Exegesis V11 Issues 031 to 040

Exegesis Volume 11 Issues #031-040

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 31

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 22:55:58 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 28

Bill wrote:
> I've been looking at cognitive linguistics and stuff like that, rather
> than depth psychology. So I'm interested in the relationship between
> perception and cognition. And seeing as a sense which extends beyond
> the visual. I think there is a perceptual sensitivity which can tune
> in to the 'co-present'. By that, I mean being able to tune in to 'the
> answer' because it is already present.

To the extent it happens to me, I see it as intuition. Probably not as much
as you tho.

> For example, somehow knowing that there is a danger around the corner
> (say, in the form of a wide truck) when one is driving. Any possible
> accident is in the future, but the truck is where it is in relation to
> my car in the present. And that relationship pertains because of what
> happened in the past. I often 'read my world' - get omens - that I act
> on, and which have made a difference in avoiding negative events, etc.

Same, I've had that sense of omens since being a child, but not big-time.
Had to reconnect as an alternative-minded adult, after a decade of nearly
having it brain-washed out of me by the education system.

> I think the past and present are accessible to a greater extent than
> is generally realised. That's a speculation.

I agree. Have been researching life after death for the past decade after
astrology got too boring. Spirits in the next realm tend to claim they
don't have time. Not necessarily that simple, seems to me. Expert ones
intervene here for reasons of compassion, usually to prevent accidents or
engineer miracle recoveries - seems to be a collective shepherding social
function agenda prompting such interventions. Point being that they have
some way of precisely timing those interventions.

Some of us have more psychic attunement to the temporal context than others,
I suspect.

> I also think that what is called divining, or 'reading the signs', or
> seeing omens, are all cognitive devices used to amplify the signal as
> it were. To 'see around the corner', in the case of the truck and the
> car.

I'm with you on this.

> I think the way the sensory-motor system cognises, and uses conceptual
> metaphor to structure the experience of order in the phenomenal world
> is at the heart of it all. I'm with Lakoff on this one, when it comes
> to the nature of astrology. Not that he mentions it anywhere. I'm
> making use of his ideas (and you heard it here first!!).

Coincidentally, I reading him for the first time. I'm half-way thro his
1980 book "Metaphors we live by", probably as a result of your
recommendation of him some time ago (I have many long lists of books to
check out, & every now & then go through them & short-list the most
interesting).

> >You must feel that keywords are too prescriptive.
>
> Well I do if someone just learns a list of keywords and restricts
> their understanding of symbol to the learned terms.
>
> It's crucial to know why the terms are in the list (what confers
> category membership). Then one doesn't need the list anymore. One is
> liberated from its finite constraints, and can start drawing on the
> context to achieve an appropriate mapping.

Mm, fine for someone doing their own thing. To promote a credible
contemporary astrology, we need a language that works. People learning
astrology are better served by keywords that do actually convey or catalyse
their recognition of the archetypes. The point I keep harping on about
(sorry, all) is that language is a communication device, so we need to
improve the signal to noise ratio by selecting words that convey the signal
(rather than others that just make noise).

> >If you disregard
> >local variations of ground level, the flat earth extending to a circular
> >local horizon is the basis of generic human experience. If psychologists
> >were not so collectively inadequate they would acknowledge this fact as
> >being a key feature of the structure of the psyche.
>
> Which is why you should shift your gaze away from pyschology and
> towards cognitive science (especially cognitive linguistics), which
> has no problem acknowledging the fundamental role immediate physical
> experience has in providing sources for conceptual metaphorical
> schemes used by humans to structure reality. At least, there's no
> problem if you follow the path set by Lakoff and others.

Yes, I'm half-way thro the book and can take your point.

> >> I would simply assert that Mars is associated
> >> symbolically with heat, anger, war, and all the rest because it's
> >> reddish looking.
> >
> >Yeah, red = blood = warrior. I remember thinking that too, in times when
> >I'd wonder if I wasn't being sucked in by a completely contrived belief
> >system.
>
> It *is* contrived. The question is why does it have a functional
> value. My guess, which is motivating my work, is that it has something
> to do with the co-evolution of astrology and cognition.

Actually, co-evolution is a fruitful perspective. Have you heard that
culture enables Lamarckian transmission? Maybe only Darwinian inheritance
in biology, but no such limitation in society eh? So, can historical memes
proliferate, virus-like, capture entire cultures, and program the future?
And are we the result??

> > Venus was planet of war for the maya.
>
> Wasn't Mars too? Or a big monster of some sort always fighting.

Pass. I've not researched the Maya. Just remember the Venus thing from the
Tikal thing I happened on & sent to Exegesis a few years ago.

<snip> at a conference in Venice in 1997 on this topic - basically
> the need for astrologers to come to terms with unpredictability - and
> the audience feedback made it clear they had no idea why I thought the
> matter was important. The conference organiser had to butt in and
> explain in my defense that "I was raising a deep philosophical point".
> Whereas I thought I was simply being realistic.

Heh heh! So nice & polite of you not to mention how thick they all were.
I'd never hold back!

Just for the benefit of readers who may not get the point - prediction is
the typical thrust of media presentations of astrology. Not being able to
account for failed predictions is the normal way journalists make
astrologers look like fools in the media. A more sophisticated explanation
will produce a different result. Instead of looking like a fool, the
astrologer induces temporary panic in the tiny brain of the journalist, then
a split second later the rapid firing of the next question (on an unrelated
topic).

André wrote:
> My apologies for the slow response. Unfortunately I'm working seven day
> weeks at the moment

Rather heroic of you! Keeping our national economy afloat single-handedly?
Such public-spiritedness is admirable. Actually isn't it interesting that
in a global forum like this with but a small handful of long-term active
contributors, 2 turned out to be from NZ?

> Dennis I greatly appreciated your comments, which were most relevant and
> extended what I was trying to say. You also supplied the term
> (entrainment) which had momentarily escaped me!
>
> As regards the description I gave of 'forces propagating', I think I was
> guilty there of oversimplifying for an imagined audience!

Oh, I see, fair enough.

>                        'atomic clocks'
>                                   |
>                           determine...
>                         /                      \
>                       /                         \
>           planet cycles             \
>                                                    \
>                                            living processes
>
> The two lines forking off in different directions to "planet cycles" on
> one hand and "living processes" on the other would - I think - express
> an orthodox idea that planets and organisms are _entirely_ independently
> influenced or governed by atomic clocks. Neither is dependent on the
> other, and no amount of talking about "different levels of explanation
> (being valid)" is sufficient to conjure up a connection or dependency
> between the two.

I personally am not inclined to assume atomic timing drives the timing of
large-scale systems. I suspect the timing at each level is determined by
the natural processes operating at that level. I agree those might be
driven from lower down, but we must remember that one of the major findings
of systems science is emergence. New qualities emerge at each higher level
of organisation, which include relative autonomy of function.
Self-determination increases at higher levels. Systems are more prone to
chaotic interactions between sub-systems. Timings become irregular.

> What I suggest however is that there _should_ be a line linking planets
> and organisms; that the 'causation' is not merely from the bottom level
> of atomic clocks up, but also operates 'horizontally'. I suggest this
> is not a mere semantic convenience but is both valid and _necessary_ to
> understanding "time" for living organisms. Moreover, I mean "necessary"
> in the context of "having to be included in the scientific theories" or
> "essential to accurate prediction".

I can see a cascade of interlocking systems having some coordinating effect
on the timing of processes at different levels. Isn't the term `causation'
a problem? Seems to mean different things to different people. Lakoff uses
it, but not in a determinist way. Probably the social sciences have a
looser interpretation than the mechanists.

> There are two lines of reasoning one could take here: the first (thanks
> Dennis) is the matter of entrainment, which is capable of working with
> inanimate as well as animate things. If these things are interacting
> appropriately, then entrainment (or everything getting into some sort of
> phase with everything else) is a definite possibility.

Well, the resonances in the solar system produced a stable state of
interlocking orbits in fairly precise harmonic proportions. The system
entrained the planets. Entrainment can be discerned at lower levels such as
ours, but I think the concept is used merely as a descriptive term. I'm
not aware of it being established as a technical term applied to particular
states with scientific rigor. We can propose it as theory or hypothesis, of
course. For example, biological processes cued by diurnal, solar & lunar
cycles seem entrained.

> Thus, I do not see the possibility of astrology as being necessarily in
> conflict with science (or physics) as currently understood.

Understood by who? I'm not just being flippant. As someone wrote here just
recently, pioneering theoreticians of science don't understand things the
same as the time-servers in the same field.

Any conflict reflects the intellectual inadequacy of the practitioner. The
leaders of the field, the ones who make the conceptual advances, tend to
comprehend metaphysical issues & implications. The scientists who merely
apply knowledge, teach it, or perform experiments, tend not to think deeply
enough to transcend the boundary issues.

> I think - whether as a result of entrainment, or of something built into
> our biological mechanisms via evolution, or as a product of fundamental
> conditioning of our cognition in our first days of life - that time for
> us and other living beings is fundamentally "structured" by these
> constant planetary rhythms.

> I suggest it's more that these rhythms have got "built into us" in some
> way

Yes, this is also how I see it.

André, do you do much astrology these days? Being so busy, I'd guess the
answer is no. I'm always interested, though, in how much
sometime-astrologers keep involved in the subject. It enables me to gauge
the ongoing relevance of astrology at any time. Me, I hardly ever do natal
charts now. Its even rare for there to be a political or mundane event of
sufficient social impact to provoke me into running a chart for it. But
personal events I check out quite often, perhaps daily.

The astroclock runs all the time in our place & we both consult it
frequently. It's absolutely vital as a cosmic weather report. I'm aware,
for instance, that the recent rapid flow of writing for Exegesis has been
fueled by the Mars/Jupiter/Uranus grand trine. It's entirely possible that
Pluto transiting over the Galactic Center (still currently exactly conjunct)
has also compelled engagement with cosmic issues. Interesting that the Da
Vinci Code movie is out next week. The media are all wondering why a 24
year old conspiracy theory has suddenly grabbed the world stage.

Dennis

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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:17:50 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] cosmos & psyche 6

Tarnas asserts at the start of his 3rd chapter that astrology "in its most
general definition rests on a conception of the cosmos as a coherent
embodiment of creative intelligence, purpose, and meaning expressed through
a constant complex correspondence between astronomical patterns and human
experience. The various celestial bodies are regarded as possessing an
intrinsic association with specific universal principles. Both these
principles and their astronomical correspondences are seen as ultimately
grounded in the nature of the cosmos itself, thereby integrating the
celestial and terrestrial, macrocosm and microcosm."

During the 20th century " a widespread rebirth of astrology took place..
informed by goals and theoretical assumptions that often differed from those
of the ancient and medieval periods in fundamental ways. In general, its
character was more individualistic and psychological - emphasizing internal
reality over external, self-understanding over concrete event-prediction,
symbolic interpretation over literal, and participatory engagement over
passive fatalism. Accompanying this shift of character has been the gradual
rise within the astrological community of a discourse of critical
philosophical reflection and the questioning of many traditional
astrological assumptions and tenets."

Well it would be nice if the last sentence were true but I've seen no
evidence that it is. He also refers to an "enormous increase in the
available data, with incomparably more individual birth charts, biographies,
and historical periods having now become the basis for a collaborative
development of accepted principles of interpretation." Where is this
happening? Since I've been publicly calling for such a collective
enterprise since '88, with no apparent result, I'd be immensely reassured to
discover that it has begun.

"The widespread emergence of a more psychologically sophisticated astrology"
in the latter half of the century "with Jung and Dane Rudhyar the key
figures, represents the dominant historical trend". "The most
characteristic attitude among contemporary astrologers holds astrological
knowledge to be ultimately emancipatory rather than constricting [reference
to determinist traditional astrology], bringing a potential increase of
personal freedom and fulfilment through an enlarged view of the self and its
cosmic context."

"In this view, knowing the basic archetypal dynamics and patterns of meaning
in one's birth chart allows one to bring greater awareness to the task of
fulfilling one's authentic nature and intrinsic potential, as in Jung's
concept of individuation. The more accurately one understands the
archetypal forces that inform and affect one's life, the more flexibly and
intelligently responsive one can be in dealing with them. To the extent
that one is unconscious of these potent and sometimes highly problematic
forces, one is more or less a pawn of the archetypes, acting according to
unconscious motivations.."

"Archetypal awareness brings greater self-awareness and thus greater
personal autonomy. Again, this is the basic rationale for depth psychology,
from Freud and Jung onward: to release oneself from the bondage of blind
action and unconsciously motivated experience, to recognize and explore the
deeper forces in the human psyche and thereby modulate and transform them."

So Tarnas finds "perhaps the most significant factor in the emerging
emancipatory understanding of astrology is a deepening grasp of the nature
of the archetypal principles themselves". "The concept of the planetary
archetypes, in many ways the pivotal concept of the emerging astrological
paradigm, is complex" so "we must first address the general concept of
archetypes and the remarkable evolution of the archetypal perspective in the
history of Western thought."

Tarnas reviews the transition from the mythic imaginal concept of
gods/goddesses in archaic Greece, to Plato's rationalisation of the
archetypes and Aristotle's perception of them as innate organizing patterns.
His discussion is too substantial to reproduce here. "The idea of
archetypal or universal forms then underwent a number of important
developments in the later classical, medieval, and Renaissance periods."
The reader is referred via a footnote to various sections of the author's
earlier book.

"Advances in understanding the role of paradigms, symbols, and metaphors in
shaping human experience and cognition brought new dimensions to the
archetypal understanding. In the crucible of postmodern thought, the
concept of archetypes was elaborated and critiqued, refined through the
deconstruction of rigidly essentialist "false universals" and cultural
stereotypes, and enriched through an increased awareness of archetypes'
fluid, evolving, multivalent, and participatory nature." He seems to be
referring to some body of literature or analytical discussion forum I am
unaware of.

He suggests we "define an archetype as a universal principle or force that
affects - impels, structures, permeates - the human psyche and the world of
human experience on many levels." You can think of them as mythic
gods/goddesses, transcendent first principles (Plato), immanent dynamic
forms (Aristotle), a prior categories of cognition (Kant), universal
essences of life (Schopenhauer), or "primordial principles symbolizing basic
cultural tendencies and modes of being" (Nietzsche). You might want to
"conceive of them in Husserlian terms as essential structures of human
experience, in Wittgensteinian terms as linguistic family resemblances
linking disparate but overlapping particulars, in Whiteheadian terms as
eternal objects and pure potentialities whose ingression informs the
unfolding process of reality, or in Kuhnian terms as underlying paradigmatic
structures. Reminds me of why I shied away from philosophy for so long.

You can approach them in the Freudian mode as primordial instincts impelling
and structuring biological and psychological processes, or in the Jungian
manner as fundamental formal principles of the human psyche, universal
expressions of a collective unconscious and, ultimately, of the *unus
mundus*."

Quite a surprisingly considerable historical pedigree, really, of which only
a portion was known to me. I'm reminded of various contributors to Exegesis
also surprising me by not accepting the existence of archetypes. Perhaps
they were even more ignorant of the historical tradition of the concept than
I was.

"It does not appear to be accurate to say that astrologers have in essence
arbitrarily used the mythological stories of the ancients about the gods
Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Mercury and the rest to project symbolic
meaning onto the planets, which are in actuality merely neutral material
bodies without intrinsic significance. Rather, a considerable body of
evidence suggests that the movements of the planets named.. tend to coincide
with patterns of human experience that closely resemble the character of
those planets' mythical counterparts. That is, the astrologer's insight,
perhaps intuitive and divinatory in its ancient origins, appears to be
fundamentally an empirical one."

Thus Tarnas, as astrological researcher, sees "what appears to be an
orchestrated synthesis combining the precision of mathematical astronomy
with the psychological complexity of the archetypal imagination, a synthesis
whose sources seemingly exist a priori within the fabric of the universe."
So whereas Jung originally conceived his archetypes as "basic formal
principles of the human psyche, the original Platonic archetypes were
regarded as the essential principles of reality itself, rooted in the very
nature of the cosmos. The two views differed because Western thought had
"gradually differentiated a meaning-giving human subject from a neutral
objective world, thereby locating the source of any universal principles of
meaning exclusively within the human psyche."

"Integrating these two views" (as Jung began to do later in life via his
concept of synchronicity) "contemporary astrology suggests that archetypes
possess a reality that is both objective and subjective, one that informs
both outer cosmos and inner human psyche, `as above, so below'." "In
effect, planetary archetypes are considered to be both `Jungian'
(psychological) and `Platonic' (metaphysical) in nature: universal essences
or forms at once intrinsic too and independent of the human mind, that not
only endure as timeless universals but are also co-creatively enacted and
recursively affected through human participation."

As you may have gathered, Tarnas has a leisurely style. The effect is
cumulative, and that's where his power lies. With clarity of language (if
not quite the precision I'd prefer), he builds layer upon layer of reasoning
to produce a comprehensive thesis. At first I suspected he merely kept
saying the same thing in different words, but a close examination reveals
that each apparent repetition includes a further aspect, corollary or
implication that merits the additional layer. Of course he is primarily
preaching to the unconverted, and this further warrants his chosen style.

"In Jungian terms, the astrological evidence suggests that the collective
unconscious is ultimately embedded in the macrocosm itself, with the
planetary motions a synchronistic reflection of the unfolding archetypal
dynamics of human experience. In Platonic terms, astrology affirms the
existence of an *anima mundi* informing the cosmos, a world soul in which
the human psyche participates as a microcosm of the whole." There's more
than this complementarity, however. Tarnas suggests we keep in mind that
"the Platonic, Jungian, and astrological understandings" of planetary
archetypes "are all complexly linked, both historically and conceptually, to
the archetypal structures, narratives, and figures of ancient myth."
Greek/Roman only, he should have qualified it. He then quotes mythographer
Joseph Campbell: "It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret
opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into
human cultural manifestation.

So when we examine the meaning of specific planetary archetypes, we ought to
consider them "in three different senses: in the Homeric sense as a
primordial deity and mythic figure; in the Platonic sense as a cosmic and
metaphysical principle; and in the Jungian sense as a psychological
principle". Venus is goddess of love and beauty, the metaphysical principle
of eros, and the psychological tendency to attract, experience beauty and
love, seek pleasure etc. So we should see the planetary archetypes not as
definable concrete entities "but rather as dynamic potentialities and
essences of meaning that cannot be localized or restricted to a specific
dimension."

[A]longside this essential *multidimensionality* of the archetypes is their
equally essential *multivalence*. The Saturn archetype can express itself
as judgement but also as old age, as tradition but also as oppression, as
time but also as mortality, as depression but also as discipline". Tarnas
quotes Jung making the same point: "The ground principles, the *archai*, of
the unconscious are indescribable because of their wealth of reference,
although in themselves recognizable. The discriminating intellect naturally
keeps on trying to establish their singleness of meaning and thus misses the
essential point; for what we can above all establish as the one thing
consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their almost
boundless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral formulation
impossible."

In other words, you can't tie these critters down into a single cage of
meaning - they are shape-shifters. What Tarnas hasn't yet acknowledged,
however, is that there's a standard repertoire of shapes each one tends to
shift into. These typical manifestations of each archetype tend to be
consensually recognised, so they are subject to collective identification
and labelling. Keywords and key descriptive phrases are how we as
astrologers can recognise and describe them.

Dennis Frank

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

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 01:37:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Random Thoughts

in #19 Robert Tulip wrote:

> 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.

Yes, this is a point on which Andre, Patrice and I are all in rough
agreement, and I think Dennis has made some cogent comments, too.
The notion that life has adapted to planetary periods, which are "in"
us as a result, supplies the causal framework that astrology has so
conspicuously lacked. This is what Andre and I are speaking of when
we refer to temporal templates. Of course, there are correllaries
which follow pretty naturally, but which are upsetting when it comes
to how we apply astrology. For instance, there's a transition in
childhood that occurs at five to six months, which I attribute not to
Sun opposite Sun but to Mars opening square Mars, because it evokes
what occurs later in the latter cycle. I used to assume that this
transition, like other transit-related transitions, was timed by the
planet itself, but with Mars in particular a problem arises. Due to
retrogradation the opening square can occur as early as four or as
late as ten months after birth, but the timing of the transition
is nowhere near that variable.

It _could_ be that this isn't a Mars-related transition after all,
but the quandry this realization threw me into made me see another
possibility. Unlike Frank Brown, who did the experiment with oysters,
most chronobiologists now believe that circadian and circatidal
rhythms are endogenous rather than exogenous. That is, an internal
clock governs the timing of the organism's activities. The Moon's
role is that, directly or indirectly, it periodically resets the
clock, but it's the clock itself that determines when things happen.
We know a lot more about circadian zeitgebers (timekeepers) than
circatidal ones, for instance the shortwave blue light prevalent
at dawn, the sensors (not rods and cones) that receive and transmit
it, and the molecular machinery of the clock itself. Presumably,
the circatidal equivalents will be found. The idea that struck me
was that if there are other biological clocks that correspond to
planetary periods, it seemed not unreasonable that they might follow
the same pattern, with the "Mars" clock, for instance, timing the
turning points, with Mars itself involved in periodically resetting
the clock. In that case the human rhythm is a lot more regular
than the Mars cycle per se, and retrogradation effects will in the
final analysis turn out to have been a theoretical blind alley.

And now thanks to Andre there's something more to add. I had one
of those why-didn't-I-think-of-that moments when I read, in #23,
"The earth itself is a very good detector of what the other planets
are doing." So we don't necessarily have to have to way to "know"
where Mars is, to reset that clock. The earth "knows", and that's
very likely the source of our Mars zeitgeber(s), if such exist.

Dale

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

In #21 Bill Sheeran wrote:>
that Andre wrote:>>

>> 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;
>
> Yes, this is true. But while I can accept this for the basic physical
> experience of the diurnal, lunar and apparent solar cycles, and maybe
> others related to solar activity based on the cumulative gravitational
> influence of planetary bodies, I find it hard to fathom why an 84 year
> cycle associated with Uranus should provide a useful template.

That's a good question to which I have no compelling answer, only
a possible one. Can we consider that maybe we have rhythms of various
wavelengths because it increases complexity, which aids flexibility
and therefore adaptive fitness? We have ultradian (brief), circadian,
and circannual rhythms. Maybe we also have longer rhythms. The
planet each correspond to doesn't need to provide something we adapt
to, like sunlight or tides. Just the fact that "higher" organisms
(or perhaps longer lived ones) develop longer rhythms, and that there
are means by which they can time themselves, might be enough. Of
course, I can't say that it _is_ a fact. I'm just speaking in terms
of possibilities. If that much is granted I would also suggest, as
I have before, that the qualities of each rhythm are not given, that
if the evolutionary clock were set back to zero life would evolve
processes with wavelengths corresponding to the periodicities of the
Sun, Moon, etc., and that they would dovetail both in terms of their
nature and timing, but they wouldn't be the same processes as the
ones that evolved _this_ time.

Dale

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

In #24 Bill Sheeran writes:
>> As there are currently no decisive tests of differing astrological
>> theories available to us within this forum, such an enterprise as vying
>> to be 'proved right' was always bound to be fruitless.
>
> If one adopts the Kuhnian perspective, post 17th century astrology can
> be said to be in a pre-paradigmatic stage of development.
>
> Here are some quotes from "An Introduction to the Philosophy of
> Science" by Robert Klee (p134-135, OUP 1997).
>
> "A general approach to research comes to dominate a field - becomes a
> paradigm - when practitioners working under its direction score an
> amazing research achievement, an achievement everyone recognises as
> such, even those practitioners committed to competing approaches."
>
> snip
>
> "Until a paradigm arrives on the scene, practitioners argue over
> fundamental issues. The most basic principles of the domain are open
> game. We might describe this state of affairs by saying that the field
> is divided up into 'schools' of competing 'enthusiasts'."
>
> snip
>
> ...I don't feel in competition with anyone on this list. I think we
> are all able to have valuable insights at this pre-paradigmatic stage,
> and that we should all have the confidence to pursue our own ideas.
> Not in a cavalier way, but intelligently. There is a huge amount of
> debate and exchange of ideas to be had, so let's have it, but in a
> spirit imbued with good and common intention regarding the
> understanding of astrology's fundamental principles.
>
> The chances are that any key breakthrough will be due to the bringing
> together of ideas from several ostensibly differing perspectives, the
> achievement being to come up with a model which unites elements from
> each in a way that generates a new framing of astrology. But for that
> to happen, the differing perspectives have to reach a state of
> relative intellectual maturity. And in my opinion, that will only
> happen through critical exchanges between open-minded adherents of
> the various points of view.

I enjoy these exchanges and think they're worthwhile. However, it's
not clear to me that individuals from competing schools can directly,
cooperatively, generate a breakthrough that constitutes a new paradigm.
Kuhn notes in _Structure_ that "in the early stages of the development
of any science different men confronting the same range of phenomena,
but not usually all the same particular phenomena, describe and
interpret them in different ways. What is surprising . . . is that such
initial divergences should ever largely disappear. . . . Furthermore,
their disappearance is usually caused by the triumph of one of the
pre-paradigm schools, which, because of its own characteristic beliefs
and preconceptions, emphasized only some special part of the too sizable
and inchoate pool of information. Those electricians who thought
electricity a fluid and therefore gave particular emphasis to conduction
provide an excellent case in point. Led by this belief, which could
scarcely cope with the known multiplicity of attractive and repulsive
effects, several of them conceived the idea of bottling the electrical
fluid. The immediate fruit of their endeavors was the Leydon jar, a
device which might never have been discovered by a man exploring nature
casually or at random . . . Almost from the start of his electrical
researches, Franklin was particularly concerned to explain that strange
and, in the event, particularly revealing piece of special apparatus.
His success in doing so provided the most effective of the arguments
that made his theory a paradigm, though for all that he was still
unable to account for quite all the known cases of electrical repulsion.
To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its
competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the
facts with which it can be confronted."

My assertion above must be qualified. First, Kuhn's use of the word
"usually" indicates that the triumph of one of the pre-paradigm schools
isn't invariably the route to unification. Second, if the viewpoint
of one of the schools does lead to the paradigmatic achievement that
unifies the field, it presumably will have done so by attending to and
at least partially making sense of phenomena the other schools have
focussed on. That might well be where philosophical discussion between
members of competing schools plays a role, by making it easier for a
theorist to take seriously problems that other schools think need to
be accounted for. An achievement that solves only the problems of one
school is an achievement only for that school.

Dale

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

Bill said:
>> consensuses.

Dennis said:
> I remember learning in maths that the plural of radius is radii. So the
> word you wanted must be consensii! Just a reminder to me that mine was the
> last generation whose intelligensia was expected to learn latin at school
> (I chose not to).

English has borrowed from Latin but isn't beholden to it. The plural
form is whatever we (dictionary and usage) say it is. I did some Googling
and apparently "we" say it is "consensuses". No dictionary that I could
find licensed consensii, but I did see consensuses mentioned.

Dale

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 31

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 32

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 01:37:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Random Thoughts

in #19 Robert Tulip wrote:

Dale

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

In #21 Bill Sheeran wrote:>
that Andre wrote:>>

Dale

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

Dale

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

Bill said:
>> consensuses.

Dale

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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 01:37:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Random Thoughts

in #19 Robert Tulip wrote:

Dale

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

In #21 Bill Sheeran wrote:>
that Andre wrote:>>

Dale

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

Dale

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

Bill said:
>> consensuses.

Dale

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

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:24:08 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 30

Dennis, All,
Whether it be a case of merely narcissistic-ally expressing my
egocentrically blind-sided Reason, ala Leo sun, Aries, Asc, or the the
despotic nature of my MC dwelling Capricorn Moon opposite the "artsy"
revolution-craving, Uranus conjunct Venus, it is my earnest intention to
correct Rick Tarnas, et al, by simply insisting that they finally
become more fully aware of that which they are already professing to
believe! I hear only lip service to the essential Art-based human
astrological "reality". It is not enough to entertain the totally
abstact nature of astrological reality while avoiding a complete
immersion in the whole of the abstraction. In other words, take the leap
in to the apparent schizophrenic absurdity of all Life as materially
observable, substance-assisted metaphor! To that end, at least in part,
I have composed a letter to researcher Suitbert Ertel, and cc; Pat
Harris, the editor of Correlation. Hopefully it is not too plagued with
dyslexic failings...:)

Dear Suitbert Ertel,

Upon reflection, the process of stating my own purpose becomes a
little clearer. It dawn's on me this morning that I wish to address our
core notions or paradygm(s), our theories underlying our astrological
research assumptions, the very seed ideas of our hypothesis formation.
It is my long considered observation that even the Gauqueline Mars
Effect is very much like the historical case of Becher/Stahl phlogiston
theory of combustion, i.e., a type of incidentally productive, and to
date,an even empirically rational concept from a naively inverted
perspective, but still an overly simplistic, down and dirty treatment of
astrology's richly complex and all too human phenomena.
In short, astrology is still trying to make the case for the
existence of implied cause and effect correlations to a theoretically
negative entity, like Becher "terra pinguis", and his "combustible
Earth" hypothesis. Here then is the seminal realization of astrology's
Self expressive Art basis. On one hand , in the classical tradition, we
can merely look at the so-called "event" of J.J. Becher's "combustible
Earth epiphany, in which he envisioned terra pingus being "liberated",
OR, we can see that J.J. Becher's exact Sun conjunct Mars, in Taurus,
and their mutual opposition aspect the Neptune was *successfully
expressed*. The primary astrological fact here is that in astrological
"reality" Becher *IS* terra pingus...they are one Identity, and exist as
two only in the sense of one image being reflected from two mirrors..two
Arts of the Western mind. I know from personal experience that we could
actually abduce, by metaphor analysis/astrologically weighted inference,
the "event" of Becher's birth date,(if it were an unknown), simply but
respecting the truly Art-istic basis of human consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston
http://www.jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

We can, as Richard Tarnas, for one, suggests, better envision
astrology as the result of observable Individualization via the "events"
of Art, and not as a pattern thought best made recognizable through
statistical description of timely synchronistic "events", which in and
of themselves have little or no Individual metaphor-based reference to
specific persons. And, at this stage of my life, I am personally not
content , with merely protesting that which I see as a major obstacle;
thus I am sending you this link of mine which examples a case of chart
rectification ala the analysis of one's personal application of metaphor
in the successful projection of Self. The method and procedure of this
sample case implies my best suggestions for the reformations of seminal
research hypotheses:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Astro-semiology_01.html
The necessary preliminary metaphor-based analysis of Self which allows
the traditional techniques of chart rectification to

Sincerely,

Roger L. Satterlee

Suitbert Ertel wrote:
> My impression was that you might find out yourself whether your idea is
> substantial or not. The best way is to conduct some control experiment.
> Just randomize one of your variables of interest and look if a
> correlation is still existent. If a correlation in the original data
> re-occurs in the manipulated data (manipulation by randomization), then
> the original correlation must be considered as spurious. If not, your
> idea might be right. This is a very general advice and must be adapted
> to your particular case.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Suitbert Ertel
> Suitbert Ertel, Prof. em. Georg-Elias-Müller-Institut für Psychologie
Gossler Straße 14
> 37073 Göttingen

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

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 21:15:57 +0100
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Hello?

Are we still alive?

http://www.radical-astrology.com

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 32

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33

Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 23:33:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Symbolism (Sheeran)

On Sat, 06 May 2006 Bill Sheeran wrote:

> Although your approach or sense of astrology may exclude much of mine,
> the converse isn't the case. By which I mean that I have room for the
> naturalistic bent of your work, but my perspective moves way over the
> boundaries which your approach seeks to define. From where I stand, I
> don't see the differences as mutually exclusive, by any means. I think
> we're groping somewhat blindly at different parts of the elephant, as
> it were.

Agreed. For better or worse, my sense of astrology is narrower.

>> We can communicate unambiguously if it's important to us, but it's not
>> clear that most astrologers want to.
>
> I'm not sure about this. I think what I try and do is communicate
> clearly, which is not the same thing as unambiguously. The reason why
> ambiguity inevitably creeps in to a consultation is because the
> interpretation of the symbols and their patterns is not independent of
> context, and the context is usually fluid or not fully formed. Thus I
> will usually find myself discussing possibilities. My approach is to
> explain that the horoscope does not represent the unique physical
> reality of the client, but for want of a better phrase 'the archetypal
> self'.
>
> It is not the client's horoscope, but the chart they are associated
> with. It belongs to a moment, if it belongs to anything. So the
> process of interpretation requires establishing context (it's not for
> a horse race or a business project). But the context is on the one
> hand unique and on the other fluid. The context also has a past that
> has a determining effect on the present and future. Implicit in the
> horoscope are many possible meanings which are ultimately filtered via
> a consideration of context.
>
> So I find it hard to aspire to the goal of restricting myself to
> unambiguous comments.

Your previous comments have helped me clarify where _I'm_ coming from.
For the kind of astrology I aspire to, in which it's possible to know
of predictable universals, albeit of motivation, not outcome, ambiguity
is not a virtue. For the kind of astrology most astrologers practice,
it is.

> At the same time, I do believe that the symbol patterns will 'find
> their form' in the client's life. And in that respect there is less
> ambiguity, because I believe that the symbols have bounded meanings. I
> have prototypical concepts on a general level which for me define the
> central 'principle' (or maybe two or three), and which can be expanded
> upon or extrapolated across scale and context.

For me there are no symbols as such tied to particular configurations,
but rather recurrent motivations which can be communicated in a variety
of ways, hence not dependent on any particular symbols.

> This process of extrapolation is something I am exploring at the
> moment in my efforts to understand where the meaning of symbols comes
> from. It seems to involve the use of conceptual metaphor, metonymy,
> polysemy and cognitive strategies for categorisation that are
> 'non-classical'. As you can tell from this, I think that a symbol's
> meanings is in effect constructed and structured on a cognitive level,
> rather than being innately associated with actual planetary periods
> and subsequently discovered.

Whereas I think symbols are pragmatically employed--it doesn't matter
which ones are used--to describe, not interpret, psychological states
which predictably recur in time with particular periodicities.

> So for me, somewhat ironically, the more specific one wishes to be
> with one's statements, the more ambiguity there is concerning possible
> significances. On the other hand, the more the context is mapped out,
> the more the ambiguity diminishes.

But it seems to me that the context is supplied after the fact, when
we _already_ know what is or what happened. Before the fact, we're
(symbolistic astrologers) as much in the dark as the person who knows
nothing about astrology.

>> The difference between Lewi and Tyl is not figurative language but
>> "intent". ...
>
>> For Tyl the particular words _do_ matter. He doesn't expect people
>> with Saturn opposite Neptune to share the same characteristics, but
>> does expect their characteristics, however different they appear to be,
>> to be describable using the appropriate keywords. It's the keywords,
>> not the observed characteristics, that are stable and thus predictable
>> from one case to the next. But since keywords can, by being modified
>> or used as modifiers, mean virtually anything we want them to, we
>> don't know in advance what the _next_ Saturn opposite Neptune person
>> we encounter will be like, and what we'll therefore have to make those
>> keywords mean. Symbolistic astrology can't predict, but can only
>> explain, or appear to explain, after the fact.
>
> I'm not sure about this either.

About what? What I said in the last sentence? Or what I said in one
of the others or in a combination thereof.

> I don't like lists of keywords. On the other hand I do have words or
> phrases that I associate with symbols. They are very general in
> nature, more like generic principles. I can't say that I feel I know
> in advance what the symbols actually mean - in other words how they
> correlate specifically with the client's past and present experiences.
> My consultations are dialogues and relatively improvised, on the basis
> that the meaning, significance or insights will emerge in the course
> of the dialogue.

In which case it's not clear to me that you can say which insights
are coming from your knowledge of astrology and which from the dialogue
per se, of which a key component is client feedback. To my mind the
trust in astrology's efficacy that you and the client share serves mainly
to facilitate an unselfconscious interaction. I think an analogy to the
medium's crystal ball is apt, in that I think the medium unconsciously
reads the client's body language as well as between the lines of what is
said. I recall going to a medium right after my first wife left me, and
she took a look at my reddened cheeks and haunted eyes (okay, a little
artistic license here) and intoned, "I see a wall between you and a
loved one." Etc., etc. But this analysis of the interaction came to me
only later as I was walking home. During the consultation itself I was,
in the usual fashion, amazed and impressed.

> Obviously this approach is open to the charge of simply fitting the
> symbolism to the contextual information supplied either knowingly or
> otherwise by the client.

Not _simply_, but otherwise yes.

> But for me the whole point is not about party tricks, but facilitating
> the emergence of insight in the client regarding their situation. I
> actually tell my clients before we start that I don't know what their
> horoscope means; that they are the only one's who can know that; and
> that my job is to guide them towards recognition of significance.

If the point is to help the client, whether or not there are knowable,
intersubjectively valid astrological _facts_, I can't argue with it.
It doesn't work for me because 1) I can't believe it the way I once did,
and 2) the astrology I'm after is a knowledge of natural order rather
than a helping profession.

> That just happens to be the way I operate.

I understand.

> Having said that, recently I did a written interpretation for a client
> living in another country. I normally refuse to do this for a number
> of reasons, but made an exception in this case. In that situation one
> has to make bald statements, as there's no scope for feedback
> regarding context. I knew nothing about her. She was amazed at how
> relevant my comments were. And, if the truth be told, so was I when
> she explained why she found my comments "frighteningly accurate".
>
> I haven't mentioned this to brag or anything, but simply to suggest
> that what I wrote was in effect predictive. I was predicting aspects
> of her character and challenges she would meet on the basis of
> interpreting the symbols in her chart, and without any reference to
> context other than the fact she was a woman living in Scotland.
>
> OK it's only one example, an anecdote, etc., etc.

Have you read in Geoffrey Dean's _Recent Advances_ his discussion of
the kinds of statements astrologers make that recipients tend to perceive
as remarkably accurate and uniquely applicable? And the fact that the
receipient _wants_ to be impressed no less than the astrologer wants to
be impressive?

> Your question though is would I interpret the same or similar symbol
> patterns in another individual's horoscope the same way. Perhaps, but
> probably not. Because I think there is more going in a reading than
> the translation of signs that have a one-to-one 'truth correspondence'
> with specific meanings.

But do you not think that, without sacrificing your intuition or
empathy, or the dialogical flow, that if you also knew something about
what tends to be on a person's mind during the Saturn Return, what
sorts of things she will tend to be _concerned_ about, that would be
helpful rather than a hindrence?

<snip>

> The rate at which objects near the earth accelerate is true all over
> the globe, but the only part of your statement which is socially
> constructed is the way you've described it - 32 ft/sec/sec.

Precisely. Galileo, in fact, described it quite differently, in terms
of the paradigm that he helped overthrow (which until its overthrow
supplied the concepts in which he had to think and present his insight).
>From the way _he_ described it the formula is far more combersome and
almost unrecognizable, because it was essentially alien to the paradigm
from which it emerged.

> Obviously there are intersubjectively agreed truths that are species
> wide. Water runs downhill, etc. But these are based on shared primal
> level aspects of experience and sense perception. If it is the case
> the social constructivism relates to among other things the impact of
> culture, context and environment on the formulation of truth
> consensus, then there's bound to be local variations in that respect
> in relation to particular subjects.
>
> The point is that intersubjectivity is collective but contained. The
> consensus truths function sufficiently within the contained context,
> and may be quite incompatible or incommensurable with other truth
> consensuses. So in accepting that notion, I can handle the idea of a
> value associated with say the truth consensus of aboriginal
> Australians.

One thing other cultures want from the Christian West, frequently
the _only_ thing, is science. Unlike other aspects of Western culture
it is relatively detachable from its original context. The implication
is that science transcends many aspects of cultural particularity,
that it's not necessarily a creature only of the West. It may be that
certain aspects of Western culture were conducive to its birth, that
it's fragile and an historical rarity, but once established it has
thrived in a variety of cultures.

> Of course, if one comes from a culture that promotes universal
> objective truths as being the only form of truth, then there are bound
> to be problems when considering the value of what I would call local
> intersubjectivity consensuses.

If Western culture can produce widely admired individuals like Michel
Foucault and Clifford Geertz, who emphasize local knowledge, with the
latter having a book by that title, it apparently isn't totally inimical
to that kind of thought. And there's you, of course.

> I think this issue may be related to the semantic difference between a
> fact and a truth.

In what sense? Could you elaborate?

>> There is, for instance, a transition at seven that appears to
>> occur in all cultures, in which the child develops a persona and becomes
>> productive in terms of his or her culture.
>
> I can accept that possibility.
>
>> That doesn't necessarily mean, however,
>> a different _kind_ of astrology for each culture. I suspect an age
>> seven Saturn transition occurs in all humans, and if the astrology of
>> a given culture doesn't mention it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't
>> happen in that culture, only that they don't know about it.
>
> For the sake of argument though, it is also possible that the
> transition could be mapped astrologically onto the progressed moon
> cycle. Which is a different kind of astrology than is used (as far as
> I am aware) in say India.

It seems to me that this alternate mapping is only superficially
plausible. First, the two cycles are not identical in length, so as
we get older they get gradually out of phase. In this context, the
Saturn mapping seems to fit better. Second, transit Saturn and
progressed Moon to parts of the chart other than natal Saturn and
Moon don't coincide even approximately in timing, except in rare
instances, and it seems to me that transit Saturn conjunct, square,
and opposite the Nonagesimal bears more of a family resemblance
to the changes at 7, 14-15, 21-22, etc. than progressed Moon over
the angles, and is more demonstrable as an effect that actually
exists. Finally, and this is no doubt more decisive for me than
for you, there is the problem of accepting without further ado the
notion that a 28 _day_ rhythm in the sky will correspond to a 29
_year_ rhythm in people's lives. I think day for a year and all
the rest is astrology's equivalent of planetary epicycles.

> I can see the point you're making. However, my take would be that the
> transition at seven is an aspect of the human condition, and doesn't
> have to necessarily be mapped onto the Saturn cycle.

It seems odd, though, that an _astrologer_ would lean towards the
notion that a Saturn rhythm and "an aspect of the human condition"
that's part of a rhythm with the same wavelength and turning points,
are unrelated.

>> I doubt Chinese
>> _and_ Western astrological signs for much the same reason that I reject
>> the flat or central earth, that all are products of less sophisticated,
>> less effective epistemologies than we have available to us now, are
>> implausible, at least in my eyes, and aren't well enough supported by
>> arguments and evidence to counter those objections.
>
> I find it harder (i.e. it takes more effort) to reject abstract
> conceptual systems than erroneous notions concerning the macroscopic
> physical environment. To believe the earth is flat while living in the
> modern world is an absurdity.

The flat earth was "seen" by people who were far less sophisticated
and had far less perspective than we do. So it's hardly surprising
that it was supplanted long before circling the globe became commonplace.
But the originators of astrology were relatively unsophisticated, too,
and they, too, lacked perspective _vis a vis_ ourselves. What's absurd
is to assume that their astrology, surely a far more complex, subtle
and difficult subject than astronomy, was nonetheless far more advanced
than their astronomy, on which it presumably depended.

> To believe that there are big black dividing lines in the sky is also
> an absurdity. But that's not what zodiac signs are. They are
> schematic. They exist in horoscopes, which have little to do with
> celestial reality. They are not maps of the heavens (try navigating
> with them) and they are not maps of individuals or entities. Planets,
> or rather their derived positions projected onto the ecliptic - i.e. a
> set of coordinates - make transits to another set of coordinates on a
> piece of paper.

Actually, they _are_ maps of the heavens, just not three-dimensional
navigational maps. Different kinds of maps serve different purposes.
You seem to be arguing against the plausibility of astrology. I argue
from an evolutionary standpoint, in which whatever rhythms organisms
can "see", whether or not they are on the ecliptic per se, are rhythms
that can be the basis for their own rhythms.

> The epistemological aspect of astrology can only really be explored in
> tandem with some sort of consideration of astrology's ontological
> status. If you take astrology to be in essence a feature of the
> physical cosmos which astrologers have discovered, then that has
> epistemological consequences, as does the adoption of an alternative
> ontological set of assumptions.

I take astrology to be knowledge of a form of natural order in which
rhythms in earth organisms correspond to cosmic rhythms, assuming of
course that the latter can be "read". For sure that has epistemological
consequences. But have any alternative ontologies led to findings that
are equally repeatable under controlled conditions?

> The more effective epistemologies of the modern era relate to a
> certain type of knowledge epitomised by scientific knowledge. Without
> doubt this is extremely useful stuff.
>
> But are there other forms of knowledge, other ways of knowing? And if
> so, what might the epistemological differences be?

Can't say. You'll have to provide examples. My Mom, in discussions
of this nature, used to say, "Well, anything's possible," which is an
effective discussion ender. As far as knowing about natural order,
I think science is not so much _a_ way of knowing about it as a level
of maturity of the _process_ of knowing, somewhat equivalent to the
reorganization of the child's reasoning processes at seven.

> I don't know the answers to those questions. But I do think that as
> the focus of science moves increasingly towards the more complex and
> less gross features of reality, following along the chronological path
> of development in complexity from mechanics/physics > chemistry >
> biology > psyche/cognition/consciousness, that novelty will emerge in
> relation to these questions.

_So far_, progress in this direction has been marked by bringing
new domains, in which this move didn't previously seem possible, under
the aegis of "scientific method." Whatever our uncertainties as to
its nature, and acknowledging the differences between "hard" and "soft"
sciences, the newer disciplines nonetheless consider themselves to be
sciences.

<snip>

> Your project seems to be trying to empirically reveal the significance
> in astrological terms of the planetary periods. If you are successful,
> you will be adding to astrological knowledge, but I don't think you
> will necessarily be replacing any. This despite the fact that you may
> discover contradictions to traditional meanings assigned to
> astrological symbols. I think what will happen is there will be a
> parallel coexistence.

You could be right but my own expectation is that it will result in
separate communities, with the newer one gaining traction in the wider
society at the expense of the older, as with chemistry and alchemy.

> I can understand why you would think that the provenance of
> astrological symbolism, insofar as it's ever discussed, reeks of
> absurdity. It quite clearly does not fit modern epistemological
> criteria. And that is because astrology is a pre-modern tool still
> used in the modern era. The continuation of astrology in the modern
> era has left it open to modulation by social constructivist forces, if
> you like.

It is, in my eyes, a premodern tool still being used because the
very complexity of the subject matter has made it harder to modernize
than its onetime bedmate astronomy.

> The fact that it is marginalised influences the forms it takes or the
> course of its evolution. The Gauquelin work is symptomatic of the
> influence of modernity on astrological thought, as is the increasingly
> common use of any number of newly discovered bodies in the solar
> system, be they planets or not. Even the projects involved in
> translating old astrology texts and hunting for the one true craft
> from the Golden Age and repackaging it for the present is a symptom of
> our era.

Very perceptive paragraph, albeit I don't see physicists, chemists,
geologists, psychologists, sociologists et al harkening back to a
golden age, perhaps because their current status hasn't led to them
feeling as defensive.

> However, I don't believe that one can take the pre-modern heart out of
> astrology. Astrology is what it is, in all its diversity. I don't
> believe it's a universal system that we just haven't 'seen' properly
> yet.
>
> For example, I would simply assert that Mars is associated
> symbolically with heat, anger, war, and all the rest because it's
> reddish looking. That is not logical, and it doesn't make any sense
> anymore in terms of modern epistemology. On the other hand, one can
> have a go at making an argument, based on the way conceptual metaphors
> are used to structure our sense of reality, about why it does make
> sense in an astrological context, even if it is not literally 'true'.
>
> I'll try and do that in another post.

Very likely Mars is associated with those things for that reason.
That's not the same as demonstrating that the association happens to
be valid. Astrologers constantly complain that, although they KNOW
astrology works, the fact that by and large tests haven't vindicated
it means that the tests are flawed, or that astrology isn't by its
nature the kind of enterprise that _can_ be tested. It doesn't occur
to them, or they resist the thought if it does, that not all of the
tests are flawed, but that perhaps astrology is. I suspect one reason
is a perception that the alternative to tests showing that astrology
_is_ true is them showing that it _can't_ be true, whereas a more
reasonable assessment is that the existing _version_ of it is mostly
unsupported by evidence. That doesn't mean that there is no possible
version supportable by evidence, or that there aren't elements of
astrology that, properly recast, might be supportable, only that what
existing astrology has been remarkably resistant to validation even
by astrologers trained in statistical methods who presumably want to
find evidence supporting it.

>> True, the identification of functional similarities isn't easy or
>> straightforward.
>
> Please don't think that I don't consider what you are doing to be
> important. It's very interesting.

I didn't take you that way, but I appreciate the thought. I was in
fact agreeing with you, and showing how I deal with the _fact_ that
"identifying functional similarities isn't a simple straight reading
of history, but a selection process. . ."

<snip>

>> snip U/N project titles
>
> They all sound like really interesting books. It must have been very
> enriching reading them.

It was incredibly fascinating, and what is interesting is that after
several years of intending to research Uranus/Neptune but not knowing
when if ever I'd know enough history to gain a foothold, I finally got
traction when the recent conjunction was almost exact. It was 1993,
from early in that year to its end, when I was doing all that reading.

>> So I think
>> it is difficult, but not impossible, to find something when you don't
>> know what you're looking for, and anyway I see no alternative.
>
> Given your goal, I don't think there is a better alternative.

Again, I appreciate the thought.

>>> I think astrology is
>>> exactly what it looks like: unreasonable.
>>
>> Do you have a special meaning for "unreasonable" that I'm not aware
>> of, or is this merely an assertion that you're going to believe in
>> symbolistic astrology come what may?
>
> No, what I mean is by contemporary standards, the tenets of astrology
> are unreasonable. But I don't think it has to be reasonable. While I
> do make use of my powers of reason, I also believe that I am making
> use of my powers of unreason, which I would also call 'imaginal'.

That's what I was probing for, because I didn't think you meant
what a literal reading would suggest. I thought maybe you were using
'unreason' for its shock value. 'Imaginal' works for me, too.

> To my mind, it is the mirror reverse of what happens in science, where
> scientists primarily function using reasoning powers while remaining
> fairly oblivious to the imaginal contribution their mind is making to
> the construction of their hypotheses and interpretation of data. I'm
> talking about creative scientific thought here rather than lab
> technicians and the majority of those who work in the scientific
> domain ('the drones').

I'm not sure they're so oblivious, but at any rate I do agree that
intuitive/imaginal/right-brain reasoning is key to many if not most
major breakthroughs.

<snip>

>> If there's no "reason" for your
>> belief, is there a cause? Are you saying you have no idea why you
>> think it's valid?
>
> I'm working on that. I am unusual in that I am interested in making
> sense of what I'm doing when I practice astrology. . .

Indeed you are. I guess that's why Exegesis has been an appropriate
venue for you.

<snip>

> What I don't do is then go on to say that scientific realism is wrong,
> just because I can interpret horoscopes in consultation situations to
> the benefit of clients. I also don't tie myself up in knots trying to
> make astrology fit into a framework that could almost be said to have
> been designed to exclude it. Astrology and science are incommensurable.

_Traditional_ astrology and science, yes, but not all conceivable
approaches to astrology, for instance empiricism coupled with biolgical
clocks.

<snip>

>> Symbolism has certainly contributed to the survival of astrology,
>> in that it has enabled it to seem valid in the face of an inability
>> to specify predictable correspondences.
>
> I'm not sure that such an inability invalidates astrology's
> usefulness. It depends on how one wishes to use the tool. Astrology
> can't compete with science when it comes to prediction.

I constantly harp on prediction because I see it as the proof of the
pudding. Kepler, in a move made possible by Copernicus's realignment,
theorized noncircular orbits, ellipses, as well as his three laws.
How do we know he was right? His predictions of planetary positions,
thanks to Tycho Brahe's observations which made such differences
visible for the first time, were more accurate. Mars in particular
was where Kepler's system, but not Ptolemy's, said it should be.
If we eschew prediction as a control, we can never be sure that we
aren't just snowing ourselves. If we can't do it very well at this
time, it suggests that we're backward relative to the sciences and
could usefully learn from them.

>> I think a finite boundary
>> between what a symbol means and doesn't mean, or predicts and doesn't
>> predict, is vital, the most important criterion I can think of, but
>> I don't think symbolism succeeds.
>
> This raises the question of how we categorise. Finite clean cut
> boundaries between categories are not the norm, especially once one
> gets beyond the classical style of taxonomic categories in science,
> which represent a certain ideal. Category membership is a fuzzy thing
> at the best of times.

My argument is that symbolistic astrology is so malleable that it
can justify any ourcome, therefore it doesn't narrow possobilities.
This argument doesn't require clean cut boundaries or unfuzzy
category membership.

> My take on prediction is that the real world is primary, and astrology
> illuminates it. Because it is now quite clear that real world
> processes exhibit non-linear (and therefore very hard to predict)
> dynamics, I tailor my expectations accordingly. Predictive statements
> have to be qualified based on contextual factors.

But you have to have something to qualify. Before the fact we don't
know which of the myriad things that _could_ happen will happen, so
we don't know which of them we'll later be justifying because it's the
one that happened. Thus, before the fact we have an embarrassment of
riches, because we can see so many things that the symbolism is capable
of justifying, and so many times at which something might happen.

> I am interested in the buffering potential associated with
> self-organising dynamics in life processes, which can 'delay the
> inevitable', or alternatively systems which have reached a state of
> self-organised criticality (and are both very unstable and very
> unpredictable). I'm also interested in hysteresis effects which delay
> a system reaching its natural equilibrium position. All these themes
> from non-linear science and mathematics influence my understanding and
> use of of astrological prediction. I don't assume that major planetary
> transits will correlate with big changes bang on cue for example, or
> will even correlate with any noticeable change. I try and read the
> contextual situation before making predictive statements. I'm not a
> fan of astrological determinism. I think the determinism is
> earth-bound.

Just to be clear, astrological determinism doesn't _have_ to mean
the prediction of external, public events, but astrologers regularly
act as if it does. It can mean the prediction of the issues that
will come to the forefront and have to be dealt with, although that
doesn't always happen (usually to our detriment). Being bothered
by issues that are themselves predictable doesn't predict what we'll
do about them, or even that we'll do anything at all.

>> This is always been the point
>> of my crticism, that it doesn't enable us to say what won't happen
>> or isn't the case, which is the essence of prediction.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that. There's always lots that won't happen.

But before the fact there are lots of things that _might_ happen,
that would fit the symbolism, and it's not until after the fact that
we know what did happen, and therefore what didn't. But an ephemeris,
in contrast, in telling us the degree Mars will be in at a given
time, is simultaneously telling us 359 places it won't be. It's the
elimination of all but one possibility that makes it a meaninful
prediction.

>> I don't
>> see how you can reconcile "an almost infinite number of contextual
>> themes" with "a finite boundary separating it from what it does
>> not mean," and your admission that it's paradoxical suggests that
>> you don't, either.
>
> Well, yes, that is what a paradox means. But I always feel that
> paradox is very close to a truth of some kind. Which reminds me for
> some reason of of a saying by Thomas Mann (I think): "The definition
> of a Great Truth is one whose opposite is also a Great Truth".

Calling it a paradox doesn't guarantee a resolution showing that
there's way of thinking about it in which the apparent contradiction
doesn't exist. A more likely resolution is that at least one of
the premises is false.

> But the analogy which I base that paradox on is the concept of a
> finite bounded circle which contains within it an infinite number of
> points (one can always make the points smaller in scale - there is no
> limit in that respect). This is an abstract concept using mathematical
> ideas which is both true (mathematically, ideally) and a paradox (when
> projected onto the real), forcing one to contemplate the nature of
> infinity. Is it a feature of an external objective reality? Or does it
> only exist in the 'mathematics cognitive field'?

You haven't shown that this is anything other than a false analogy.
You haven't shown that an infinite number of possibilities isn't really
an infinite number of possibilities. Putting a few events inside the
circle and most outside, and treating the former as the few things that
might come to pass, and the latter as the great majority that won't,
if that's what you mean, doesn't tell us how to _decide_ which ones go
in each half. Merely picturing the result of choices, some objects
inside the circle and many others outside it, doesn't demonstrate how
to make those choices.

<snip>

>> I don't doubt that most astrologers feel "a need to generate a sense
>> of order," and have long suspected that this is why what seems clear
>> to me, that symbolism and related practices in effect predict all things
>> at all times, and therefore nothing at all, is invisible to the vast
>> majority of astrologers.
>
> Humans need to generate a sense of order. Mathematics, science,
> cosmology and theology are rooted in the same urge.

Of course, and we're good at it, so good that we often see order and
patterns where none exist.

> Astrologers predict, not astrology nor its symbolism. The main thrust
> of my arguments come from this starting point. It is not a question of
> translating signs using the astro-dictionary and then making
> predictive statements based on what the book says (or the keywords).
> It is about seeing. Astrology is a tool used to see more. If an
> astrologer wishes to make random use of the symbolism, good luck to
> him or her, but I don't think they'll get the best out of the tool.

Astrologers predict, but not in a vacuum. Presumably astrology and
its symbolism is the tool they use to see more. Asserting that we
see more with that tool doesn't demonstrate _how_ we can successfully
do that in the face of the contradictions I've pointed out. Random
use as opposed to what?

<snip>

>> Oh ye of little faith! I would say that there are astrological
>> phenomena in nature, recurrent motivational patterns that correspond
>> to planetary periods, although they are probably actually timed by
>> biological clocks that have evolved using those periodicities as
>> temporal templates, and that these clocks are periodically reset by
>> the planets whose periodicities they correspond to.
>
> The thing is Dale that I wouldn't dismiss what you are saying here.
> It's just that I don't think that this view can tell the whole story.
> I really do think there are at least two 'phenomena' blended in
> astrology, one of which has a decidedly natural slant. I see the
> effects of seasonal change as astrological, when I'm thinking
> astrology. It's astrology applied to the overt physical plane.

Yes, this comes back to the fact that your definition of astrology
is more inclusive than mine. I'm more of a minimalist. I prefer
not to be overrun with factors and methods, but to be clear on just
a few, even if erroneously. As Bacon said, "Truth emerges more
readily from error than from confusion." I'm also reluctant to
share the term "astrology" with practices which use a belief in it
as the equivalent of a crystal ball, to focus or license the subtle
interaction between client and consultant, but which don't bring
any astrologically derived knowledge to the table. However, since
it's probably naive to expect others not to use the term in the
manner that they've been using it, I might be forced to invent an
alternative, say temporal psychology (ugh!), for what I'm trying
to do.

<snip>

> I'm not an objectivist, philosophically speaking. But I'm also not an
> out and out relativist. I don't think anything goes (despite what you
> may think regarding my use of symbolism). I'm interested in
> intersubjectivity consensus regarding truths and their functional
> value, but would see the common ground as based more fundamentally in
> cognitive evolution than social construction, which for me is
> secondary. To use a term from George Lakoff, I would see myself at the
> moment holding a perspective which he calls 'embodied realism'.

I, too, think cognitive evolution is fundamental, although I find
social construction easier to grasp and more interesting. But neither
plays a conscious role in my research efforts. That is, I might
interact with other astrologers in ways described by Kuhn and other
social constructionists, but I think that if I did so consciously
it would hamstring my efforts _qua_ astrological researcher.

<snip>

>> If the astrologer and client are unwittingly playing a game, as
>> I contend, it runs more smoothly if they believe in the validity of
>> the astrology, and those things do help sustain belief.
>
> Of course, and the same is true of scientists operating within, and
> following unthinkingly the limits set by their ruling paradigm. Don't
> underestimate the role of faith in science! Or the creative power of
> thought.

I try not to. I've read several times that part of the reason that
science emerged first in Christian Europe is that the Christian god
is not capricious but has laid down laws that even he follows and that
this has resulted in a deepseated expectation of order in nature and
the faith that if we look hard enough we'll find it.

<snip>

> There is so much 'information' that one can use with astrology that it
> in effect constitutes chaotic noise. One could argue that astrology
> would work a lot better (if one thinks that it is the astrology which
> is working) if the redundancy was removed and only the true
> determining factors were identified and used.

That rather incisively sums up my position.

> But I don't think the correlations between symbol and circumstance are
> primarily external, to be discovered by the astrologer. I think they
> are primarily internal to the astrologer - at least I do when it comes
> to horoscope interpretation.
>
> This isn't as random as it seems, because I do believe that symbols
> have semantic boundaries. Also, I believe that the symbols an
> astrologer chooses to work with are a reflection of the astrologer -
> in effect a subjective choice determined by a number of factors,
> including such things as their psychological nature, cultural factors,
> philosophical bent, and so on. I don't think there are imperatives in
> that respect. Which is why I am happy to accept that Vedic astrologers
> can come up with useful astrologically derived statements while using
> a very different system to myself.
>
> In other words, extracting a signal from the noise is ultimately an
> astrologer-specific process.

I'm not looking to correlate _symbols_ with anything. I'm trying to
find correspondences between celestial and terrestrial rhythms. If I
see an historical rhythm, or a rhythm in individual lives, I will then
_use_ symbols--language--to convey what I think I see, what "it" is that
keeps coming to the forefront at regular intervals. I wouldn't dream
of reducing that recurrent something to an arbitrary symbol or set
of symbols.

<snip>

>> I can't play these games. I can't convince
>> myself that there is information to be gotten from tarot cards per
>> se because I believe that the tarot reader is reading the client and
>> the situation, that the cards are irrelevant except insofar as the
>> reader's belief in them enables him/her to read the client and
>> the situation more unselfconsciously and effectively.
>
> There isn't information to be gotten from the tarot cards per se, or
> the astrological symbolism per se. They are in effect meaningless,
> certainly in specific terms, until they feature in a process of
> conscious and purposeful engagement involving the 'seer' and the
> client's or whatever other context.
>
> Tarot cards and astrology (whatever else the latter may be about) are
> tools which help to focus the practitioner's imaginal cognition. The
> important thing is not so much the the cards as the engagement with
> the context.

Which is my point. Tarot readers and divinatory astrologers don't
get their information from the cards or astrology per se, but from
the interaction between client and consultant. But apparently they
have to _believe_ that the information comes from astrology or the
cards in order for that process to flow unimpeded.

<snip>

>> One might almost forget,
>> with all the antiscientific deconstructing, postmodernizing, etc.
>> going on, that the sciences have been pretty successful in whatever
>> it is that they're doing. Surely they're doing _something_ right,
>> and like Kuhn I'd like to know what it is.
>
> I agree. I'm certainly not anti-scientific. But it's one thing to
> assess the successes of the science project, and another to consider
> what it is scientists (or rather the philosophy guiding the
> scientists) think they are actually doing. The debate between realists
> and the so-called anti-realists is a valid one. The anti-realists
> within the scientific community are not saying anything about the
> effectiveness of science.

What they _think_ they're doing is part of their ideology. What
they're _really_ doing is what philosophers, historians, sociologists,
anthropologists, etc. of science are studying. Many of the details
of what we're doing when we're doing scientific research, or playing
football--any complex activity--are of necessity invisible to us as
participants, and are accessible only to those not participating, but
standing outside the activity (with no stake in it) and observing.

<snip>

> The use of symbols is not a primitive soon-to-be vestigial aspect of
> human cognition. The fact that modernity provides a problematical
> context for astrology is not because of the use of symbols.

Nor have I ever said otherwise. It's symbolism, not symbol usage
per se, that I've been talking about.

<snip>

> I think it's important to maintain the exchange of ideas. Neither of
> us are right. It's a big elephant. I'm not looking at what you're
> looking at, even though we're grappling with the same thing. So I'm
> not seeing what you're seeing. I am totally open to listening to
> the reports you bring back from your explorations.

It's been exhilirating if a bit exhausting at times. In a number
of instances you've helped me clarify my arguments _and_ my thinking,
and I've gotten a clearer understanding of yours. Thanks for the
stimulation.

Take care,
Dale

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 33

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 34

Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:37:04 -0400
From: "Francis Kostella"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 32

> Subject: [e] Hello?
>
> Are we still alive?
>

Sorry about that, folks! This always seems to happen at the tail end
of a Mercury Retrograde! In May I changed jobs, installed a wireless
network here, and upped the DSL speed and didn't notice that the mail
server was clogged with spam. I guess upgrading to a faster speed
made my server more inviting to spambots...but I don't really know
for sure.

In any case, last night I was forced to reboot the linux server since
it had become unresponsive to my day to day use and then, lo and
behold, all the real mail finally came through, including mail from
folks asking me if I had pulled the plug for real. I hadn't. I'm
willing to keep this thing going as long as people like it, but need
to figure out a strategy for dealing with spam. This is not the first
time my server has been locked up because of spam. The whole spam
thing is very depressing, for the first time I'm considering moving
the list to a real hosting service where they have people who deal
with spam effectively. Anyone know of such a service?

You suggestions are very welcome.

--fran

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 34

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 35

Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:10:49 +1000
From: "Robert Tulip"
Subject: [e] Science and Astrology [SEC=PERSONAL]

Dale

I was really pleased to see your recognition in Exegesis 31 of my
hypothesis in #19 that the notion that life has adapted to planetary
periods supplies the causal framework that astrology has so
conspicuously lacked. This is the first positive comment on these
matters I have ever received apart from conversation with my good friend
Greg Schubert. The causal framework of astrology is a theme I wish to
pursue further, because I see it as central to the new emerging
paradigm. I too am reading Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas, and am
finding it an immensely rich and profound work. However, there is one
thing I would like to question - Tarnas' critique of the modern paradigm
as mechanistic, and his implication that a new paradigm will somehow not
be mechanistic. I can understand where he is coming from because
mechanism is generally associated with a narrow scientism, but I believe
it need not be. Robert Hand's description of the forces we are
contending against as the 'endarkenment'
(http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_postmodern_e.htm) is certainly
illuminating, but the question of the relation between astrology and
science needs to recognise the centrality of causal mechanism to
systematic thought.

This claim that astrology can be reconciled with mechanistic science
gets to the debate here about relativism and symbols. My attitude is
that absolute objectivity is attainable within defined epistemological
limits. All ideas must be subject to the rigour of mechanistic logic,
but, crucially, objectivity faces boundaries in its knowledge of subject
matter which has intrinsic mythical ambiguity. The meaning of the
planetary and sign archetypes has a mechanistic origin in cosmic
reality, but it is in principle impossible to fully articulate the
nature of these archetypes because they operate at the fundamental
ontological level of the physical relation between life and its ecology.

To explain this further, allow me to respond to the question raised in a
recent post here why the 84 year cycle of Uranus should provide a useful
template. We can see this template applied in books such as Erin
Sullivan's Saturn in Transit and The Astrology of Midlife and Ageing
(www.erinsullivan.org), but we still struggle to identify the mechanism
behind it. I submit that the reason the Uranus return provides such a
useful template is that the cycle of Uranus is an intrinsic formative
part of the identity of our DNA.

Why? Consider the history of our solar system against our galaxy.
About five billion years ago, the nebula that was to become our solar
system coalesced as an isolated spinning disk 4.3 light years from the
nearest stars Proxima and Alpha Centauri - as isolated as a coin in a
field where the nearest other entity is 100 metres away. Out of this
nebula, 99.8% remained in or fell into the sun, while the remaining 0.2%
of flotsam formed the planets. The planets have retained their stable
original orbits apart from a few accidents such as the collision with
earth to form the moon, the possible collapse of asteroidal planetoids
under Jupiter's influence, and the possible trans-Neptunian re-orderings
described in places such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto.

The ontological principle here is that all things retain the character
of their origin. As Aristotle said in Nicomachean Ethics 7, "the
beginning is thought to be more than half of the whole, and many of the
questions we ask are cleared up by it."
(http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html)

The solar system proceeded to evolve as a single isolated entity,
cocooning one tiny part of it, our earth, where complex conditions were
such as to enable evolution of life after the first billion years of
planetary settling. If we think of our planet as like a whorl in a
solar whirlpool, we can start to understand how our complex ecosystem
evolved in fractal reflection to the solar system, just as a
well-adapted old tree or river mirrors its niche. Complexity theory
observes that a newly emerging natural entity is in harmony with its
surrounds, and only gradually differentiates after separation. Hence
the beginning of an eddy in a river is like the rest of the river, and
it retains the causal stamp of its origin throughout its life.
Similarly, our genes have the stamp of their origin in attunement to the
harmonic rhythms of the solar system. In principle, this harmony
between genes and cosmos is entirely mechanistic.

Space is harsh, and the immense gravity of the sun is enough to hold the
planets in orbit. If the sun was the size of a person, earth would be
as big as a pea ten metres away, while Jupiter would be an orange forty
metres away. Earth has passed between Jupiter and the sun almost five
billion times, held in orbit only by gravity. The groaning interactions
of the planets can be conceptualized as like a celestial harmony, with
squares functioning as minor thirds, trines as major thirds, oppositions
as perfect fifths, and conjunctions as the octave. These interactions
combine to form a rhythmic celestial ecosystem, within which the most
complex fruit of all is the DNA of earth.

Much of our DNA has been around since the dawn of life. Only 1.5% of
human DNA differs from chimpanzee DNA. While that may be the most
complex and interesting 1.5%, only this tiny proportion of our genes
make us unique among animals. The human genome project has found that
the human genome contains over 200 ancient genes, which can be traced to
genetic material inserted from bacteria into a primitive human ancestor
such as fish, and that almost 99% of our genes are 'junk' which does not
code protein, but has been stable for a very long time. In principle,
the point here is that all this genetic material has been deeply attuned
since its origin to the regular imperceptible cosmic tides of the
planets. The biological Darwinian principle of evolution by cumulative
adaptation suggests, as I previously commented, that genes which fall
out of attunement to the cosmos are likely to prove maladapted over
time.

Thinking of Uranus, that plum 150 metres from our pea, much of our DNA
has passed between it and the sun four billion times, while over that
period Uranus has circled us 50 million times at a constant pace. Think
of our human mind against the solar system as like a perfect rose
against its system of plant, soil, air, water and sun. I like to
imagine Uranus as like a lump of fertilizer buried in the ground, tapped
by the roots of the rose and subtly influencing its scent and colour.
But because Uranus is a planet which our genes have sailed past up to
four billion times, held together only by gravity, its relation to earth
is so much more complex. Like all the planets, Uranus is part of the
living context to which all life has cumulatively adapted. This means
it is part of our telos or purpose, the structure against which we can
fulfil our potential. Astrology grasps at the nature of this telos to
enable us to achieve our ends more fully. Gradually, we are defining
the purposive nature of life. Mapping the complex ecology of the
harmonic interactions of the planets is a major element of this job, to
which Tarnas makes a major contribution with his description of the
planets as archetypal sources of meaning.

I would like also to comment on the matter of statistical proof in
astrology. I believe much of the problem here is a result of poor
experimental design. I would suggest the following approach. Firstly,
the most significant planetary natal transits should be ranked by
astrological observation of their impact on human life - especially the
outer planetary transits to themselves. It should be possible to
construct large epidemiological datasets using medical information to
obtain population data on dates of birth and people's ages at the time
of medical events, and then to mine this data to find out if any medical
conditions correspond in statistically significant ways to these
transits - such as the second Saturn return at age 58-9, or Uranus
opposite Uranus at 40-44. For myself, having just watched Mars swim
past my natal Uranus with just the sort of unpredictable fireworks that
astrology would predict, I would be really surprised if this experiment
did not yield valuable confirmation.

Robert Tulip

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 35
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 36

Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:28:23 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: cosmos & psyche 6

Dennis wrote:
"[..]
>
> [A]longside this essential *multidimensionality* of the archetypes is their
> equally essential *multivalence*. The Saturn archetype can express itself
> as judgement but also as old age, as tradition but also as oppression, as
> time but also as mortality, as depression but also as discipline". Tarnas
> quotes Jung making the same point: "The ground principles, the *archai*, of
> the unconscious are indescribable because of their wealth of reference,
> although in themselves recognizable. The discriminating intellect naturally
> keeps on trying to establish their singleness of meaning and thus misses the
> essential point; for what we can above all establish as the one thing
> consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their almost
> boundless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral formulation
> impossible."
>
> In other words, you can't tie these critters down into a single cage of
> meaning - they are shape-shifters. What Tarnas hasn't yet acknowledged,
> however, is that there's a standard repertoire of shapes each one tends to
> shift into. These typical manifestations of each archetype tend to be
> consensually recognised, so they are subject to collective identification
> and labelling. Keywords and key descriptive phrases are how we as
> astrologers can recognise and describe them.
>
>
> Dennis Frank
[..]"

Dennis,
I am in near total agreement with Tarnas here. I too see the
different unpredictable "shape-shifting" manifestations of natal planet
aspect complexes operating as unpredictable archetypal "muse". For
instance , my wife showed me a calendar today which displayed a
collection of Picasso's blue and pink period paintings. Here we can see
how different levels of abstraction can either allow/facilitate a
geometric symbolism--the Pythagorean-Platonian type of natal Sun
expression, i.e., a circular object at the bottom of the painting which
echo's the Sun's position in his natal chart, or we see the idea of a
vital circle transmuted by author's will to express his Self (a natal
chart) in a more metaphorical, literary, poetic level of expression by
his selecting to depict characters from a Circus. Not only can we never
predict what people will choose as a "shape" for their astrologically
spurred Individuated self-projection, but we can never anticipate their
individually meaningful contextual framework and their freely chosen
level of complexity on the scale from simple geometric to extremely
sublime metaphoric.
Physics and material sciences with their reductive laws will have no
place in the "Science" Tarnas is trying to anticipate, and he may here
have failed to illuminate anything less fuzzy than my own attempts...:)

Rog

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 36

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 37

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:13:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Astrology & Biological Clocks

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 Robert Tulip wrote:

> I was really pleased to see your recognition in Exegesis 31 of my
> hypothesis in #19 that the notion that life has adapted to planetary
> periods supplies the causal framework that astrology has so
> conspicuously lacked. This is the first positive comment on these
> matters I have ever received apart from conversation with my good
> friend Greg Schubert.

Well, Andre and I have pursued a similar notion together for almost
ten years, and separately before that, and Patrice too for who knows
how long, but I just haven't been aware of others who shared a similar
perspective. Glad to know that you and Greg do.

> The causal framework of astrology is a theme I wish to pursue further,
> because I see it as central to the new emerging paradigm. I too am
> reading Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas, and am finding it an
> immensely rich and profound work. However, there is one thing I would
> like to question - Tarnas' critique of the modern paradigm as mechanistic,
> and his implication that a new paradigm will somehow not be mechanistic.
> I can understand where he is coming from because mechanism is generally
> associated with a narrow scientism, but I believe it need not be.

Do you mean the modern paradigm of science, or of astrology? Science
is mechanistic, presentday astrology is not. For the latter to become
even less so would be a retreat into mumbo jumbo obscurantism. Part of
the problem is astrologers' attitude towards prediction. Event-oriented
astrologers believe, correctly I think, that prediction is both possible
and desirable, but what they mean by "prediction" is external events,
including events that happen TO us. Psychological astrologers tend to
doubt the possibility of prediction, but that's because they define
prediction the same way as event-oriented astrologers. I think internal
developments, motivations, attitudes, agendas, are what's predictable,
not external events, not things that happen TO us rather than being
caused BY us, and certainly not events that occur in our vicinity or
that merely intrigue us.

> Robert Hand's description of the forces we are contending against as the
> 'endarkenment' (http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_postmodern_e.htm) is
> certainly illuminating, but the question of the relation between astrology
> and science needs to recognise the centrality of causal mechanism to
> systematic thought.

Astrology didn't/couldn't modernize during the 17th century and was
abandoned by the educated elite. Astrology IS in a position to modernize
now, and should. It would become more effective and, as a side effect,
would regain much or all of its lost credibility. Modernization involves
abandoning astrological symbolism in favor of empiricism, embracing a
plausible causal mechanism, and limiting ourselves to astrological effects
that are discovered/justified empirically and that make sense in terms
of that mechanism (rather than continuing our self-indulgent belief in an
astrology that can tell us anything and everything that we WANT to know,
as opposed to what's actually knowable).

> This claim that astrology can be reconciled with mechanistic science
> gets to the debate here about relativism and symbols. My attitude is
> that absolute objectivity is attainable within defined epistemological
> limits. All ideas must be subject to the rigour of mechanistic logic,
> but, crucially, objectivity faces boundaries in its knowledge of subject
> matter which has intrinsic mythical ambiguity. The meaning of the
> planetary and sign archetypes has a mechanistic origin in cosmic
> reality, but it is in principle impossible to fully articulate the
> nature of these archetypes because they operate at the fundamental
> ontological level of the physical relation between life and its ecology.

Why can't we simply OBSERVE correspondences where they exist? When
they can't be observed (presumably because they don't exist), as I think
is the case with signs, the corresponding belief should be abandoned.

> To explain this further, allow me to respond to the question raised in a
> recent post here why the 84 year cycle of Uranus should provide a useful
> template. We can see this template applied in books such as Erin
> Sullivan's Saturn in Transit and The Astrology of Midlife and Ageing
> (www.erinsullivan.org), but we still struggle to identify the mechanism
> behind it. I submit that the reason the Uranus return provides such a
> useful template is that the cycle of Uranus is an intrinsic formative
> part of the identity of our DNA.

That was Bill Sheeran, in response to Andre, wondering why the Uranus
period should provide a useful template. In response to him and you, and
not meaning to be flip, I would say, because it's there. That is, life
is going to use what's available. If it had been a 77 year cycle, that's
what we would have. My hypothesis is simply that it is an advantage to
be organized temporally, but that the lengths of the periods that life
evolves processes to match don't matter, so long as they're stable. If,
by "intrinsic formative part of the identity of our DNA," you mean simply
that life has evolved an internal clock(s) matching the Uranus period,
I'd have to agree because that's what I've been saying, otherwise I have
no idea what you mean.

> Why? Consider the history of our solar system against our galaxy.
> About five billion years ago, the nebula that was to become our solar
> system coalesced as an isolated spinning disk 4.3 light years from the
> nearest stars Proxima and Alpha Centauri - as isolated as a coin in a
> field where the nearest other entity is 100 metres away. Out of this
> nebula, 99.8% remained in or fell into the sun, while the remaining 0.2%
> of flotsam formed the planets. The planets have retained their stable
> original orbits apart from a few accidents such as the collision with
> earth to form the moon, the possible collapse of asteroidal planetoids
> under Jupiter's influence, and the possible trans-Neptunian re-orderings
> described in places such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto.
>
> The ontological principle here is that all things retain the character
> of their origin. As Aristotle said in Nicomachean Ethics 7, "the
> beginning is thought to be more than half of the whole, and many of the
> questions we ask are cleared up by it."
> (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html)

The origin in this instance is not the origin of the solar system, but
the origin of the internal clock(s) that match the Uranus period.

> The solar system proceeded to evolve as a single isolated entity,
> cocooning one tiny part of it, our earth, where complex conditions were
> such as to enable evolution of life after the first billion years of
> planetary settling. If we think of our planet as like a whorl in a
> solar whirlpool, we can start to understand how our complex ecosystem
> evolved in fractal reflection to the solar system, just as a
> well-adapted old tree or river mirrors its niche. Complexity theory
> observes that a newly emerging natural entity is in harmony with its
> surrounds, and only gradually differentiates after separation. Hence
> the beginning of an eddy in a river is like the rest of the river, and
> it retains the causal stamp of its origin throughout its life.
> Similarly, our genes have the stamp of their origin in attunement to the
> harmonic rhythms of the solar system. In principle, this harmony
> between genes and cosmos is entirely mechanistic.

You're offering buzzwords and trendy analogies rather than explanation.
For instance, unless I misunderstand you, I believe "our genes have the
stamp of their origin in attunement to the harmonic rhythms of the solar
system" can be replaced by the simpler and more straightforward, life
has used planetary periods as templates for internal clocks.

> Space is harsh, and the immense gravity of the sun is enough to hold the
> planets in orbit. If the sun was the size of a person, earth would be
> as big as a pea ten metres away, while Jupiter would be an orange forty
> metres away. Earth has passed between Jupiter and the sun almost five
> billion times, held in orbit only by gravity. The groaning interactions
> of the planets can be conceptualized as like a celestial harmony, with
> squares functioning as minor thirds, trines as major thirds, oppositions
> as perfect fifths, and conjunctions as the octave. These interactions
> combine to form a rhythmic celestial ecosystem, within which the most
> complex fruit of all is the DNA of earth.

These analogies are either superfluous or premature, it seems to me.

> Much of our DNA has been around since the dawn of life. Only 1.5% of
> human DNA differs from chimpanzee DNA. While that may be the most
> complex and interesting 1.5%, only this tiny proportion of our genes
> make us unique among animals. The human genome project has found that
> the human genome contains over 200 ancient genes, which can be traced to
> genetic material inserted from bacteria into a primitive human ancestor
> such as fish, and that almost 99% of our genes are 'junk' which does not
> code protein, but has been stable for a very long time. In principle,
> the point here is that all this genetic material has been deeply attuned
> since its origin to the regular imperceptible cosmic tides of the
> planets. The biological Darwinian principle of evolution by cumulative
> adaptation suggests, as I previously commented, that genes which fall
> out of attunement to the cosmos are likely to prove maladapted over
> time.

If by attunement you mean "matches the periodicity of the planet," it
seems to me that IF there is an 84 year cycle in human life the attunement
exists, in which case the fate of any ADDITIONAL genes which used to but
don't now contribute to it doesn't add anything to our knowledge of the
ones that do.

> Thinking of Uranus, that plum 150 metres from our pea, much of our DNA
> has passed between it and the sun four billion times, while over that
> period Uranus has circled us 50 million times at a constant pace. Think
> of our human mind against the solar system as like a perfect rose
> against its system of plant, soil, air, water and sun. I like to
> imagine Uranus as like a lump of fertilizer buried in the ground, tapped
> by the roots of the rose and subtly influencing its scent and colour.
> But because Uranus is a planet which our genes have sailed past up to
> four billion times, held together only by gravity, its relation to earth
> is so much more complex. Like all the planets, Uranus is part of the
> living context to which all life has cumulatively adapted. This means
> it is part of our telos or purpose, the structure against which we can
> fulfil our potential. Astrology grasps at the nature of this telos to
> enable us to achieve our ends more fully. Gradually, we are defining
> the purposive nature of life. Mapping the complex ecology of the
> harmonic interactions of the planets is a major element of this job, to
> which Tarnas makes a major contribution with his description of the
> planets as archetypal sources of meaning.

"Archetypal sources of meaning" is a buzzphrase with no clear referent.
I prefer "temporal templates", or more simply, available periodicities.

> I would like also to comment on the matter of statistical proof in
> astrology. I believe much of the problem here is a result of poor
> experimental design. I would suggest the following approach. Firstly,
> the most significant planetary natal transits should be ranked by
> astrological observation of their impact on human life - especially the
> outer planetary transits to themselves. It should be possible to
> construct large epidemiological datasets using medical information to
> obtain population data on dates of birth and people's ages at the time
> of medical events, and then to mine this data to find out if any medical
> conditions correspond in statistically significant ways to these
> transits - such as the second Saturn return at age 58-9, or Uranus
> opposite Uranus at 40-44. For myself, having just watched Mars swim
> past my natal Uranus with just the sort of unpredictable fireworks that
> astrology would predict, I would be really surprised if this experiment
> did not yield valuable confirmation.

I don't see why we should concentrate on medical issues. Gauquelin has
shown one way to proceed statistically. As an alternative for exploratory
purposes, I prefer to look for rhythms per se, which we are genetically
wired to see, and then clarify their nature and confirm their existence by
asking, for each rhythm, what "it" is that's recurring regularly. If we
can't answer that question we not only have no confirmation that the rhythm
exists, we also have no knowledge of recurrent effects to apply.

Dale

"In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--new
things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,
the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
Articles:
http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html
http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

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

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:31:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: cosmos & psyche 6

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 Roger Satterlee wrote: >
that Dennis wrote: >>

>> [A]longside this essential *multidimensionality* of the archetypes is their
>> equally essential *multivalence*. The Saturn archetype can express itself
>> as judgement but also as old age, as tradition but also as oppression, as
>> time but also as mortality, as depression but also as discipline". Tarnas
>> quotes Jung making the same point: "The ground principles, the *archai*, of
>> the unconscious are indescribable because of their wealth of reference,
>> although in themselves recognizable. The discriminating intellect naturally
>> keeps on trying to establish their singleness of meaning and thus misses the
>> essential point; for what we can above all establish as the one thing
>> consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their almost
>> boundless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral formulation
>> impossible."
>>
>> In other words, you can't tie these critters down into a single cage of
>> meaning - they are shape-shifters. What Tarnas hasn't yet acknowledged,
>> however, is that there's a standard repertoire of shapes each one tends to
>> shift into. These typical manifestations of each archetype tend to be
>> consensually recognised, so they are subject to collective identification
>> and labelling. Keywords and key descriptive phrases are how we as
>> astrologers can recognise and describe them.
>
> I am in near total agreement with Tarnas here. I too see the
> different unpredictable "shape-shifting" manifestations of natal planet
> aspect complexes operating as unpredictable archetypal "muse". For
> instance , my wife showed me a calendar today which displayed a
> collection of Picasso's blue and pink period paintings. Here we can see
> how different levels of abstraction can either allow/facilitate a
> geometric symbolism--the Pythagorean-Platonian type of natal Sun
> expression, i.e., a circular object at the bottom of the painting which
> echo's the Sun's position in his natal chart, or we see the idea of a
> vital circle transmuted by author's will to express his Self (a natal
> chart) in a more metaphorical, literary, poetic level of expression by
> his selecting to depict characters from a Circus. Not only can we never
> predict what people will choose as a "shape" for their astrologically
> spurred Individuated self-projection, but we can never anticipate their
> individually meaningful contextual framework and their freely chosen
> level of complexity on the scale from simple geometric to extremely
> sublime metaphoric.

I once read about an art critic critic dipping a horse's tail in paint
and positioning him in front of a canvas while he was munching grass.
The result was exhibited, and art critics went on about the energy of the
brush strokes, the powerful symbolism, the artist's intent, etc. Don't
know if the story is true or too good to be, but I did find this piece of
art online, <http:www.ratbehavior.org/images/CricketPaintingFinished.jpg>,
along with a commentary describing the artist at work:

"After many months away from the easel, Cricket accepted a commission to
paint a new work of art! This time, Cricket would try his paw at mixing
colors and at painting on a canvas. The day was so beautiful, Cricket agreed
to come outside to paint. To avoid unwanted jaunts on the balcony and a
trail of multicolored footprints, we placed the canvas in the bottom of a
box. The order of the day was 'jewel colors', so we poured our purple, blue,
green and red as the base colors for mixing. Cricket agreed to have me
mix the paints, because he doesn't have opposable thumbs so he can't hold
brushes or spoons. I combined blue and green to make a pretty teal, and
indigo and red to make a rich dark magenta and a deep plum. Cricket dabbed
his back feet in teal and magenta, his front feet in green and his tail
in magenta. He was ready to paint! Cricket took a few steps, and quickly
realized that the picture needed a touch of warmth. So I mixed a spring
green for him and placed it in the bowl of a spoon. Cricket dipped a front
paw in and continued to paint. Cricket meandered over the canvas, adding
a few scent marks which I blotted for him. His tail created textured,
blended streaks behind him. At one point he paused for a break and peeked
over the edge, placing a few tasteful blue pawmarks on the box. I renewed
the paint on his paws and tail for him a few times, adding some teal to
his tail tip and a bit of blue-green to a front paw. After a few more
minutes Cricket surveyed his work, and decided it was done. Cricket had
completed an homage to spring . . . His warm yellow-greens hinted at tender
grass shoots from an ancestral rat memory; his streaks of aqua and magenta
meandering among the pawprints recalled wild rat paths under nodding,
fragrant lilacs. . . . Cricket's finished painting [was titled] Joyous
Spring."

Next Cricket plans to try his paw at chart interpretation. I can't wait
to see what surprises he finds there!

> Physics and material sciences with their reductive laws will have no
> place in the "Science" Tarnas is trying to anticipate, and he may here
> have failed to illuminate anything less fuzzy than my own attempts...:)

Without artist interpreters to illuminate them and free them from crass
engineering constraints, no doubt cars will stay on the road and planes in the
air (which might otherwise come crashing to earth). As for antiscientific
but artistic astrology, it will no doubt continue to be obscurantist and
ineffectual, unless we can recruit enough rats to make it work.

Dale

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

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:57:29 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Boticelli and Tarnas "living" Cosmos

I have a hypothesis which came to me pretty much as a matter of the
one time 180 degree natal Uranus eventuality--t-Uranus opposite
n-Uranus. I simply thought I saw my 12 year old step son expressing a
drawing which paralleled his natal chart...he called the abstract
drawing, "Sneeze":
http://pedantus.free.fr/sneeze_01a.gif
http://pedantus.free.fr/sneeze_01b.gif

Tarnas states that his Uranus transit observations are the very basis
of his discovered ability to "shift paradigms", to at last be able to
overcome a bias and accept the even possibility of astrology's
existence, as being at least potentially a phenomenon to critically and
dispassionately either include or eliminate from one's thoughts about
cosmology, etc.. This transit seems to be the "break through" experience
of one's life...as it was for all the great minds he cites as examples.
Being no "great mind" myself I must settle with the little discovery we
could call a Mars pointer--the unconscious expression of natal Mars as
it is position in ones natal chart. In the above drawing Mars is
expressed as sharp teeth and a large phallic sort of fang.

I am always testing this Promethean gift I willing accepted; today I
tested my understanding by trying to "guess" (adduce) the birth date of
Botticelli, of whom I have little to no knowledge. I was googling for
abstract paintings with Mars as part of the title, just fishing. I came
upon a painting, "Venus and Mars," by Boticelli:

http://pedantus.free.fr/Venus-and-Mars_01.gif

I found that Botticelli's birth year seemed undecided, cited as 1444
or 1445...many web pages citing only one year or another. Good! An
experiment!

Start with November 1st, 1444 we see:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Botticelli_Exp-01.gif

It was my intention to advance the chart one day at a time to see when
natal aspect complexes would begin to look like a case of Jungian
synchronicity between natal chart and painting. Now, here, my many
dismissive critics tell me that this takes a special weird ability that
only I have. Bunk, I say. Like Tarnas, before his awareness of
astrology, my critics are blind to the possibility of my perceptions
because they seem a victims of a *deep* seated "astrological" bias..in
this case for a bio-mechanical, physics oriented, astrology and
science-like forces as causations. Tarnas and I say this is a big
mistake. Of course I had called and told Tarnas himself, 16 years ago
now, that the universe worked out its business on the basis of Art, a
theme he has wisely adopted an incorporated...:)

I advanced the protochart,(for lack of another word), for Botocelli
until I stopped at Feb 26, 1445, and I sensed that I was very close to
his birth date. This because the painting and the chart were now much
more resonant. The Sun is opposite Neptune and square Uranus. One can
see the Neptune theme here easily enough...Mars is apparently
dreaming...not the action figure we might have come to stereotypically
expect. The important clue in the form of the noise making conch shell
is that it is place against the hear of the reclining male figure--the
"head" is the seat of the ego, thus the Sun very often in paintings--not
a traditional connection, but a logical one when we think about it..the
"I" of the painter does get placed into the painting. The figure of the
"lance" is as Dennis would have it, a familiar shape for the planet
Mars' expression. So we adjust the time of day to use the lance as a
"mars pointer" like this:

http://pedantus.free.fr/Botticelli_Exp-03.gif

Feeling confident I am close, I googled "[ Boticelli was born
February], and this page was the first google search return:
http://kittyroara.tripod.com/id5.html
"[..] Alessandro di Mariano Filipepi (otherwise known as Sandro
Botticelli), was born on March 1, 1445 and died on May 17, 1510. He was
a painter of the Florentine school during the Early Renaissance. He is
most famous for his painting, The Birth of Venus.[..]"

The differences in calendars is not respected by my Astrolog program,
thus Febraury 20th on my program = March 1st at Astrodienst , the
Gregorian thing...:)

The whiteness and flowing drapery in the Asc /House I position is
resonant with the natal Moon and Neptune placement. I'm content I have a
close approximation of his birth time, which I think will prove easier
for astrologers to work with than it may at first seem. An empirical
study showing that unknown birth time can approximated if year and day
are a given should be the in road to establishing astrology as pattern ,
and this should be much easier and more successful than the Gauqueline
Mars effect type of proceedures.

So, the important point is that there are these customary "shapes" of
planet aspect projections, but they are not going to "work" as well as
traditionalists seem to think they do *if* we don't incorporate the more
or less purely Jungian styled archetypal connections, which are not yet
respected by the conventions of the pseudo-physics propelled notion of
what "causes" what in astrology.

Rog

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

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:39:43 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] Brief comments for Dennis, Robert

Gidday Dennis (see immediately below); and Robert (see further down)

A few comments of no particular merit for both of you...however, some of
the material may be of more general interest.

Dennis, the work keeping me busy 7 days is not for the benefit of the
national economy I fear!

After four years of lecturing it became apparent, late last year, I had
better get my phd finished, and so I have taken this year off from all
other work. The thesis falls due March 2007, and sadly neither the NZ
economy nor my personal economy looks set to gain from this effort.

Arguably there might be some small benefit to the 'knowledge economy',
but I doubt that!

However, there is a lot of overlap between my work in social psychology
and some of the directions I outlined in 'Toward a social astrology' on
Patrice's C.U.R.A. site, and in various informal posts I contributed
years ago to the ACT and PanPlanet forums.

Part of the overlap concerns the application of statistics in much the
same way as it is done in physics (see issues of the Physics Review A).

In physics, I would characterise statistics as being seen as describing
real properties of the world, rather than as merely a tool for
conducting statistical tests. Lamentably most psychologists appear to
favour the latter perspective, and hence we sometimes overlook critical
features of our subject domain.

Concerning emergent phenomena, several chapters of my thesis involve
working with this very thing, in the context of social dynamics between
minority and majority subpopulations. In part, the thesis will report
on computer software I developed to run novel simulations of my own, and
to replicate (and hopefully repudiate, in one key respect) the work of
others in the field.

At this point I find it difficult to be sure that 'emergent properties'
could not be derived analytically, in most cases. That is, the
'information' that produces the phenomena would seem to be already
present in the initial state of the system. (Such systems are therefore
called 'deterministic').

Computer simulation seems simply to be an easy way to reveal some of the
effects of that initial information (and in another sense that's why -
if I may diverge slightly - many physicists see the values of certain
constants evident at the subatomic level as decisive for the way the
world is at macro scales).

The method of computer simulation often answers questions we hadn't
thought to ask, but this does not necessarily mean we _couldn't_ have
answered them analytically. Nevertheless, computer simulation seems to
sometimes offer a rapid 'short cut'; or indeed to solve problems that
would otherwise be intractable simply because impractical.

Given that the universe itself can be thought of as a 'computer',
and the phenomena evident in the universe can be thought of as the
result of iterative processes operating within that computer, there is a
definite and sometimes fruitful analogy between simulation by computer
and the 'simulations' of the real world.

The one area where analytical methods break down - but so do computer
simulations, regardless of scale (see next sentence) - is the matter of
non-linear systems with (acute) sensitivity to initial conditions.
Theoretically any such chaotic system that has sufficiently extreme sensitive
dependence is unpredictable absolutely, as the universe itself is not
large enough to compute (differentiate) the different outcomes that
result.

[To the extent such systems exist, there is an absolute bar on our
knowledge. That is, unless our minds have certain quantum-mechanical
properties, as suggested by Roger Penrose (see for example 'The
Emperor's New Mind'). There, Penrose discusses the limits of
computability, and - at odds with most cyberneticists - suggests the
mind may work in non-computable ways (and hence no computer - certainly
no Turing machine - will ever be able to do what the mind does...).]

At any rate, with these ideas in mind I think my suggestion about the
Earth as the main receptor for planetary effects is clearly begging for
a computer simulation...

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

To answer another question Dennis put, I was active in astrology up to
2002 at a client (strictly natal) and (of course) forum level, and also
developing software to explore my speculations on social astrology and
the application of statistics in astrology (in the way I described above).
I hope to resume activity within the next year or so.

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

Robert, I think the hypothesis you described in #19 is essentially very
similar to that advanced by Dale Huckeby throughout the 1990s, and as
far back as the 1980s. Over the years I have myself contributed some
small points concerning the nature of time and the significance of long,
stable periods for an organism, most coherently perhaps in an article I
wrote about Chiron for the first and second issues of 'The Southern
Astrologer' (circa 1999 I think. I regurgitated some of these ideas
recently - and somewhat less coherently! - in exchanges with Bill). I
am thinking here of your statement "The planets have less immediate
effects than terrestrial factors, but they compensate by permanent
stability...".

If there seems to have been little comment or recognition of your
contributions in this respect, it is perhaps simply that the thesis has
been quite well canvassed already - though perhaps not yet well enough,
and more discussion is always welcome.

Emphatically this is _not_ to say you have nothing new to contribute,
especially given the interdisciplinary mix you describe. In #19 and #33
you remind us of the benefits of retaining 'the big picture'. I regret
I haven't the time to comment in detail on #33, but I look forward
keenly to your continued contributions.

Btw, my attention was grabbed by

> I would like also to comment on the matter of statistical proof in
> astrology. I believe much of the problem here is a result of poor
> experimental design.

As a social scientist with some slight skill in research design and
statistical inference, I heartily agree.

> I would suggest the following approach <snip> I would be really
> surprised if this experiment did not yield valuable confirmation.

Well, that's the value of science - actually trying these things out
(and usually _getting_ surprised as part of the bargain!).

Do you have any immediate plans to conduct such a study? I certainly
support you doing something like this.

There is a certain property of astrology which makes it different from
other populations in terms of sampling theory. Astrology benefits from
a slightly different statistical treatment (which I trialed a few years
ago in a thus-far unfinished study of Chiron). If you think it might be
relevant, and if I have time, I could describe this.

Also, FYI this reminds me of a study by Sara Klein Ridgley, who
completed her doctorate (circa 2000) on the relation between dates of
birth and dates of accidents. Unfortunately she performed significance
(p) tests (which are entirely sensitive to sample size) rather than
reporting effect sizes (which give a more real indication of the value
of the finding). In any case, I recall the study did not replicate; but
she was then busy trying out other astrological studies.

One of the points this highlights incidentally is the potential value of
the internet in performing these studies.

There are a number of projects I have conceived in the past few years
too. One I am keen to pursue is the notion of a natal chart as an
"astrometric test" directly on the analogy of the "psychometric test".

It seems to me the analogy between the two is natural and direct, and
moreover all the needed techniques (to assess reliability and validity)
are already well established. Moreover, establishing "astrometrics" as
a field in astrology would enable the production of 'astrometric scales'
with immediate, practical application.

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

Ok, enough for now. Back to the grind!

Andre Donnell.

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 37

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 38

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:44:00 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Empirical "measurements" need better Symbolic definitions

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 37
Astrology & Biological Clocks (Dale Huckeby)
[..]
> Astrology didn't/couldn't modernize during the 17th century and was
> abandoned by the educated elite. Astrology IS in a position to modernize
> now, and should. It would become more effective and, as a side effect,
> would regain much or all of its lost credibility. Modernization involves
> abandoning astrological symbolism in favor of empiricism, embracing a
> plausible causal mechanism, and limiting ourselves to astrological effects
> that are discovered/justified empirically and that make sense in terms
> of that mechanism (rather than continuing our self-indulgent belief in an
> astrology that can tell us anything and everything that we WANT to know,
> as opposed to what's actually knowable).
[..]

Embracing the idea that there is no plausible mechanism is the more
likely first step in the modernization of Astrology...accepting the
inherent limitation (or complete irrelevance) of any "causal mechanism"
model, as explanation, is probably the next evolutional step, and not a
suicidal leap into the dreaded Infernal lake of "mumbo-jumbo"...:) If
predictions are indeed based on a causal mechanistic foundation, then
prediction itself has nothing to do with astrological understanding. I
question what is the relationship between "empiricism" and our
experience astrological understanding. When has empiricism ever been
applied to something purely "astrological", as opposed to the routine
pseudo-scientific aberrations of astrology as popularized by Edison-ian
would be wizards and their 1000 trial filaments of tenuously
illuminating causations.

Fear of mumbo-jumbo is all I see...:) The cultivated "dead" universe
atheism of a logical positivist apparently has a very fine pragmatic
applications, it doesn't seem to serve our need for a broader grasp of
the unity hidden in the diversity of mental disciplines, these each but
the personal Kuhn-ian art of a given "scientist", etc.. Tanas' adoption
of Jung's unpredictable archetypal "motivations" and the suggested need
for "empirical" observations of synchronicity seem quite the most
reasonable pursuit of astrology as means to our experience of
Understanding. If this should lead back to a fashionable cycle of
market driven practitioners and their individually conceived little
worlds of predictable phenomena, so be it...we shall see...:)

Symbolism will never be abandoned simply because what we call symbols
are the mind's conscious experience of the human psyche's communicable
output, our responses to the soul of the world or universe. Astrology
proper need only determine which alleged symbolism arise from a
psychical foundation and which are just the hare-brained constructions
of our manipulative ego's desire for an apparent wizardry.
The fact that people cannot seem to stay interested or pleasantly
entertained in a Life which has no tantalizing semi-anticipated plot
surely has no bearing on whatever "reality" has in Mind. I can cite a
wonderfully compelling case for a Jungian synchronicity involving the
planet Neptune, and it glyph--it's projection in the visual world as a
graphic art-based "synbol", which occurs this morning involving an old
argument between Wittgenstein and Popper, and my wife's "spiritual"
relationship with Richard Wagner...but such things are only about my
perceptions and our astrologically framed humanity. Those hell bent on
showing astrology as the measure of our predictability can only see me
as completely mad...totally lost, just foundering in mumbo-jumbo.
Horsehockey!...:)

Rog

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 38

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 39

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:29:25 +0100
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: Empirical "measurements" need better Symbolic definitions

> Embracing the idea that there is no plausible mechanism is the more
>likely first step in the modernization of Astrology...accepting the
>inherent limitation (or complete irrelevance) of any "causal mechanism"
>model, as explanation, is probably the next evolutional step, and not a
>suicidal leap into the dreaded Infernal lake of "mumbo-jumbo"...:)

Hi Rog,
I'm inclined to agree with the point you are making here.

I think one important thing is to recognise that even if astrological
'effects' are causally determined (and I don't personally think that
idea can hold a lot of astrology), the complexity involved in the
causal process would be so great that it is effectively impossible to
identify it.

The fact that a complex system may be 'deterministic' in nature does
not mean that the future states of the system are predictable. Which
is why the term 'deterministic chaos' is used to describe the dynamics
of systems which are determined by a wide variety of interacting
physical variables, such as the weather.

So in my view postulating a plausible causal mechanism for astrology
has a very limited value in engendering an understanding (and even
less an explanation) of astrology's nature, because any model that
attempts to tie down things to a level of specifics and
micro-reductive details will in effect be as imaginally constructed as
the idea that everything runs according to clockwork. The thing is
that for non-linear processes (such as those we experience in life) it
is impossible to separate causes from effects, due to the complexity
of all the feedback loops, and so on.

However, since the emergence of chaos theory and the development of
sophisticated thinking about non-linear linear systems (the only ones
that matter as far as a non-clockwork understanding of astrology is
concerned), there are other ways of looking at mechanism which are not
causal. Instead, they are considered geometric or mathematical
mechanisms. For example, a seminal book on the mathematics of chaos is
entitled "Dynamics - The Geometry of Behaviour" (by Ralph Abraham).

These 'geometric mechanisms' are interesting because they aren't
limited to any specific dynamic context. They can be used to
understand economics, weather, patterns of disease, and so on. They
are used to understand system behaviour (based on how they are
dynamically organised rather than focusing on component parts). They
aren't used to explain it or to predict future end states.

I use ideas (buffering, hysteresis effects, feedback coupling,
self-organised stability or criticality far from equilibrium, etc.)
learned from reading about chaos and complexity theory in my
application of astrology, i.e. when I engage in mapping astrology onto
the context. I think it is very helpful when trying to make predictive
statements about potential future 'behaviour' of the client's life
processes.

The latter depends on (is 'determined' by) past history and the
present state, the ability to choose between optional modes of action,
and the extent of coupling to the environmental pressures of the
context. I don't think the planets cause any of these in significant
ways, though I am prepared to accept in theory a subtle and indirect
contribution from the planets on the environmental/physical level.

I just don't believe that this subtle mediated influence of the
planets, whether via the geomagnetic field or the weather or the
tides, plays much of a role in astrology as a whole, and is restricted
mainly to physical astrology (i.e. astronomy).

I can understand why those who see astrology in conventional causal
terms might invoke biological clocks and DNA, because they provide
good sources for the metaphorical conceptualisation of 'naturalistic'
models that can be associated with human characteristics and
tendencies. But my practice of astrology escapes way beyond those
latter sorts of anthropocentric constraints and on into the inanimate
and the abstract, so as potentially explanatory concepts they seem
absurd to me.

>When has empiricism ever been
>applied to something purely "astrological",

Well, that's what Dale's project is about! I think that if his
approach generates results will give much food for thought.

I am curious to see how Dale gets on because while I am comfortable
with the idea of the forms of astrology having their roots 'down here'
as opposed to 'up there', and being a fuzzy, ambiguous and culturally
differentiated reflection of a feature of human non-rational cognitive
functioning, I do stumble when it comes to the Saturn Return. I have
to admit that the coincidence of 'crossroads' type events with this
cycle is striking. And the same would be true for Uranus Returns, etc.
At the same time, getting a better handle on this facet of astrology
would not, in my opinion, be very illuminating for what happens in the
course of chart interpretation.

Courtesy of W.B.Yeats, I visualise two interpenetrating cones. One
representing the physical, rational, objective mode and the other the
non-physical, imaginal/symbolic, and subjective mode, each maximised
at their 'thick' ends. I distribute the various forms which astrology
takes across this scheme. So the oldest stuff such as the astral omens
and divination of the Mesopotamians would be at one end, while the
Moon pulling the tides, astronomy and perhaps astro-meteorology, for
example, would be at the other. Interestingly, as one moves towards
the extremes at either end of this scheme, the astrological forms are
non-horoscopic. Only in the central region does one find horoscopic
astrology.

Also, at the astral omen end of the spectrum, the temporal sensibility
involved is purely to do with simultaneity and the importance of the
moment. While up the other end, it's pure cycles (i.e. the involvement
of the temporal sensibility of recurrence).

My own feeling is that where the two cones are maximally penetrating
(at the centre) one gets the maximum amount of astrologically
generated information. So for me judicial astrology is the most
complex form. It draws on the physical solar system and its dynamics
for a degree of its rationale, but relies also on non-rational or
imaginal functioning in order to generate the insights. The role of
the simultaneity temporal sensibility in this mid-range surfaces as
the importance attached to the moment of birth or beginnings. The
recurrence temporal sensibility manifests in relation to transits and
all the other means of 'directing' the horoscope.

Naturally, such a scheme indicates what I think is the scope of
astrology. It is this full spectrum which I am trying to make sense of
to my own satisfaction. Of course, the use of symbols is a key aspect
of imaginal functioning, so I would see them as central to the
practice of astrology, and especially the 'bandwidth' which contains
judicial astrology down to the overt divination end of the spectrum.

Others may simplify the definition of astrology in ways that exclude
various forms - lots of astrologers can't handle the concept of horary
for example - but I find this a bit disingenuous. I prefer to accept
that the forms which astrology takes are the forms it takes, and that
these must have some sort of functional value at least, otherwise they
would go extinct. Functional value doesn't imply objective scientific
reality, but I can make a lot of room for functional value, even if it
is in some way contrary to scientifically proven fact. For example,
the use of the geocentric perspective if one happens to live on Earth
(a point not lost on the designers of planetariums across the world,
not to mention fishermen), though maybe that's a weak example.

>Symbolism will never be abandoned simply because what we call symbols
>are the mind's conscious experience of the human psyche's communicable
>output, our responses to the soul of the world or universe. Astrology
>proper need only determine which alleged symbolism arise from a
>psychical foundation and which are just the hare-brained constructions
>of our manipulative ego's desire for an apparent wizardry.

Yes, for me humans are symbol generating beings, and as such I see the
use of symbols even on a Darwinian level as having a survival function
(functional value!), in the sense that they help optimise the use of
the full range of human cognitive faculties.

It is true though that anything can be turned into a symbol
(especially for unique human individuals) and symbols can be made to
mean anything, so on the surface they don't seem all that useful if
one is in pursuit of some sort of non-rationally induced clarity.

But on the other hand, symbols only 'work' if they 'work'. This may
seem a trite statement, but I can't get Chiron to 'work' for example.
It just doesn't speak to me. So I think that if one is seriously
engaged rather than playing or flirting with astrology, one has to
acknowledge first of all the engagement of the astrologer's cognition
in the interpretative process, and also that this is unique. Secondly,
there may be the equivalent, analogically speaking, of colour
blindness. Thirdly, that the more one uses a preferred set of symbols,
the more insights will be generated. These preferences are beyond
criticism, in the same way that one can't criticise an artist for not
using enough blue.

An interesting implication of astrologer-centered astrology is that it
is in some way dissociated from the heavens. Which is probably why it
won't be well received as a concept. But I reckon that with astrology,
the solar system is used as the source for the generation of
conceptual metaphor schemes that are used unconsciously to order our
experience.

Contrary to Dale, André and Robert, I wouldn't see astrology in terms
of some sort of physical entrainment between humans and physical
planetary cycles produced through the processes of evolution (although
this may play a role at the physical end of the astrology spectrum).

Instead, I would see astrology (or rather, the use of astrology for
'seeing more') as having emerged - come from within, as it were - in
co-evolution with human cognition. In other words, as a system that
helps to order our experience, astrology (like mathematics, in my
opinion) has been selected for in response to evolutionary pressures.
The cultural forms of the various astrologies are highly decorated,
but the essence of what's happening with astrology (or what separates
astrology from astronomy) is an expression of human cognitive
functioning, and particularly the way it uses conceptual metaphor as a
means of making sense of the world. It has become reified and
identifed with its source, the solar system, as if the astrological is
governed from above. Hence the quest for a causal mechanism connecting
planetary cycles to the dynamic order we experience or identify in
life.

A second implication is that if this is the case, then astrology must
be continually evolving, assuming that human cognition is continually
evolving. Which means that some of the ideas and concepts emerging at
the growing tip of astrology will not survive. This may be partly to
do with cultural level 'rational culling' or extinctions, but it may
also be to do with the fact that they don't 'work' in a way that is
useful to human cognitive functioning (though the latter does seem to
be very forgiving or tolerant in that respect).

So for me, it doesn't really matter whether Pluto is a planet or an
planetoid, or whether one should be using Kuiper Belt objects or some
newly discovered planet in the horoscope, because this level of
literalism doesn't impact on my way of perceiving astrology. If humans
do start using them in the imaginal scheme, then they may or may not
make it into the relatively stable set of symbols used by most
astrologers. It has nothing to do with logic or reason. That's why I
like Juan Revilla's take on the orbital behaviour of the Centaurs as a
means of identifying, or perhaps that should be creating their
symbolic significance. It's an imaginally based project. .

I don't expect other astrologers to see things this way though, and
why should they? Astrology isn't reflecting a universal system out
there, some sort of objective feature of the external world. At least,
it isn't if one looks at its history, unlike science. What makes sense
to someone about the nature of astrology is on an individual basis,
and with luck it may be shared by others who see the same way.

>Those hell bent on
>showing astrology as the measure of our predictability can only see me
>as completely mad...totally lost, just foundering in mumbo-jumbo.

Science is the measure of our predictability - it overtook astrology
on the outside 400 years ago. It's a much better fortune telling
system than astrology, and I use and trust it all the time.

The problem is the limitations of its application and scope. When
science or scientific thinking is not useful for the task at hand,
I'll use another tool. Sometimes the tool is astrology. Sometimes I
just look at what's happening around me and interpret it. Especially
when it comes to invisible potential danger, I find the signs are
anything but literal.

Your not mad Rog - you're an interesting artist with an intriguing
style!

All the best,

Bill

http://www.radical-astrology.com

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 39

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 40

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:42:22 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] Re: Empirical "measurements" need better Symbolic definitions

Hi Bill/Rog,

There's far too much in your posts for me to comment properly, but
here's a couple of quick responses, based I fear on impressionistic
rather than careful readings!

(1) Bill, our differing approach to chaotic or non-linear systems is
interesting.

As a (social science) undergrad I encountered and did some work with
chaos theory more than ten years ago. I immediately saw its possible
relevance to psychology (as did many psychologists I hasten to add, at
least as far back as 1990). Having something of a background in
mathematics/physics from my earlier degree, I found it fairly easy to
explore some of the implications of simple, deterministic but non-linear
equations with unpredictable but nevertheless orderly and unexpectedly
complex outcomes.

The excitement about chaos was that apparently random, complex phenomena
such as weather - previously assumed to be the product of large sets of
interacting factors - _might_ instead be explained with just a few
factors, so long as the equations were non-linear. That was what Lorenz
demonstrated in the 1960s when he produced simulated weather systems
that produced amazingly complex behaviours closely mimicing "real"
weather.

The point is the systems themselves are _not_ complex, although the
ensuing behaviours/effects/outcomes _are_ complex and usually appear
random. Of course the converse is not true: this does not mean _any_
random, complex behaviour one happens to notice is necessarily the
product of a chaotic system.

Clearly it is tempting to suspect that _human_ social behaviour - in all
its complexity and diversity - might be the outcome of some such simple
chaotic systems.

However my interest ended there at the time. Only recently has it
occurred to me that it _might_ have some application to astrology, as a
result of the simulation studies I'm doing.

My inclination - like Dale's - is to look at how non-linear dynamics
might contribute to an empirically-based account of astrology. Within
this lies the question of _whether_ chaos contributes anything at all!

Bedevilling the project of forming any such account is the nature of
human behaviour itself. If humans are chaotic systems - both
internally (neurologically, say) and externally (socially, say) - then
the connections between any presumed "causal inputs" and the outcomes in
people's lives cannot be simple or straightforward.

Now, _if_ humans are chaotic, then I see four possible models:

(1) humans are chaotic and complex; astrology has no causal mechanism
but represents a complex, symbolic structure with analogies to human
behaviour. Therein lies astrology's truth-value; not as a causal
explanatory system, but simply as a body of knowledge of parallel
complexity to humans.

Now I hope I'm not guilty of misrepresenting Bill and/or Roger if I say
this model might be somewhere near their position. It seems to me this
model would validate Bill's use of "buffering, hysteresis effects..."
etc in extending astrology's descriptive domain, and hence potentially
enriching its insights into human behaviour.

The following summary by Susan Ayers (1997), discussing the potential
application of chaos theory to psychology, might be relevant "there are
problems extrapolating from physical systems to psychological phenomena
but the theory of universality partially counters this, implying that
chaos can be validly applied to natural systems at all levels....[One
possible form of application is] metaphorical application [which] has
the advantages of not assuming a micro-level similarity between physical
and psychological systems and provide[s] a different perspective or
description of phenomena which can aid understanding. However, it has
the disadvantage of not being able to provide any real explanation and
its usefulness is a contentious issue. [However, ] many believe that a
new way in which to view phenomena is always valuable, leading to new
insight or understanding of old problems" (p.390).

Ayers, S. (1997). The application of chaos theory to psychology.
Theory & Psychology, 7, 373-398.

(2) humans are chaotic and complex; and astrology _does_ effect humans,
and does so through some simple, purely causal mechanism.

However, the effect of introducing simple deterministic inputs on
chaotic systems are not necessarily simple. We need look no further
than the difficulty climate scientists currently have estimating the
effects of a few degrees rise in temperature on the global ecology.

(3) humans are chaotic and complex; and astrology operates through a
chaotic mechanism of some sort, although the physical outputs are simple.

This model is equivalent to (2), but has the advantage that only weak
physical forces are necessary. This is the model I suggested recently.

(4) humans are chaotic and complex; and astrology operates through a
causal but chaotic mechanism and produces complex physical outputs.

I believe such a model would essentially be equivalent to (1). It would
_occasionally_ be possible to make accurate human predictions based on
astrological positions - which might sustain a belief in astrology as
having some fatalistic application - but any attempt to explore it
scientifically would be fruitless. Its main claim to merit would be the
same as model (1).

Clearly Dale, I, and others tend to prefer model 2 or 3.

A different set of models arises if human behaviour is taken as
nonchaotic.

For example, the alternative model to model 2 - humans simple, astrology
simple-causal - corresponds exactly to a completely deterministic,
fatalistic astrology.

I presume almost everyone here would agree this model does _not_
correspond to our experience.
----------------
> Contrary to Dale, André and Robert, I wouldn't see astrology in terms
> of some sort of physical entrainment between humans and physical
> planetary cycles produced through the processes of evolution (although
> this may play a role at the physical end of the astrology spectrum).

I do not agree I have ever said this!

Rather, I have suspected a direct link between planets and our neurology
or brain (call this the PN link), mediated at the level of time: i.e.,
that the only relevant property of the planets is their differing
time-cycles or (Dale's words) temporal templates.

In my notion, the PN link is a subtle one based entirely on the
subliminal perception of subtle environmental cues which arise from
planetary effects (and this is why I talked about cognitive psychology a
few months ago, although I think cognitive effects are secondary and
perceptual effects primary). My recent suggestion that the Earth itself
is the fundamental receptor for the planetary effects provides a vital
link in the causal chain.

Since we (living organisms in general) are, rather necessarily, highly
attuned to our environments for survival reasons, I am inclined to think
it would be surprising if there were not _some_ sort of PN effect, even
if it turned out not to be significant and not to have been utilised.

The notion of 'entrainment' per se is not necessary, but merely provides
scope for extending the idea of astrology and its presumed mechanism
beyond merely humans (an anthropocentrism I am anxious to avoid!).
Otherwise, it is simpler to just say "we (subliminally) know the cycles
are there, and we (subliminally) use them!".

However, I am content with Dale's evolutionary hypothesis, as it
provides different theoretical predictions than my own notion, and is
more immediately plausible and consistent with current science. In any
scientific project it is _vital_ that alternative theories are pursued
vigorously, and simultaneously.
----------------------
Finally, I confess I have always been disconcerted by the tension
between astrology and science, which seems to me unnecessary. Reading
Rog and then Bill's response, I was reminded of a paper I read some
years ago:

Craig, A. P. (1999). What is it that one knows when one knows
'Psychology'? Theory & Psychology, 9, 192-227.

Whilst this might seem at odds with the empiricist project some
like Dale and I are interested in, I still think the following quote
might be useful:

"I think we move from stories to science and back again when
whatever we are concerned with cannot be overcome by that theory or
those taken-for-granted conjectures through which we live. Thus I
advocate a pragmatist's turn in order to alleviate our worries about the
lack of some neutral place from which to judge whether stories or
science or any one particular story/place will suffice: As long as our
stories allow us to live well, we might as well continue to tell and
retell them. When these are no longer enough, we turn to the work of
science, which is particularly aimed at that kind of knowledge which is
justified and ratified. And so we live through science _and_ stories"
(p. 222).

Andre.

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

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:43:34 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Empirical "measurements" need better Symbolic definitions

> 1. Re: Empirical "measurements" need better Symbolic
> definitions (Bill Sheeran)

Well said, Bill, an eloquent description of Jung's (virtually)
cause-less synchronicity and Hillman's emphasis on consciousness as the
experience of the anima, the soul's participation in the archetypal.
Whenever ego is deemed the seat of consciousness we see the
"predictability" of ones behavior, and "events" as some
semi-quantifiable measure of an arbitrarily notable activity. This
because , as Hillman suggests, the ego is not deserving of the term
consciousness at all. If we accept that the experiences of consciousness
are not predictable in terms of observable events, then we can see that
astrology's art is an experience--a facilitator of the unbridled
imaginal metaphors--the logos of astrology, the actual significant
experience of the soul when the ego is rightly assigned the role of
dependable planetary house janitor,(not a cranky king heroically
questing the restoration of his birth right).

>
>> When has empiricism ever been
>> applied to something purely "astrological",
>
> Well, that's what Dale's project is about! I think that if his
> approach generates results will give much food for thought.

I confess I have managed to remain functionally illiterate and do not
feel I can adequately state Dale's premise, can you fairly capsulize it
for me?

>
> I am curious to see how Dale gets on because while I am comfortable
> with the idea of the forms of astrology having their roots 'down here'
> as opposed to 'up there',

I would here say that the poetry seems correct if one accepts these
things arise from the universal material of our own depths, not a top
down sort of inheritance--the roots being 'down here' would be the
observation of the soul versus that the ego...participation in the anima
mundi--the individual experience of our omnipresent collective
unconscious substrate.

and being a fuzzy, ambiguous and culturally
> differentiated reflection of a feature of human non-rational cognitive
> functioning, I do stumble when it comes to the Saturn Return. I have
> to admit that the coincidence of 'crossroads' type events with this
> cycle is striking.

I would have to make an effort to find any crossroad experiences,
these would have to be constructed form an autobiographical
metanarrative: in essence I, personally, would have to creatively invent
the memories of crossroad experiences...not that I can fairly accuse
people in general of doing this.

And the same would be true for Uranus Returns, etc.
> At the same time, getting a better handle on this facet of astrology
> would not, in my opinion, be very illuminating for what happens in the
> course of chart interpretation.

I cannot shake the notion that charts are in essence a means to best
experience what another person has to creatively report of himself; and,
the universal rejection of being defined in favor of being understood
would seem to invalidate any character defining predictive sort of chart
interpretation. But here I'm probably just on my soap leonine box...:)

>
> Courtesy of W.B.Yeats, I visualise two interpenetrating cones. One
> representing the physical, rational, objective mode and the other the
> non-physical, imaginal/symbolic, and subjective mode, each maximised
> at their 'thick' ends.

I've encountered that Vision, thanks to Google and the internet, and
my intuition tells me the analogy is probably over extended but a very
good art-facilitated expression of the geometric roots of archetypal
interactions. The details

I distribute the various forms which astrology
> takes across this scheme. So the oldest stuff such as the astral omens
> and divination of the Mesopotamians would be at one end, while the
> Moon pulling the tides, astronomy and perhaps astro-meteorology, for
> example, would be at the other.

The latter extreme pole, astro-meteorology, would seem the return to
the pure fantasy function of archetypal ideation/imaging--a metaphor,
not a simile, as Campbell would say. And, Tarnas would here cite the
natal pattern of Campbell showing the Aries (of Images, I think)
Sun-Mer-Jup conjunction at the midpoint of his Uranus-Neptune
opposition--the techno-mythical spectrum, so to speak--as well as the
two cones of Yeats perhaps.

Interestingly, as one moves towards
> the extremes at either end of this scheme, the astrological forms are
> non-horoscopic. Only in the central region does one find horoscopic
> astrology.

I'm going to think about this, it intrigues me...my first impression
is related to my experience that the majority of the creative products
of persons as being by enlarge "non-horoscopic", i.e., not expressive of
a natal chart's archetypal potentials as a parallel seeming
articulation. The bulk of our individualism-aimed being-ness seems not
to be natal chart referencing, and I doubt very much it refers to
transit patterns. One morning I had a deeply disturbing and detailed
dream of an airline disaster which actually occurred later that
day...the only message I can take from that experience seems to be about
the total lack of individualized fate in that event. That and the idea
that my created dream just happened to occur at the time...a very moving
coincidence in terms of my ego's desire to "predict" events...a very
humbling message about the limitations of anyone involved in an attempt
to avert disasters.

>
> Also, at the astral omen end of the spectrum, the temporal sensibility
> involved is purely to do with simultaneity and the importance of the
> moment. While up the other end, it's pure cycles (i.e. the involvement
> of the temporal sensibility of recurrence).

I'm going to return to this and try to do it justice, I have to travel
today, darn it..:)

BTW, Bill, have any idea how to frame this kind of synchronicity?
http://pedantus.free.fr/Kenji_CityEscape_01b.gif

Rog
http://pedantus.free.fr/Astro-Expressionism/

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 40

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