? I'm not nearly as good as Rog,
but I also don't practice 1/50th as much as he does. On the other
hand, my favorite kind of astrology these days is horary, but I
hardly get the chance to do a real horary for a real need. I'm also
interested in elections, but again, the chance rarely occurs, but
I've done pretty well with both. And I think that both horary and
elective astrology require a facility with symbol such as Rog shows.

I think it would be interesting to have Rog make up a couple of
puzzles for us all, the kind of thing that we could all do and post
the results, or send to a judge to be posted in a group.

--fran

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 20
 

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

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2006 their respective authors.