|
Exegesis Volume 11 Issues #051-060 |
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 51
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:00:28 +1200
I'm too busy currently to write much, but I am scanning the incoming
discussions on Exegesis. I was surprised by Robert Tulip's thoughtful
piece (#35) - first time you've sent in something on my wavelength Robert.
The issue of `mechanism' has been engaged a few times in past years on
Exegesis, but being so important always merits further examination.
If you were interested, & have ample spare time, you could peruse prior
discussions via a google search for "exegesis + mechanism".
Roger seems to have engaged a higher gear, even to demonstrating a capacity
for self-transcendence. Okay Roger, before you say "whaddaya mean
by that?", I mean evolving so as to achieve a new mode of communication.
A while back, in private correspondence, Roger managed to enlighten me
somewhat as to his methodology. Since that is mostly right-brain
process, Roger's efforts in conveying it in left-brain descriptive logic
were most appreciated, and successful inasmuch as I now have a general
idea of how he does it.
I make special mention of this because explaining personal artistry
is never going to be easy, so it is noteworthy when it happens. An
astrologer can only transcend `it works for me' if he/she provides suitable
description of a technique so others may try it.
Leading British astrologer Russell Grant is quoted in a press report
on Pluto's demotion. "I personally am shaken, not stirred," Grant
said. That's interesting, since I was stirred but not shaken.
Maybe he has the mirror image of my Libran Ascendant. "Grant said
Xena had limited use" because it's orbit means it only affects "people
whose sun signs were in Pisces and Aries". What about people with
other planets or axes in those signs? No doubt the media-savvy chappie
didn't want to baffle the reporter by addressing this issue. Glaring
by it's absence in the report is the obvious question: "Ok, but what
does it mean?" Dumb journalists again...
Dennis
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 51
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 52
Message: 1
I wrote:
And Roger replied:
Isn't "dismemberment" what we do to something when we analyze it--in
> I can only suggest that I am a very individual thinker
and not
It *is* irrelevant when I'm making observations (or just experiencing
> James Hillman headed the Jungian outpost in Zürich
for ten years,
There are many ways to understand (or mis-understand) Self. The
> One sensory experience of what we call Uranus is a buzzing
sound,
OK--and please remember, I *want* to understand this--several
> I guess for your
:-) It's kind of you to tell me this. I might have wondered at some
> Here then is an example of what I hope to impart.
When I saw this
Wow, what a wonderful, *striking* image! I watched "The Fisher King"
> What the archetypal astrologer in me did "see" is this:
I guess I'm not cut out for this then, since I "saw" something very
>As a rule, I'm not an outstanding
I wouldn't know about that, but you're a pretty good teacher!
>> I do "get" the association of Uranus and
Because "we" needed it at the time? Before directing The Fisher King,
>>> So
I had to look up "eisegesis". To paraphrase the definition: I's a
> just blows me away how little
A little hope, like a little seed, is better than none. If you have
>>> If you want to read the poem as a natal chart output we must
LOL! Nah, I'm just a cantankerous old crow dreaming of the stars, and
> we are not just poor specimens
Yet.
> what a whorl of fear the petty dictating
Yes, it's hard to get free.
> Cogito ergo sum is just a spell to ward
Or to keep them in thrall!
>> :-)) Did you really not know that was Yeats himself?
I love Dane Rudhyar *and* Yeats--don't burst my bubble ;)
> The first time I
Last night when I started this reply I had what I'm sure was a witty
>> Thank you so much for replying to me (at all!) with such care and
Not yet, and not likely. I'm usually the one to get on peoples'
>> "Though I am old with wandering
Roger, again, thank you so much (and thank you list members). Your
Best Regards,
------------------------------
Message: 2
Dennis writes:
Would you all discuss this event? Maybe in light of the newly revealed
Lois
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 53
Message: 1
> I wrote:
No...:) Words are like people, (Hillman) they have
quirky innate and
>
Ah...seems like a search for authoritative voices that
ends up being
>
to me at least, but is
Well, I need to see the radical context of the metaphor,
to see how
Individuated "shards":
If that's not too
Well, you can see the the confusion of scale in that respect.
How were these Uranian sensory experiences
Who knows, we are he to observe and report..:)
I've stood (literally and symbolically) under enormous
No it the the other way around...the bee buzz conjures
all the other
We could call this sculpture "Sun/Uranus Conjunction Trine
Saturn"
The latter can hurt, and even be dangerous if one is allergic
So, what is going on in you chart with that?
"Analyst. see
In reference to my diagram, you see a little section of
universal
>
Well, what natal aspects did you formulate in your mind
before
>
Its my curse...those who can't, whatever), teach, right..:)?
Here's a case of a Uranus/Mars trine:
>> Ok...I'm encouraged. The visual equivalence of oscillations,
and
Any way I look at them movies have a habit of fogging my
lenses..a
>
> LOL! Nah, I'm just a cantankerous old crow dreaming of the stars,
and
The real mars effect...bubble popper...:)? (I have Mars
conjunct
>
Heh, I'm sending you my *first* draft, in your email...got
Thorazine,
------------------------------
Message: 2
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 Robert Tulip wrote:
> Dale
I agree, albeit we need not mean, and I'm sure you don't
mean, the kind
> You ask: "Do you mean the modern paradigm of science, or of astrology?"
As I suspected, but I wanted to make sure.
> Astrology can no more be fully mechanistic than can economics or
I think we're on the same page, even if we differ in the
details of
> I agree with your comments against obscurantism, as my personal interest
I, too, differentiate between astrology as practice and
astrology as
> Looking at astrology against paradigm shifts, Kepler's discovery of
Kepler (and Copernicus) did not displace flat-earthism,
which was passe
> You say "Why can't we simply OBSERVE correspondences where they exist?
The elucidation of a scientific basis for signs should
follow rather than
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hence the signs have
a
That's correct. I know of no rigorous demonstration
that signs actually
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Are you reacting against sun-sign
Not sun signs but signs in general. Observationally,
early in my career
> You comment "the lengths of the periods that life evolves processes
to
In part you're misunderstanding my point, and in part you're
quoting
As for your disagreeing with my comment that "the origin
in this
> I do see the analogies between the solar system and whirlpool, river
or
The notion that the ultimate SOURCE of planet-based rhythms
is physical
> You state "if by attunement you mean "matches the periodicity of the
You're assuming more than I'm willing to, for instance
that it's a fact
> These rhythms simply exist in us because that is where our genes evolved
Your first sentence I've already answered above, in my
response to your
> You suggest replacing "Archetypal sources of meaning" with "temporal
I think it's unlikely that there are "purposive symbolic
structures
> You say "I don't see why we should concentrate on medical issues.
Last things first. I was perhaps too dismissive of
your suggestion
Next, I'm puzzled by your confusion at my suggestion that
we ask, for
But to say that they've gone together regularly is to say
that the
Or consider the adult developmental scheme put forward
by social
Dale
-----------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 53
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54
Message: 1
Roger wrote:
Is "disassemble" an archetypal action/image? It may have become one
in
>> There are many ways to understand (or mis-understand) Self. The
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure (e)(E)go is a modern
>> What is "what we call Uranus"?
OK, but without the physical planet we have no frame of reference, and
>> The latter can hurt, and even be dangerous if one is allergic
Uranus at 29d 47m Cancer conjunct midheaven.
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_01.gif
Sun and Moon separated by a sextile or square, striped blinking
> Here's a case of a Uranus/Mars trine:
That's clear enough even for me--thanks!
>> I love Dane Rudhyar *and* Yeats--don't burst my bubble ;)
:-) Of course there are other images that would apply just as well...
Lois
------------------------------
Message: 2
"The earliest surviving Greek text that named all the known planets
is the
Tarnas proceeds to give "the specific archetypal meanings and qualities
One could agree with that as far as it goes, I guess. Does superficial
The capsule descriptions of the planetary archetypes provided by Tarnas
are
Maybe Tarnas never heard of the `KISS' principle: `keep it simple,
Correctly noting that the characteristics consensually correlated with
Ouranos was sky-father in a cosmological pairing in ancient Greece with
"[T]he discovery of the physical planet in some sense represented an
"Neptune is associated with the transcendent, spiritual, ideal, symbolic,
Cultural trends evident and most influential from the time of Neptune's
In the next section Tarnas starts with a consideration of the 3 main
He quotes Jung's reference to "qualities or fundamentals which can manifest
"A birth-chart or natal chart (horoscope) is a geometrical portrait
or the
Traditionalist astrologers, who usually recycle the error, probably
base
Dennis Frank
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 55
Message: 1
>
The answer to all of that lies in the observation that
your choice of
>
Hmmm....The Alpheta, giver of life? The planet of Apollo?
>
Well, I (try to) think of astrology's planets as being
merely
>
I know you mean well, but you failed to address the process
I am
>
Now that's the experience (metaphor recognition?) we need,
and
>
You apparently have no respect for your subject's reality,
my
I don't think we can let our egos usurp the role of observer
in any
Rog
------------------------------
Message: 2
>Questions for all:
Hello Lois,
Here some answers in the form of opinions.
>Can new archetypes still be "born", or are they a fixed quantity
In my opinion, yes. I have no evidence to support this, only a belief.
>Do archetypes have substance?
Surely not? More form than substance, in my opinion.
>Where do they reside?
In lots of Jungian textbooks.
>How are archetypes related to astrology?
Astrologies are conceptual systems which have evolved to help
The formal elements of astrology - planetary symbols, zodiac signs,
The categorising is essentially imaginal rather than rational, as is
Instead, astrological categorising is based on conceptual metaphorical
*****
As I understand it from my limited reading of Jungian literature,
It seems to me that they are recognisable indirectly as hypothetical
The 'meaning field' associated with a category itself is an imaginal
These re-presentations, which all converge in the limit to a specific
It is the nature of the conceptual metaphorical scheme and its
In other words, that determines which particular re-presentations fit
(In astrological categorisation, there is room for ambiguity in this
So ...
Because humans categorise; because the recognition of 'archetypes' is
Broadly speaking, any explicit system that uses symbols as
I'd go back one step further and see both the concept of Jungian
Or so it seems to me.
All the best,
Bill
http://www.radical-astrology.com
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 56
Message: 1
Lois Cruz asked
Hi Lois. Archetypes reside in nature, but they do not have substance.
I
Well, perhaps the metaphor is crude. Suffice to say that each
prompts us to
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure (e)(E)go is a modern
Depends on the historical period, but you can make one distinction.
Western
Psychology didn't exist then. People simply weren't important
in
Dennis
------------------------------
Message: 2
Bill Sheeran wrote
Yes, seems reasonable, although it really depends what specific archetypes
>>Do archetypes have substance?
Indeed, & one would hope that Lois immediately wonders "How can
something
>>Where do they reside?
Sure, although not so much textbooks as pop psychology would-be
>>How are archetypes related to astrology?
I agree with all this.
> As I understand it from my limited reading of Jungian literature,
Yes, it is striking in retrospect that Jung's theory of archetypes was
so
However, as I've pointed out in Exegesis before, Jung did realise that
the
Then there is that philosophical stance that assumes that because all
> It seems to me that they are recognisable indirectly as hypothetical
Sorry, not to me it doesn't. If you consult the dictionary you
find that
> The 'meaning field' associated with a category itself is an imaginal
You mean symbols?
> These re-presentations, which all converge in the limit to a specific
If so, seems pretty imprecise of the Jungians. Then again, I guess
> Because humans categorise; because the recognition of 'archetypes'
is
Yeah, when I was 7 or 8 I made the mistake of reading "Pilgrim's Progress",
> Broadly speaking, any explicit system that uses symbols as
We have a communication system that presumes a shared understanding,
but
> I'd go back one step further and see both the concept of Jungian
Look, I may be wrong but I don't recall Jung identifying any astrological
Presuming our cognitive wiring is connected to innate time-keeping
Dennis
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 56
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 57
Message: 1
Minor Review:
Yes, for all concerned ;)
>> I think I am here showing the basis of a future empirically
Do tell!!
Lois
------------------------------
Message: 2
I think the primary reason astrologers have been shown
to fail in
is that the "person" who best represents the natal chart seems
seldom
So it--the lack of recognition and or lack of projection--seems
to be
ttp://www.religiousworlds.com/fondarosa/polypap.html
For instance, I wish I knew Richard Dawkin's birth time so I
could
What is the relationship between Dawkins and a "a patch
of curiously
Is "bathroom" an assigned environmental framework for his
"image"--is
Anyway, I wish I knew his birth time just to learn from
my mistake
As painful as it is, I seem to learn a little something
about
Rog
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 57
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 58
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:23:03 -0400
>>> I think I am here showing the basis of a future empirically
I think if we can get a free flowing projection with some
soulful
I once tried getting people to map and label the relative locations
of
Salvadore Dali is hardly an average person, but people
do dream up
So, is Neptune in Cancer expressed somehow like a crutch
under a
If oppositions are the loudest aspects in terms of expression,
is
http://www.abcgallery.com/D/dali/dali40.html
Do Dali's conscious symbol making goals even matter? Does
anyones?
The question not whether symbols are useful, it is how
do we get
Did Jung himself ever notice the mapping element of natal chart
http://pedantus.free.fr/Jung_CG_01a.gif
Rog
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 58
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 59
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:58:15 -0400
What if our self defining recurring themes are expressions
of natal
Not too long ago while browsing the web for expressive quotations,
it
Setting up a chart showing the transits at the time of the speech's
http://pedantus.free.fr/Kennedy_Speech_As_SELF.gif
We see a Tarnas pleasing t-Uranus opposite n-Uranus. And, as
to be
Today I was thinking about the usefulness of a surreal sort of
I was thinking about the "logic" of dreams, and this led
to the idea
Well, anyway, I thought to try experiment in surrealistic babbling,
Well that seems not to be very useful...:) It seems what we might
call
http://pedantus.free.fr/TypesOfSymbols_01c.gif
But when I did turn the astrological lens on myself I looked
at the
http://pedantus.free.fr/Talking-in-Tongues_01.gif
Ironically I see the "image" I described above--the authoritative
Rog
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 59
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 60
Message: 1
At the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
91101 - Outer Planetary Aspects
------------------------------
Message: 2
Hi Dennis,
Quickly replying to a couple of implicit questions to me:
Perhaps it is too strong to say academic psychology places Jung on the
Generally, any loss of influence of such figures probably only reflects
I think it would be fair to say Jung's impact was profound, especially
---------------------------
> The planets as
Well, to paraphrase a quotation the source of which I have forgotten,
The notion of psychological drives originated in one area of psychology
Certainly there is little argument that such biologically motivated
However, Clark Hull in 1943 extended the reasonable idea of primary
A major problem with the idea is, once again, the circularity.
(There
With primary drives this is not a huge problem. Hunger that is
not
But what does one explain by positing that _everything else_ people
do
For example, "she's a fast talker" becomes "she talks fast because she
And so on.
I think the theoretical poverty of the idea became increasingly clear
as
As a final note, the idea of planets as drives (or _secondary_ drives
as
Ironically though, planets as secondary drives - if valid - would have
(I must say I regret not having the time to respond to, or even read
Andre.
------------------------------
End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 60
[Exegesis Top][Table
of Contents][Prior Issues][Next
Issues]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above
are copyright © 1996-2006 their respective authors.
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] bit of feedback
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:11:48 -0400
From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: Archetypal drives become earmark issues of identity
>> Your synthesis "rings true" to me, but so does my urge to analyze
>> that
>> statement. "Dismemberment" is also an archetypal theme, and surely
>> no
>> one here is in the habit of making value judgments about archetypes
>> ;)
> I don't want to inundate everyone by my constant diversions
but:
> in
> short, you have to take "dismemberment" apart, if you want to see
> how
> its pieces are collected, reassembled, and individually tailored
to
> encapsulate the meaning of dismemberment in terms of the individual
> involved with some aspect (part) of that "image" (which is at depth
> large archetypal category, not a particular phenomenon).
this case astrology, and the various approaches to its understanding?
Does it seem to you that the more empirical- and mechanistic-minded
astrologers are trying to make a Frankenstein's monster of astrology?
> much
> moved by a bandwagon of poetry consumers and or very well qualified
> critics of the form(s) which Yeats has employed. I'm pretty sure
All
> of
> that is or at least *should* be irrelevant to you as well, when such
> making observations.
something) -for myself-, but if I want to persuade others (or even
just help them understand) then I have to widen my perspective and
look for common frames of reference.
> he
> says ditch it, I ditch it...not because he says so, but because I
> know
> he's right...:) The cirle with the dot in it is the Ego, not the
> Self...until I have some epiphany to share with Hillman, to correct
> his
> mistake, the concept of the Self has been mothballed for awhile...
Jungian way, whatever it may be, is just one of them. The Sun in the
natal horoscope doesn't represent this Self, to me at least, but is
just a splintered shard of a broken mirror, to put it one way--each
piece reflecting back a tiny bit of the Whole. If that's not too
transcendant to say ;) The glyph itself is a bit better
representation: a little point of self-awareness (or Ego, if you
prefer) within a universal field of Self. Hmm, I used a Cartesian Grid
metaphor against my conscious will ;)
> the
> noise lets the mind associate Uranian topics to it.
questions arise here: What is "what we call Uranus"? (presumably
an archetype or cluster of archetypes) Is it what -we- call it, or
what -you- call it? How were these Uranian sensory experiences
determined, and by whom? Why would the mind associate Uranian
topics (and filter out other topics, I'm assuming) with a buzzing
noise? I've stood (literally and symbolically) under enormous
high-voltage transmission lines and heard their monstrous, alien
hum, but that is nothing like the buzz of a bee, to my perception
anyway. The latter can hurt, and even be dangerous if one is allergic
to its venom, but the former can *obliterate* even the strongest
human.
> sake, I should say you ideas about archetypal things have been
> formed by
> huge coverall definitions of archetypes at the expense of most
> things
> archetypal
point how my ideas of archetypal things were formed. Now I know!
image:
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_01.gif
> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/fkprod1.htm
>
> I immediately tore it apart and reassembled it to make an
> astrological
> transliteration.
once, a long while back, but evidently I should watch it again!
> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_02.gif
>
> This is what you want to see if you are serious about
archetypal
> "images".
different. You went for the writer, I went for the director--the
former called up the character/archetype, but the latter is
responsible for the *image*. Terry Gilliam was born 22 Nov 1940 in
Minneapolis MN, time unknown. A noon chart almost does it, but an
11:00 am chart is pretty amazing. Through the Looking Glass! I won't
write more about it now, but hope you will look at it for yourself,
then you can tell me where I've gone wrong, lol, and I'll defend my
Art.
> student of any kind...:)
>> stripes--the
>> grid being stripes in two directions.
>
> Ok...I'm encouraged. The visual equivalence of oscillations,
and
> you
> can see why Descartes was inspired to encage or Western conscious
> minds
> with his Uranian grid coordinates:
> http://pedantus.free.fr/descartes1.gif
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Method
Terry Gilliam co-wrote and directed The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
(if you haven't seen it, do!). Robin Williams plays the Man in the
Moon, Ray di Tutti ;), and during one of the times when his head is
separate from his body he says "I think, therefore you is". He had
delusions of grandeur, lol.
>>> supposedly the unconscious is calling on Uranus to be the dominant
>>> ingredient.
>>
>> Do you see this as being an intuitive understanding for yourself
>> only,
>> or for any astrologer--steeped in traditional symbolism and
>> associations, or otherwise?
>
> What I did here, is in fact a astrological exegesis,
not an
> eisegesis.
Jesus, the one who tells everyone else what this means. I'm very glad
you are not and did not do that! At the same time, it makes me wonder
if I'll ever get the hang of this :)
> hope
> there is that my "intuitive understanding" will survive me.
the patience to continue discussing this with me, maybe hope can
increase.
>>> assume the theme behind the curtain is the adaption of Uranus
>>> qualities
>>> to the purposes of the other natal planets.
>>
>> No we mustn't.
>
> Yeah, you want to be an astrologer, or an English teacher
on a
> leash...:)
hoping someday I might "be" an astrologer.
> of
> the future's grand bipedal flesh-terminals worshiping and fearing
> the
> power of a "Big Blue" globe-monitoring artificial intelligence...:)
> cognition lives in, eh..:)?
> of
> the smelly invisible demons..:)
>
> I read his credit as reader there...but don't give his reading
any.
> Yeats his personality, is like (anachronism alert) Dane Rudhyar,
> caught
> up in the Wizard persona:
> http://www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/
>> heard this reading (including introduction) on NPR a few months
>> ago, I
>> thought it sounded really creepy/spooky. Yeats was a member of the
>> occult Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to me, on first
>> hearing
>> in a car, it had a "stern and mysterious" chant sound, almost a
>> malevolent sound.
>
> Well, my dear, you finally heard Uranus et al...LOL...:)
Perhaps
> like
> the sound of a ego-clad bee invoking Zeus...:)
rejoinder to this. Alas, today it's gone. So I'll just keep pondering
what you've written (even the parts I edited out for some semblance
of
brevity!).
>> attention.
>
> De nada, thanks for making me struggle at this position
statement
> stuff, but I'm certain to get on your nerves soon enough..:)
nerves.
>> Through hollow lands and hilly lands,
>> I will find where she has gone,
>> And kiss her lips and take her hands;
>> And walk among long dappled grass,
>> And pluck till time and times are done,
>> The silver apples of the moon,
>> The golden apples of the sun."
>> --W.B. Yeats, "The Song of Wandering Aengus"
>>
>
> When this poem is not actually engaged in contrived symbolism,
and
> vampire drained metaphors, its almost Venus conjunct Pluto by
> accident...:) (Poet get out of the way and let Art happen , you ol'
> wizard wannabe!...:)
posts have layers and layers and multi-levels of meaning...hey! just
like ALL good Art.
Lois
The Right Ordinary Horatio Jackson: This man obviously has no grasp
of
reality.
Baron Munchausen: Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash, and I
am
*delighted* to say
I have NO grasp of it WHATSOEVER!
--from "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen", 1988, Terry Gilliam
director
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:01:44 -0400
From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 51
> Leading British astrologer Russell Grant is quoted in a press report
> on Pluto's demotion. "I personally am shaken, not stirred,"
Grant
> said. That's interesting, since I was stirred but not shaken.
> Maybe he has the mirror image of my Libran Ascendant. "Grant
said
> Xena had limited use" because it's orbit means it only affects
> "people whose sun signs were in Pisces and Aries". What about
> people with other planets or axes in those signs? No doubt
the
> media-savvy chappie didn't want to baffle the reporter by addressing
> this issue. Glaring by it's absence in the report is the obvious
> question: "Ok, but what does it mean?" Dumb journalists
again...
"trans-neptunian objects"? I was listening to NPR one afternoon and
heard them interview Rob Hand about it--he seemed to be neither shaken
nor stirred, and I greatly respected him for that.
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:46:55 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] No, No Dissassemble Number 5 !
>>> Your synthesis "rings true" to me, but so does my urge to analyze
>>> that
>>> statement. "Dismemberment" is also an archetypal theme, and surely
>>> no
>>> one here is in the habit of making value judgments about archetypes
>>> ;)
>
> And Roger replied:
>> I don't want to inundate everyone by my constant diversions
but:
>> in
>> short, you have to take "dismemberment" apart, if you want to see
>> how
>> its pieces are collected, reassembled, and individually tailored
to
>> encapsulate the meaning of dismemberment in terms of the individual
>> involved with some aspect (part) of that "image" (which is at depth
>> large archetypal category, not a particular phenomenon).
>
> Isn't "dismemberment" what we do to something when we analyze it--in
> this case astrology, and the various approaches to its understanding?
> Does it seem to you that the more empirical- and mechanistic-minded
> astrologers are trying to make a Frankenstein's monster of astrology?
acquired motives. I word a word more like disassemble. The dubious
"motives" of the word dismemberment don't express the "roger-ness"
of my
meaning. I always want to know what in the natal chart can help
me to
visualize how that word adopts you as a means to escape its phantom
zone
homeland...:) Now look at my chart to see the radical resonance of
the
totally spontaneous metaphor:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Rog_Chart_01.gif
Just start with keywords as planets in aspects from houses (hint:
Cancer = homeland0
>> I can only suggest that I am a very individual thinker
and not
>> much
>> moved by a bandwagon of poetry consumers and or very well qualified
>> critics of the form(s) which Yeats has employed. I'm pretty sure
All
>> of
>> that is or at least *should* be irrelevant to you as well, when
such
>> making observations.
>
> It *is* irrelevant when I'm making observations (or just experiencing
> something) -for myself-, but if I want to persuade others (or even
> just help them understand) then I have to widen my perspective and
> look for common frames of reference.
an incidentally informative. I like the way critics select the best
quotations, and quickly deliver a usable bare bones synopsis. This
is a
real service to me whether or not their own view/interpretation and
intentions are in anyway relevant to my own data collection goals.
>> James Hillman headed the Jungian outpost in Zürich
for ten years,
>> he
>> says ditch it, I ditch it...not because he says so, but because
I
>> know
>> he's right...:) The cirle with the dot in it is the Ego, not the
>> Self...until I have some epiphany to share with Hillman, to correct
>> his
>> mistake, the concept of the Self has been mothballed for awhile...
>
> There are many ways to understand (or mis-understand) Self. The
> Jungian way, whatever it may be, is just one of them. The Sun in
the
> natal horoscope doesn't represent this Self,
No it doesn't, but as the ego is forced to represent the seat
of
consciousness in Western culture, we have a million writers trying
in
vane to correct the permeating corporate mentality....the politics
of
experience, etc..
> just a splintered shard of a broken mirror, to put it one way--each
> piece reflecting back a tiny bit of the Whole.
you have individualized the stereotype metaphor.
http://pedantus.free.fr/TypesOfSymbols_01.gif
Here a chart with Neptune on the Asc involve with the charts closest
major aspect, orb: 0*37'. The next closest aspect is Venus conjunt
Mars,
o*55'.
http://www.sonic.net/~jshere/writings/fiction/shards.html
http://pedantus.free.fr/Shere_J_01.gif
http://www.sonic.net/~jshere/writings/astrology/
> transcendant to say ;) The glyph itself is a bit better
> representation: a little point of self-awareness (or Ego, if you
> prefer) within a universal field of Self. Hmm, I used a Cartesian
Grid
> metaphor against my conscious will ;)
>
>> One sensory experience of what we call Uranus is a buzzing
sound,
>> the
>> noise lets the mind associate Uranian topics to it.
>
> OK--and please remember, I *want* to understand this--several
> questions arise here: What is "what we call Uranus"?
(presumably
> an archetype or cluster of archetypes) Is it what -we- call it, or
> what -you- call it?
I just don't want to indicate a physical planet, that's all.
> determined, and by whom? Why would the mind associate Uranian
> topics (and filter out other topics, I'm assuming) with a buzzing
> noise?
> high-voltage transmission lines and heard their monstrous, alien
> hum, but that is nothing like the buzz of a bee, to my perception
> anyway.
hums buzzes sirens, all kinds of things perceived as oscillations.
You
can *see* a "buzz" if you want to:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Goldsworthy_02.gif
http://pedantus.free.fr/Goldsworthy_02a.gif
His birth time *might* be close to this, dunno, can't get a hold of
the guy.
> to its venom, but the former can *obliterate* even the strongest
> human.
thyself."..:)
>
>> I guess for your
>> sake, I should say you ideas about archetypal things have been
>> formed by
>> huge coverall definitions of archetypes at the expense of most
>> things
>> archetypal
>
> :-) It's kind of you to tell me this. I might have wondered at some
> point how my ideas of archetypal things were formed. Now I know!
archetypal symbolisms, that's what I mean to share, nothing personal.
> > Here then is an example of what I hope to impart.
When I saw this
> image:
>> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_01.gif
>> http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/fkprod1.htm
>>
>> I immediately tore it apart and reassembled it to make an
>> astrological
>> transliteration.
>
> Wow, what a wonderful, *striking* image! I watched "The Fisher King"
> once, a long while back, but evidently I should watch it again!
>
>> What the archetypal astrologer in me did "see" is this:
>> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_02.gif
>>
>> This is what you want to see if you are serious about
archetypal
>> "images".
>
> I guess I'm not cut out for this then, since I "saw" something very
> different. You went for the writer, I went for the director--the
> former called up the character/archetype, but the latter is
> responsible for the *image*. Terry Gilliam was born 22 Nov 1940 in
> Minneapolis MN, time unknown. A noon chart almost does it, but an
> 11:00 am chart is pretty amazing. Through the Looking Glass! I won't
> write more about it now, but hope you will look at it for yourself,
> then you can tell me where I've gone wrong, lol, and I'll defend
my
> Art.
looking at Terry? That's the key to testing my hypothesis of
perceptions. I'm being astrologically literal in this sense. Some day
I
hope to be able to disambiguate the overlapping qualities of square
versus conjunctions in terms of their expressed and perceived metaphors.
Don't know how well that's going just yet, it may not be possible.
>> As a rule, I'm not an outstanding
>> student of any kind...:)
>
> I wouldn't know about that, but you're a pretty good teacher!
>
>>> I do "get" the association of Uranus and
>>> stripes--the
>>> grid being stripes in two directions.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/davfair/mars.html
>> you
>> can see why Descartes was inspired to encage or Western conscious
>> minds
>> with his Uranian grid coordinates:
>> http://pedantus.free.fr/descartes1.gif
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Method
>
> Because "we" needed it at the time? Before directing The Fisher King,
> Terry Gilliam co-wrote and directed The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
> (if you haven't seen it, do!). Robin Williams plays the Man in the
> Moon, Ray di Tutti ;), and during one of the times when his head
is
> separate from his body he says "I think, therefore you is". He had
> delusions of grandeur, lol.
very collective enterprise. I guess that's part of their appeal.
>>>> So
>>>> supposedly the unconscious is calling on Uranus to be the dominant
>>>> ingredient.
>>> Do you see this as being an intuitive understanding for yourself
>>> only,
>>> or for any astrologer--steeped in traditional symbolism and
>>> associations, or otherwise?
>> What I did here, is in fact a astrological exegesis,
not an
>> eisegesis.
>
> I had to look up "eisegesis". To paraphrase the definition: I's a
> Jesus, the one who tells everyone else what this means. I'm very
glad
> you are not and did not do that! At the same time, it makes me wonder
> if I'll ever get the hang of this :)
>
>> just blows me away how little
>> hope
>> there is that my "intuitive understanding" will survive me.
>
> A little hope, like a little seed, is better than none. If you have
> the patience to continue discussing this with me, maybe hope can
> increase.
>
>>>> If you want to read the poem as a natal chart output we must
>>>> assume the theme behind the curtain is the adaption of Uranus
>>>> qualities
>>>> to the purposes of the other natal planets.
>>> No we mustn't.
>> Yeah, you want to be an astrologer, or an English teacher
on a
>> leash...:)
>
> hoping someday I might "be" an astrologer.
>
>> we are not just poor specimens
>> of
>> the future's grand bipedal flesh-terminals worshiping and fearing
>> the
>> power of a "Big Blue" globe-monitoring artificial intelligence...:)
>
> Yet.
>
>> what a whorl of fear the petty dictating
>> cognition lives in, eh..:)?
>
> Yes, it's hard to get free.
>
>> Cogito ergo sum is just a spell to ward
>> of
>> the smelly invisible demons..:)
>
> Or to keep them in thrall!
>
>>> :-)) Did you really not know that was Yeats himself?
>> I read his credit as reader there...but don't give his reading
any.
>> Yeats his personality, is like (anachronism alert) Dane Rudhyar,
>> caught
>> up in the Wizard persona:
>> http://www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/
>
> I love Dane Rudhyar *and* Yeats--don't burst my bubble ;)
Neptune...thanks for giving me that image...:)
>> The first time I
>>> heard this reading (including introduction) on NPR a few months
>>> ago, I
>>> thought it sounded really creepy/spooky. Yeats was a member of
the
>>> occult Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and to me, on first
>>> hearing
>>> in a car, it had a "stern and mysterious" chant sound, almost a
>>> malevolent sound.
>> Well, my dear, you finally heard Uranus et al...LOL...:)
Perhaps
>> like
>> the sound of a ego-clad bee invoking Zeus...:)
>
> Last night when I started this reply I had what I'm sure was a witty
> rejoinder to this. Alas, today it's gone. So I'll just keep pondering
> what you've written (even the parts I edited out for some semblance
of
> brevity!).
>
>>> Thank you so much for replying to me (at all!) with such care and
>>> attention.
>> De nada, thanks for making me struggle at this position
statement
>> stuff, but I'm certain to get on your nerves soon enough..:)
>
> Not yet, and not likely. I'm usually the one to get on peoples'
> nerves.
>
>>> "Though I am old with wandering
>>> Through hollow lands and hilly lands,
>>> I will find where she has gone,
>>> And kiss her lips and take her hands;
>>> And walk among long dappled grass,
>>> And pluck till time and times are done,
>>> The silver apples of the moon,
>>> The golden apples of the sun."
>>> --W.B. Yeats, "The Song of Wandering Aengus"
>>>
>> When this poem is not actually engaged in contrived
symbolism, and
>> vampire drained metaphors, its almost Venus conjunct Pluto by
>> accident...:) (Poet get out of the way and let Art happen , you
ol'
>> wizard wannabe!...:)
>
> Roger, again, thank you so much (and thank you list members). Your
> posts have layers and layers and multi-levels of meaning...hey! just
> like ALL good Art.
just in case...:|?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:56:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Astrology & Biological Clocks
>
> Many thanks for your interesting points in #37. Subsequent
debate on
> the list shows divergent views on the purpose of astrology.
I see the
> reality of astrological observation as presenting a
> philosophical/scientific problem, namely that no predictable phenomenon
> can occur unless it is explainable by a causal mechanism. . . .
of literal-minded, physical, push-pull mechanism associated with the
19th
century, which is so often assumed what is meant by "mechanism" by
those
astrologers for whom the very idea is anathema.
> In referring to Tarnas' critique of the modern paradigm as mechanistic,
> and his implication that a new paradigm will somehow not be mechanistic,
> I was making the usual equation of 'modern' with the dominant culture
> of science rather than suggesting there is a mechanistic astrology.
> psychology, given the ambiguity inherent in interpretation.
Even by
> comparison to those uncertain disciplines, the task of defining a
> possible mechanism for astrology remains provisional and embryonic.
> However, this difficulty does not mean nothing can be said about
causal
> mechanisms in astrology. My comments were intended to help
lay the
> ground for possible understanding of the conditions of astrological
> causality. I hope our conversation can assist in moving this project
> forward.
what we think is possible or logical.
> in astrology is mainly in its potential contribution to a coherent
and
> elegant cosmology. I note Roger Satterlee's comments in defence
of
> relativism, and assume these arise from quite a different use of
> astrology, as a set of tools for an astrologer to assist a client.
This
> latter use is more the usual approach of astrologers, for whom the
> question of scientific underpinning is subordinate to intuitive tasks
> like understanding a person's character using the natal chart as
a
> guide. For me, natal astrology is of interest mainly to illustrate
the
> ontological nature of our causal bonds with the solar system as part
of
> the project of developing a coherent and consistent cosmology.
a kind of knowledge about certain aspects of natural order. The
former
need not imply or employ the latter, and usually doesn't. However,
I
think it would benefit it if it did.
> elliptical orbits had such total explanatory power that astrology,
> immersed in flat-earthism, could not possibly keep up, despite even
> Kepler's intuitive sense that it should. My Masters thesis
on ethics in
> Heidegger's ontology began to open up how the critique of Descartes
can
> clear the ground for an astrological world view by recapturing the
> centrality of human perspective to our theory of meaning. This
could
> also help answer Roger's question about the value of Husserl. I will
> come back to that later.
in antiquity, but central-earthism. I can't comment on the rest
of your
paragraph, as I haven't studied Heidegger and don't know what "the
centrality
of human perspective to our theory of meaning" means, or the sense
in which
it's been missing. The reason astrology couldn't keep up, it
seems to me,
is that a knowledge of planetary positions and movements is far more
easily
obtained, and conducive to a more mature epistemology, than a knowledge
of
the putative correspondences between that and affairs on earth.
If, as
I believe, a knowledge of human psychological functioning in a developmental
context is a prerequisite, astrology could not reach the equivalent
level
of development of 17th century astronomy until psychology itself reached
an
appropriate level of development.
> 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." I don't agree that signs are meaningless.
As I commented
> in an earlier post, I believe a scientific basis for the signs can
> emerge from observation that the structure of earth's seasons against
> the equinoxes and solstices has been entrained by the lunar month
into a
> natural twelve-fold cycle, with each sign combining a unique mix
of the
> elemental dualities (yang/yin), triplicities (cardinal/fixed/mutable)
> and quadriplicities (fire/earth/air/water).
precede the demonstration that signs actually exist. The argument
that
"the structure of the earth's seasons against the equinoxes and solstices
has been entrained by the lunar month month into a natural twelve-fold
cycle" shouldn't be made in a vaccum, as if the claim itself were enough
to
establish the factuality of the phenomena it's meant to explain.
> principle-based ontological reality grounded in cosmic rhythms.
Do you
> really believe no difference can be observed between Leo (yang fixed
> fire) and Virgo (yin mutable earth)?
exist, much less that they differ from one another.
> astrology in favour of a focus on planetary transits? I believe
both
> planetary transits and sun signs are observable, and can in principle
be
> explained scientifically.
I found that assertiveness was less reliably indicated by Sun in Aries
than
by Sun square Mars. I saw dreamy but also bossy, extroverted
Pisceans,
finicky but also sloppy Virgoes, etc. Such things can always
be explained
away, for instance as negative Virgoes, if you're predisposed to believe
in the validity of signs, but otherwise arguing that passive Aries
is a
negative manifestation of that sign, or is the result of other planet-sign
positions that override the Sun in Aries effects, strikes me as special
pleading. Logically, sign interpretations, the idea that each
planet has
twelve possible "effects", depending on which zodiacal BOX it happens
to
be in, simply isn't plausible in the way that transit and natal aspects
are.
I think rhythms, and thus transits, ARE observable, and can be explained
as evolved correspondents to planetary periods. I have seen no
compelling
evidence that signs exist, despite all the efforts that have been made
to show otherwise, nor is it obvious how they COULD exist. If
I see such
evidence, however, I will of course try to make sense of it.
> 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."
>
> I believe the lengths of the periods do matter, because they emerge
> from the empirical existence of the planets rather than any arbitrary
> internal DNA clock. Look at it this way. Our solar system
is like a
> tree, with Uranus one branch and earth another branch. We both
share
> the character of the root stock from which we emerged in constant
> synchrony. So I disagree with your comment "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." Our internal clock
has always
> had Uranus orbiting it every 84 years, ever since our atoms were
both
> part of the primeval nebula at the origin of the solar system.
out of context. When I said that "the lengths of the periods
that
life evolves processes to match don't matter, so long as they're stable,"
what I meant was that it wasn't preordained that there would BE a planet
in an 84-year orbit around the sun and thus around the earth.
As I
also stated, "If it had been a 77-year cycle, that's what we would
have."
That is, if our solar system had evolved such that there was no planet
with an orbital period of 84 years, but that there was one with a period
of 77 years, then THAT'S the period for which we'd have a corresponding
internal rhythm.
instance is not the origin of the solar system, but the origin of the
internal clock(s) that match the Uranus period," please note that
this isn't from the same paragraph from which you quoted "the lengths
of the periods . . . don't matter . . ." It follows a subsequent
section in your post, and is a response to, "The ontological principle
here is that all things retain the character of their origin."
Our
origin was subsequent to the origin of the planets, and I was implying
that we retain the character of OUR origin. At any rate, there
is no
reasonable way of reading this statement, even if you disagree with
it,
as a negation of my argument that IF there were a 77-year rather than
84-year planetary cycle, there'd be a 77-year rather than 84-year human
cycle corresponding to it.
> tree as having real explanatory meaning, describing the complex fractal
> geometry of life. Your suggestion to replace "our genes have
the stamp
> of their origin in attunement to the harmonic rhythms of the solar
> system" with "life has used planetary periods as templates for internal
> clocks" seems to miss the point that our internal clocks are not
> arbitrary but have been physically entrained since their origin to
the
> planets and the signs.
entrainment is problematic in light of the rhythms about which we know
the most, the circadian cycles. If these cycles were directly
caused by
the external cycle they'd be exactly 24 hours in length. In fact
they
range from 22 to 28 hours in different species (the human circadian
period
is about 24 hours 11 minutes), and are reset daily, mainly by light
and
temperature, to get back in sync with the 24 hour cycle. Thus,
they are
entrained to the 24-hour rhythm, but entrainment in this instance does
not refer to the ORIGIN of the internal clock, nor is it physical in
the
sense that a vibrating tuning fork, if brought near a second one that
vibrates at the same frequency, will cause it to vibrate also.
Since we
know of the intracellular machinery by which the surachiasmatic nucleus
and subsidiary body clocks keep time, via chemical loops that comprise
the actual clock and special-purpose photoreceptors that reset it daily,
and since machinery is different for circadian, circannual, circatidal,
and other rhythms, biological life clearly has evolved multiple ways
of
keeping time. Since it obviously CAN, the only question is which
periods
life HAS selected for, and the temporal templates hypothesis is that
it
has apparantly fastened upon the most stable, longterm zeitgebers,
or
timekeepers, in the "local" environment.
> 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."
>
> My point is that all healthy life is naturally attuned to the rhythms
of
> the solar system, just as all the cells of a healthy tree are 'attuned'
> to the reproductive purpose and timeframe of the tree, and die when
they
> lose this link. All our genes have two year rhythms matching
Mars, 12
> year rhythms matching Jupiter, and so on to 500 year rhythms matching
> UB313 and 25,800 year rhythms matching the precession of the equinox.
that there are rhythms matching UB313 and the precession of the equinox,
which I doubt.
> over a very long time. I don't understand your comment about
additional
> genes. Perhaps what I was getting at was that human freedom
has the
> capacity to willfully deny astrological inclination, but that this
> denial can be a source of psychological and other problems.
I actually
> think of it in theological terms, in the sense that a good life is
fully
> attuned to the path the planets incline for it, while a bad life
is
> forced along a direction at odds with the intrinsic character suggested
> by its natal configuration. Hence the value of natal astrology
in
> helping us to understand our soul.
notion of physical entrainment. My remark about additional genes
was a
response to your reference to "genes which fall out of attunement to
the
cosmos," a rather odd and unlikely notion that I perhaps didn't grasp
clearly enough to respond to coherently. I doubt that we can
truly be
at odds with our natal configuration, but I think we CAN respond to
the
psychological drives indicated in the chart in a positive or negative
way,
or anywhere in between. Thus, people with Venus and Saturn in
hard-angle
aspect tend to be, I believe, afraid of being rejected, but that can
result in the effort to become the kind of person no one would want
to
reject, or in a tendency to alienate people, rejecting them before
they
can reject you. Charlie Chaplin, who made people laugh, and Adolf
Hitler, who made them pay, are an apt illustration of the differences
that can accrue, partly due to environmental influences, and partly
due to free will, in the lives of people with very similar charts.
> templates, or more simply, available periodicities."
I find the
> concept of archetypes helpful to describe purposive symbolic structures
> inherent in the organization of the cosmos. So for example,
limitation
> is an archetypal dimension of Saturn, as a reality inhering in the
> physical relation between life on earth and the actual planet Saturn.
We
> do not know why Saturn is saturnine and Jupiter is jovial, but
> observation suggests they simply are, and it is not just something
we
> make up in fantasy. By comparison to this Jungian idea of archetypes,
> the idea of templates has a psychological arbitrariness, while
> periodicities has a lack of meaning and purpose.
inherent in the organization of the cosmos." I think it helps
our
equillibrium to assume such purpose, and perhaps also a supreme being
whose purpose it is, but I value clarity over comfort. And I
do not
see anything inhering in Saturn itself, or in the physical relationship
between it and life on earth (what relationship?), that determines
what its "effect" or "archetypal dimension" must be. I suggest
that
Saturn is NOT saturnine nor Jupiter jovial. Whatever those terms
might mean, they apply to PEOPLE, not planets. That is, there
is a
dimension of the self (for which "limitation" is too simplistic an
approximation) that comes to the forefront at 7.3-year and more fully
at 29.4-year intervals, that recedes into the background in between.
Those psychological qualities, which approximate to what Freud called
the ego, Jung the persona, and Maslow esteem needs, which follow
this "beat", are thereby analytically differentiated from the rest
of the psyche.
> 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."
>
> This is confusing to me. Clearly what recurs is simply factual.
For
> example, the fact that Saturn is at a certain angle to where it or
> another planet was when an entity came into existence. The
question
> whether this fact is significant can either be left as a matter of
> astrological intuition or can be tested against large statistical
> arrays. I simply suggest medicine as a most promising source
of
> relevant statistics. I am not aware of any previous statistical
study
> of outer planetary transits.
to use medical data to research the effects of transits. Let
me instead
ask a few questions. First, how would you go about ranking transits
in terms of their impact on human life? Seems awfully subjective
to me.
Two, what would be the point? Three, how would you obtain the
medical
data? Four, how would you obtain the birthdata to go along with
it?
Five, if there's a peak in deaths, or in illnesses, at a certain age
or
age range, what do we make of it? For instance, there appears
to be
an upsurge in deaths during the early forties, the Midlife Transition.
I believe Gail Sheehy mentions it in _Passages_. But the psychological
transition she and Daniel Levinson describe suggests why this is so
by indicating the stress we're under during that transition.
Illness
or death at this time appears to be related to the stress we experience
due to the psychological changes we're going through. If you
think
otherwise, how would you go about establishing that Uranus opposing
its
natal place correlates with a given medical event irrespective of the
psychological effects it corresponds to?
each rhythm, "what 'it' is that's recurring regularly." Your
comment
that "what recurs is simply factual" would make no sense if not for
the
example that follows it, but that example misses the point. To
cite
"the fact that Saturn is at a certain angle to where it or another
planet
was when an entity came into existence," by which I suppose you mean
transiting Saturn in aspect to a natal planet, names an OCcurrance,
not
a REcurrance. The point of my emphasis on rhythm and recurrance
is that
we don't know that a development that coincides with a Saturn transit
PREDICTABLY coincides with it unless they have been observed to coincide
REGULARLY, and one instance is not sufficient to establish that fact.
The use of "astrological intuition" to DECIDE that they go together
is
not the same as OBSERVING that they regularly HAVE gone together.
development itself has recurred regularly, which is to say that it
has
been rhythmic. Now one way to determine what astrology predicts,
as
opposed to what we think it predicts or ought to predict, is to simply
look for rhythms which turn at the same intervals and times as some
planetary transit, for instance Saturn in hard-angle aspect to Mercury,
or Venus, or its own place. But it's possible to see a rhythm,
or
think we do, before we know specifically what "it" is that constitutes
the rhythm by recurring regularly. If an author's life of a person
or discipline, for instance, is broken into seven or eight-year chunks,
it suggests that for the author, who presumably knows the history
of this person or discipline "like the back of his hand," each period
is in some sense "of a piece" from beginning to end. In that
case
we might want to determine, of a piece in what sense? something that
the author himself might not necessarily be able to put his finger
on.
And we would also want to know, what is happening at REGULAR intervals
at the boundaries between these periods to cause the subject to go
from one to the next. Freud's life, for instance, had a succession
of
such periods, and the boundaries between them, the transitions from
one period to the next, regularly coincided with Saturn conjunct,
square, or opposite natal Mercury. What was more or less the
same
during each period was a set of concepts concerning the way the mind
works. What apparently coincided with the transitions between
periods
were relatively brief periods of doubt regarding his current beliefs,
which opened the way to the new set of beliefs that characterized the
succeeding period.
psychologist Daniel Levinson in _Seasons of a Man's Life_. It
features
relatively unitary major periods lasting about twenty years separated
by "cross-era transitions" at 17-22, 40-45 (internal and other evidence
suggests that 38-44 might be better), 60-65 and, more speculatively,
80-85. What happens astrologically at those intervals and ages?
Could
it be Uranus opening square, opposite, closing square, and conjunct
its natal place? Hmmmm. And what exactly is "it" that's
recurring at
those intervals? That's the kind of "stuff" I have in mind when
I talk
about looking for rhythms/recurrences.
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 18:36:31 -0400
From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 53
> No...:) Words are like people, (Hillman) they have
quirky innate
> and
> acquired motives. I word a word more like disassemble.
the time since the industrial revolution, I don't know. Questions for
all: can new archetypes still be "born", or are they a fixed quantity
for humans? Do archetypes have substance? Where do they reside? How
are archetypes related to astrology?
>> Jungian way, whatever it may be, is just one of them. The Sun in
>> the
>> natal horoscope doesn't represent this Self,
> No it doesn't, but as the ego is forced to represent the seat
of
> consciousness in Western culture, we have a million writers trying
> in
> vane to correct the permeating corporate mentality....the politics
> of
> experience, etc..
concept. How was the astrological Sun interpreted prior to Freud and
Jung?
> (presumably
>> an archetype or cluster of archetypes) Is it what -we- call it,
or
>> what -you- call it?
>
> I just don't want to indicate a physical planet, that's all.
the whole thing falls apart, astrologically speaking.
>> to its venom, but the former can *obliterate* even the strongest
>> human.
>
> So, what is going on in you chart with that?
"Analyst. see
> thyself."..:)
> Well, what natal aspects did you formulate in your mind
before
> looking at Terry?
warning Uranus square or trine Moon, horned goat "mask" = Capricorn
rising. The Red Knight image is a mirror reflection of Terry Gilliam.
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/davfair/mars.html
>
> The real mars effect...bubble popper...:)? (I have Mars
conjunct
> Neptune...thanks for giving me that image...:)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:37:55 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] cosmos & psyche 7
Platonist dialogue the *Epinomis*, which explicitly postulated a cosmic
association between the planets and specific gods, speaking of them
as
cosmic powers and visible deities." It was written in the 4th
century BCE
as an appendix to Plato's last work, the *Laws*. As well as affirming
the
divinity of the planets, it named the deity identified with each planet.
"These Greek gods were cited as corresponding to the equivalent Mesopotamian
deities whose names had long been associated with the planets" in the
"already ancient astrological tradition inherited from Babylonia."
associated with each planet". He cautions that these are not
to be taken as
definitions, and quotes Jung's assertion that people cannot define
archetypes. He says the archetypal principle "is better conveyed
through a
wide range of examples that collectively illustrate and suggest the
enduring
intangible essence that is variously inflected through the archetype's
diverse embodiments." These planetary archetypes are *transcultural*,
he
emphasises. "The specific mythic deities of the more local cultural
mythologies, such as the Greek or Roman, appear to represent particular
inflections of these transcultural archetypes."
plausibility suffice? It rather pushes my sceptic button.
If the planetary
archetypes really are transcultural, one would expect them to be at
least
partially evident in the meanings given the planets in other cultures.
When
I researched this issue, back in the mid-'80s, I came to the conclusion
that
no such evidence was available.
pretty good - better than most in the literature. Like a dog
with a bone,
I'll just seize on (and worry the hell out of) the single most
unsatisfactory phrase given. He says the sun is "the seat of
mind and
spirit". What kind of a woolly woofter description is that??
For a start,
it is not the seat of anything. The `seat of something' is just
a goddam
metaphor - when you're striving to capture the essence of meaning,
to be
distracted by anything so marginal and superficial is absolutely the
last
thing you need. Mind, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do
with the sun.
Tarnas knows this, for a few paragraphs later he informs the reader
that
Mercury is "the principle of mind, thought". Perhaps a temporary
brain
seizure caused the word to pop out of his word-processor in the wrong
place?
Even Dane Rudhyar, never famous for the economic use of language in
the
interests of precision, managed to inform us that the sun represents
the
spirit.
stupid'. The reason this achieved mass cultural circulation is
that people
need communication to hone in on the point. The more succinct,
the more
effective.
Uranus by astrologers the past century are entirely different from
those of
Ouranos, the pre-classical sky god in Greece that the Romans called
Uranus,
Tarnas proceeds to present an updated version of his rationale for
arguing
that Uranus as we know it corresponds much better with another Greek
god -
Prometheus. Although I found the early-'90s version quite unconvincing,
this time I was more impressed.
Gaia, earth-mother. This symmetry was ignored in the naming of
the planet
Uranus. Prometheus was the rebel deity who helped Zeus [Jupiter]
overthrow
the tyrannical Kronos [Saturn] then tricked Zeus and stole fire from
the
heavens to liberate humanity from the gods. "Every major theme
and quality
that astrologers associate with the planet Uranus seems to be reflected
in
the myth of Prometheus with striking poetic exactitude: the initiation
of
radical change, the passion for freedom, the defiance of authority,
the act
of cosmic rebellion against a universal structure to free humanity
of
bondage, the urge to transcend limitation, the creative impulse, the
intellectual brilliance and genius, the element of excitement and risk."
emergence of the planet's corresponding archetype into the conscious
awareness of the collective psyche." Uranus was discovered in
1781, between
the American and French revolutions, the Declaration of Independence
and the
Declaration of the Rights of Man.
and imaginative dimensions of life; with the subtle, formless, intangible,
and invisible; with the unitive, timeless, immaterial, and infinite;
with
all that transcends the limited, literal temporal and material world
of
concretely empirical reality: myth and religion, art and inspiration,
ideals and aspirations, images and reflections, symbols and metaphors,
dreams and visions, mysticism, religious devotion, universal compassion.
It
is associated with the impulse to surrender separative existence and
egoic
control, to dissolve boundaries and structures in favour of underlying
unities and undifferentiated wholes, merging that which was separate..
[It
is associated] with tendencies to illusion and delusion, deception
and
self-deception, escapism,
intoxication, psychosis, preceptual and cognitive distortions, conflation
and confusion, projection, fantasy; with the bedazzlement of consciousness
whether by gods, archetypes, beliefs, dreams, ideals, or ideologies;
with
enchantment, in both positive and negative senses."
discovery in 1846 that correlate with the above archetypal meanings
include
spiritualism, drugs and marxism. Tarnas adds nothing to what
has been
already published in astrological literature in prior decades.
Likewise
with Pluto.
observed correspondences between planetary movements and human affairs:
birth charts, personal transits & collective transits. He
begins with an
apt quotation from "Philosophy in a new key" by the academic Suzanne
Langer:
"It is a peculiar fact that every major advance in thinking, every
epoch-making new insight, springs from a new type of symbolic
transformation." This is a penetrating insight, decades old but
still
highly relevant. It evokes the recently popularised notion of
emergence
(complexity theory, out of chaos theory) - new qualitative dimensions
emerge
at each level of increasing complexity of organisation, and these then
characterise that particular level.
themselves in relative simultaneousness in different places and in
a
parallelism which cannot be explained.. Whatever is born or done at
this
particular moment of time has the quality of this moment of time."
So "the
planetary archetypes constitute a kind of Olympicm pantheon of fundamental
principles governing the ever-shifting qualitative dynamics of time."
heavens from the perspective of the Earth at the moment of an individual's
birth. The Sun, Moon, and planets are positioned around the chart
to
reflect their positions around the Earth when the person was born."
It is
surprising and rather sad to see Tarnas get this elementary point wrong.
Obviously he didn't read Rudhyar carefully enough. The diagram
is drawn
from the perspective of a particular place. It is entirely misleading
to
stress that it represents a particular time, yet completely ignoring
the
actual position. That's why there's a local horizon in the horoscope!
I
suspect that Tarnas, like many astrological authors, still hasn't realised
that the horoscope is a diagram of an event. An event always
has a time and
place where it happened. The time and place give you the local
horizon and
meridian, and the intersection of the zodiac with these 2 local frames
of
reference supplies the substructure of the horoscope.
their confusion on the fact that some of the astronomical frames of
reference are measured relative to the centre of the earth. They
seem to
use
this red herring to excuse their pretence that the earth is at the
centre of
the horoscope. I have even been physically present and seen this
with my
own eyes. They point to the outer circle in their horoscope and
say that's
the zodiac, then point to the inner circle & say that's the earth.
If you
really want to puncture their balloon, point to the horizontal line
and say
"What's this then?" Like robots, they will say "The horizon,
of course."
Then say "So why does the horizon go through the centre of the
earth?" It
might be fun to try this exercise on some airhead mouthing off onstage
at a
well-attended conference. Mind you, some of these people are
so clueless
they might still not get it, so you might have to challenge them to
take
everyone outside and show them where the horizon actually does intersect
the
center of the earth.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:48:12 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 54
> Roger wrote:
>> No...:) Words are like people, (Hillman) they
have quirky innate
>> and
>> acquired motives. I word a word more like disassemble.
>
> Is "disassemble" an archetypal action/image? It may have become one
in
> the time since the industrial revolution, I don't know. Questions
for
> all: can new archetypes still be "born", or are they a fixed quantity
> for humans? Do archetypes have substance? Where do they reside? How
> are archetypes related to astrology?
the word, "dismemberment" innately carries a very dark emotion--it
is a
hellish image slicing off limbs, etc.. Thus I observe you probably
have
a subjective inspiration for allowing the arche in that word to somehow
represent your personal meaning. I assume if astrology is true, then
that word has a natal chart resonance, for you which is not at all
impersonal. You, as an observer/commentator have (unconsciously perhaps)
seized the opportunity for Self expression--as a matter of the ongoing
task of eliciting a compelling sense of individual existence, you made
a
silent comparison, "like me-v-unlike me."
Our culture transmits many unrecognized specifics,
we , as most
authors confess, are not in control of our creative fictions due to
the
many connections of just a single word. You invoked Frankenstein, which
is the immortal cultural vessel of Mary Shelly. You were not content
to
merely use the one generic idea of dismemberment, you did specify your
context. Thus, if astrology is true, then you identified with
Mary
Shelly in terns of some specific natal chart contents relating to the
specific "arche" which borrow from her self-projections. We know now
of
course that you have Mars opposite Pluto on the same axis, and these
square your natal Saturn. Contrary to blanket-like traditional
association, all planets are involve with emotive content, not just
the
Moon or some simplicity like that:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Dismember-v-disassemble.gif
>>> There are many ways to understand (or mis-understand) Self. The
>>> Jungian way, whatever it may be, is just one of them. The Sun in
>>> the
>>> natal horoscope doesn't represent this Self,
>> No it doesn't, but as the ego is forced to represent the seat
of
>> consciousness in Western culture, we have a million writers trying
>> in
>> vane to correct the permeating corporate mentality....the politics
>> of
>> experience, etc..
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure (e)(E)go is a modern
> concept. How was the astrological Sun interpreted prior to Freud
and
> Jung?
>>> What is "what we call Uranus"?
>> (presumably
>>> an archetype or cluster of archetypes) Is it what -we- call it,
or
>>> what -you- call it?
>> I just don't want to indicate a physical planet, that's all.
>
> OK, but without the physical planet we have no frame of reference,
and
> the whole thing falls apart, astrologically speaking.
synchronous and wholly unrelated to the idea of cause. The role of
the
planets is of course irreplaceable, but as to framing, simply allow
yourself to consider that we cannot position planets by chance or by
act
of will, thus unlike other forms of divination we are bound to nature's
astronomical shuffling of the deck. This functions much like the
restriction of iambic pentameter upon a poet...a restriction which
ignites creativity as we rebel against the bounded form. They are not
that analogous of course, but the structure and timing of aspects is
the
poetic barrier which allows us to create a depth of meaning in the
art
which seems not likely to be duplicated anywhere else. If we are tied
to
the cosmos, if our consciousness is somehow of the cosmos itself, with
invisible flow of arche coalescing into the archetype perceived in
the
intellect, then the astronomical structure is the basis for a physical
expression of the cosmos as "meaning". Sorry I can't put it into words
better than that at present.
>>> The latter can hurt, and even be dangerous if one is allergic
>>> to its venom, but the former can *obliterate* even the strongest
>>> human.
>> So, what is going on in you chart with that?
"Analyst, see
>> thyself."..:)
>
> Uranus at 29d 47m Cancer conjunct midheaven.
>
>> http://pedantus.free.fr/Red_Knight_01.gif
>> Well, what natal aspects did you formulate in your mind
before
>> looking at Terry?
(probably obsessively) immersed in. What I want to make clear is that
as
I looked at the image, while watching the movie, my mind could not
resist concluding that I was looking at the poetic, or metaphoric,
equivalent of what astrology would call Sun conjunct Mars and Neptune.
There was so little doubt in my mind that I didn't even go to the
computer and check the writers birth data. Frankly it slipped my mind
to
check until just this recent spurring by your inquiry. I probably saw
that film in 1992.
I *do* have a problem with weird things being apparently as
self-evident as the sunrise--when Susan Smith was first shown on CNN
pleading for the return of her two son's, I was moved to actually scream
at the TV, "That bitch drove them into the lake and drowned them!"
This
was a low point for my wife and I because of all the trouble we had
trying to work out the kinks of rearing step children who passionatel
hated the thought of my very existence. My wife had made up her mind
at
that moment to divorce me--obviously I was as insane as the children
so
often charged.
I think nine days passed before the truth of the lake drowning was
common knowledge. My wife then understood the reality of my being
different and not insane at that point and no longer considered divorce
a necessary maternal act of protection.
I,m trying to turn my bare nerve sensitivity into a toll for
unraveling the trick of showing astrology as an empirically demonstrable
phenomena, but it must be as *It* is, and not as dry and emotively
disconnected as we apparently would like it to be.
> Sun and Moon separated by a sextile or square, striped blinking
> warning Uranus square or trine Moon, horned goat "mask" = Capricorn
> rising. The Red Knight image is a mirror reflection of Terry Gilliam.
>
>> Here's a case of a Uranus/Mars trine:
>> http://www3.sympatico.ca/davfair/mars.html
>
> That's clear enough even for me--thanks!
eventually we have to set up experimental condition which show how
the
astrologer may simply rotate a chart for the correct date until it
is a
"fit" --not a just a "hit"...:)
>>> I love Dane Rudhyar *and* Yeats--don't burst my bubble ;)
>> The real mars effect...bubble popper...:)? (I have Mars
conjunct
>> Neptune...thanks for giving me that image...:)
>
> :-) Of course there are other images that would apply just as well...
dear...have you no interest in what other's perceive...>:)? I hear
your
perceptions, know them fairly well, and yet still have the unmitigated
gall reject their utility....:)
experimental setting. That will be hard to overcome, I guess. That's
what I actually concern myself with most of the time...catching myself
backsliding isn't always easy.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:18:26 +0100
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Lois's 'Questions for all'
>for humans?
Which is formed firstly from the notion that Homo Sapiens is in an
ongoing process of evolution; and secondly that the re-cognition of
'archetypes/archetypal forms' and the repository of their 'abstract
templates' are features of the ever-evolving human cognitive capacity.
structure the experience of change and emergence, and to re-cognise
patterns associated with various aspects of temporal sensibility
(particularly recurrence and simultaneity).
etc. - provide a template for the human categorising faculty to do
its
thing.
the case generally with category generation and the attribution of
category membership. By which I mean that astrological categorisation
is not of the literal, objective taxonomic variety one finds in some
fields of science. You know, if it has eight legs it's not an insect
because insects only have six legs, that kind of thing.
schemes, metonymy (A 'stands for' B), polysemy (words with multivalent
meanings, such as 'bank'), and so on.
archetypes are abstract, basic level categories.
limits at the convergent points which, to use an analogy from chaos
theory, define attractors in 'meaning fields' which themselves act
as
maps of individual categories as a whole. (I hope that makes sense
to
you).
construct which 'contains' re-presentations of the category archetype
in diverse manifest forms across all scale and context.
archetype, are called archetypal forms in Jungian psychology. I think.
associated extrapolations via metonymy, etc. which structures the
category, and which also filters category membership. And therefore
which determines the recognition of which manifest forms (archetypal
forms) are an expression of a given archetype.
into a category and which do not.
respect. For example, the Moon symbolises the mother; but mothers are
authority figures, which are symbolised by Saturn. Similarly, the Moon
symbolises bowls, containers and receptacles; but Saturn symbolises
limit, which is one of the the defining features of a bowl in terms
of
function).
an expression of the cognitive categorising process; and because
astrology provides a simple template onto which one can hang a variety
of categories, Jungians will see a relationship between archetypes
and
astrology.
'containers' for meaning, such as astrology, alchemy, tarot, and so
on
will be connected to archetypes by Jungians, because archetypes are
themselves 'containers' without the explicit symbols. I suppose a
Jungian would argue that the archetypes are the source of the symbols
or are generic, but I don't see it that way because I'm not a Jungian.
archetypes in psychology and the nature of the symbolism in astrology
in terms of the way we're cognitively wired as a consequence of
evolving in our environment. They mirror each other on some level
conceptually, but one is not the source of the other.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:04:35 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] archetypes etc
> Questions for
> all: can new archetypes still be "born", or are they a fixed quantity
> for humans? Do archetypes have substance? Where do they reside? How
> are archetypes related to astrology?
suspect they could only be born at higher levels of complexity, so
the
answer to that is really no. More likely to be discovered.
Those used in
astrology are related to via symbols. Each pulls a string in
the psyche
that inclines us to choose the appropriate symbols.
a social consensus via agreed selection of the suitable symbols to
effect
the process of communicating the archetypal meanings recognised as
characteristic of the archetype.
> concept. How was the astrological Sun interpreted prior to Freud
and
> Jung?
>
civilisation experienced an influential fashion trend called spiritualism
in
the latter half of the 19th century, that endured with less influence
through the 20th. Astrologers equated the natal sun with the
spirit. The
prime example, concurrent with the early years of Freud & Jung,
was Alan
Leo. However Dane Rudhyar is another, and he was most influential
in the
latter half of the 20th. Prior to the mid-19th, I have seen no
evidence
that individualism existed in astrology. People were categorised
as types.
themselves, their significance was merely proportional to their social
prominence. Then there's the fact that astrologers were used
only to tell
the client's fortune. The astrological sun was assessed only
in relation to
the overall configuration of the horoscope and the prospects for the
client
were gauged accordingly. The idea that it had an inherent meaning
wouldn't
occur to astrologers until spiritualism gave them a different view
of human
nature.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:04:53 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] archetypes according to Bill
> In my opinion, yes. I have no evidence to support this, only a belief.
> Which is formed firstly from the notion that Homo Sapiens is in an
> ongoing process of evolution; and secondly that the re-cognition
of
> 'archetypes/archetypal forms' and the repository of their 'abstract
> templates' are features of the ever-evolving human cognitive capacity.
you are referring to. Those most generally recognised are pan-cultural
-
their recognition spans time as much as space.
>
> Surely not? More form than substance, in my opinion.
have form but no substance?" [Admittedly not precisely what Bill
suggested!]
>
> In lots of Jungian textbooks.
best-sellers. Andre may correct me but I think academic psychology
still
regards Jung as the lunatic fringe of the subject. But hey, we
mustn't lose
sight of the fact that archetypes predate Jung by 2.3 millennia.
People
need to remember that Plato didn't merely promote the concept, he developed
a general theory on that basis. We'd call it pre-scientific or
metaphysical
these days, but it was actually science as the classical Greeks knew
it.
>
> Astrologies are conceptual systems which have evolved to help
> structure the experience of change and emergence, and to re-cognise
> patterns associated with various aspects of temporal sensibility
> (particularly recurrence and simultaneity).
>
> The formal elements of astrology - planetary symbols, zodiac signs,
> etc. - provide a template for the human categorising faculty to do
its
> thing.
>
> The categorising is essentially imaginal rather than rational
> archetypes are abstract, basic level categories.
simple. Given his fertile imagination, I'm puzzled he never took
it
further. The stranger, for instance, was a very influential archetype
in
all sorts of urban & rural cultures throughout history. To
my knowledge
Jung never spotted it.
archetypes existed in nature primarily and only secondarily in the
psyche.
I'm relying on my memory of seeing sections of his writing that prove
it.
It was his camp-followers who lost the plot & started promoting
archetypes
as residents of the subconscious.
features of reality we recognise are produced by our minds, there really
is
no such thing as reality. If you are enjoying a group picnic
in a safari
park & a lion joins the party, it is merely a group hallucination.
When the
lion eats you, does it become real?
> limits at the convergent points which, to use an analogy from chaos
> theory, define attractors in 'meaning fields' which themselves act
as
> maps of individual categories as a whole. (I hope that makes sense
to
> you).
the Greek root means `first principle'. It is essentially a generative
principle: it generates a characteristic pattern. People
then recognise
the pattern each time they see it and when they give it an agreed name
it
becomes part of language & culture.
> construct which 'contains' re-presentations of the category archetype
> in diverse manifest forms across all scale and context.
> archetype, are called archetypal forms in Jungian psychology. I think.
imprecision is one of their collective traits.
> an expression of the cognitive categorising process; and because
> astrology provides a simple template onto which one can hang a variety
> of categories, Jungians will see a relationship between archetypes
and
> astrology.
the 18th century (?) classic. There was this ogre called Procrustes
(?) who
had a method for fitting guests to the bed in his castle. If
they were too
short he put them on the rack & stretched them, if too long he
chopped the
feet off. The Jungians have learnt this method of making reality
fit their
belief system.
> 'containers' for meaning, such as astrology, alchemy, tarot, and
so on
> will be connected to archetypes by Jungians, because archetypes are
> themselves 'containers' without the explicit symbols. I suppose a
> Jungian would argue that the archetypes are the source of the symbols
> or are generic, but I don't see it that way because I'm not a Jungian.
individuals are prone to be idiosyncratic. Some misallocate and
confuse
symbols & categories whereas others are accurate and consistent.
Subcultures are formed within society within which conformity requires
adherence to deviance from mainstream norms. Whereas Dale sees
symbolism
itself as the problem, I see incompetent practitioners as the problem.
When
a consensus gells, symbols and meanings tend to be consistently used
and
communication proceeds normally within any (sub-)culture. Deviation
&
idiosyncrasy get marginalised. Jungians remain a deviant subculture
characterised by an aging, primitive belief-system, sloppy use of symbols
&
terminology, and a collective inability to adopt a broader view.
> archetypes in psychology and the nature of the symbolism in astrology
> in terms of the way we're cognitively wired as a consequence of
> evolving in our environment. They mirror each other on some level
> conceptually, but one is not the source of the other.
archetypes. Rudhyar, Arroyo & Liz Greene did that.
The planets as
psychological drives was how I learnt it. Again, Andre may correct
me but I
get the distinct impression that even psychological drives are no longer
fashionable in academic psychology.
circuitry, our sense of passing time can have qualititative variations
that
are archetypal if the planetary orbits are sensed internally as components
of a natural timing system. The theory simply assumes the internal
system
functions like a many-handed clock, each hand a planetary archetype
that
generates its distinctive qualities internally & experientially.
One need
not be jungian to agree with Arroyo that such internally generative
archetypes are energising (experientially). I prefer to say that
they
motivate behaviour, but it's the same thing. Each planetary archetype
functions like a psychological drive.
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:17:46 -0400
From: "Lois Chadwell"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 43
> Bill wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> And Roger replied:
>> I'm thinking that there probably is a way to reign in
the various
>> 'creative accounting' type of approaches employed by the
>> astrologers.
>> The libertine spirit behind all that diverse interpreting behavior
>> probably only best succeeds at projecting a kind of abstract
>> self-portrait of the astrologer himself...when it "works"..:)
>> validated
>> procedure based on an archetypal astrological context...
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 11:55:57 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Stereotype versus Archetype
recognizing the correct birth chart of persons they were allowed to
interview:
http://www.phact.org/phact/terms.html
"[..]Astrologers claim there is a correlation between a person's
character and the exact time and place of their birth. In the
classical
experiment, four horoscopes are prepared for each subject, one for
the
correct birth time and three for other times on the same day.
The
subject does not know which one is which and thus cannot give the
astrologer any unconscious clues. Professional astrologers assert
that,
given a chance to talk to someone, they can pick out the correct
horoscope every time. This experiment has been done many times.[..]"
to be present. And, if "it" were present, I question whether the
"astrologer" would even notice!
dependent on the need to disambiguate some object relations criteria,
the need to differentiate stereotypes from archetypes--more about
missing existence of the native than the apparent nonexistence of
astrology and the relevance of birth charts.
Object relations theory is a form of psychanalysis that was brought
to
England by Melanie Klein prior to and during the second world war.
Although object relations was not the only form of psychoanalysis
available in England, it could be said to have been the most innovative
variation of Freud's thought at that time and place. Melanie Klein's
thought was picked up and expanded by several other analysts, such
as
D.W. Winnicott and W.D.R. Fairbairn. All three--Klein, Winnicott and
Fairbairn--have been influential in the development of an understanding
of the psyche which de-emphasized Freud's drive-theory. In
contradistinction, object relations emphasizes the role of the
instinctual objects and the psyche's means of relating to these objects.
That is, the interest had shifted from the instinct to its object and
the way that one relates to it.
test his metaphoric expressions for the presence of the polytheistic
soul that stands behind his ego's monotheistic scientism. What is "the
selfish gene" if not simply his way to express that behind our ego's
moral notions, etc., lies a polycentric pool of animating source
materials--uncounted "natural" gods making decisions in their own interest!
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/01/
"[..]That the constellations are not, as previously advertised, heavenly
guides to life on Earth, but as indifferent, and as meaningless as
"a
patch of curiously shaped damp on the bathroom ceiling"? (as Richard
Dawkins once, unforgettably put it) ...[..]"
shaped damp on the bathroom ceiling"?
it then just an expression based the ego's reliance on a stereotype
symbolism , this to effect a communication of the most publicly
consumable kind? Is by contrast the "patch of curiously shaped
damp" a
poetic metaphor shaped by his psyche's individuating inflections ?
Is the inspiration for the "damp" image more like astrology's Neptune
as
configured in his natal chart? Does this particular Dawkins one-liner
present evidence of a natal chart pattern like this:
http://pedantus.free.fr/Dawkins_R_X-1.gif
here, if any. But being able to "see" a person's birth time,
as in the
case of the experiment cited above, seems only a matter of better
detecting the more archetype-related "person" behind our more conscious
habit of relying on the stereotype-dependent ego as the sole soul
presenter.
what-goes-with-what only by making these potentially ego humiliating
colossal blunders of confused perceptions...:)
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 57
>>> validated
>>> procedure based on an archetypal astrological context...
>
> Do tell!!
>
> Lois
>
Well, I think all we need is the equivalent of a thematic
apperception test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test
authenticity, then we could probably learn how to detect the correct
time of birth given four alternatives for the correct date. Sure, the
details elude me, but they're supposed to, I'm given to the big
generalization stuff...:) The design of the correct apperception
test
is just a bit of detailing I would much rather leave to persons with
unscrambled intellects...:)
objects and such as they occurred in some dream which they reported
as
well remembered and "interesting". It seemed to be working, but
I don't
have any kind access to test subjects. The surreal aspect of the task
seems free the ego from its security conscious chore of monitoring
the
content their autobiographical metaphors. Just as the imaginative past
life accounts can free the imagination to create poetic parallels of
the
"current life" natal chart...*if* we can get some fertile metaphoric
imagery going on.
characters which have just as many quirks as Dali. I like this quirk:
http://www.seven7.demon.co.uk/dali/meanings2.htm
"[..]It is well known that Dali, for a long time, had a fetish about
crutches, which stemmed from his youthful desire to place a crutch
under
the breast of a woman whom he saw working in the fields.[..]"
breast--*if* it also involves a working woman (slaving) in the fields
?
http://pedantus.free.fr/Dali_S_01.gif
Neptune opposite Uranus in Dali also projected as a crutch at the point
where Sagittarius meets Capricorn--a symbolic blending of the two planets:
How about the routine activities of the ego are more like stereotypes
by
necessity, and self symbols are irrational but more often mapped by
the
imaginal psyche. One thing we know from ordinary psychological inquiry
is that there do exist persons who become aroused at the sight of
amputated limbs, and this often is a the root the odd obsessive "need"
to have a healthy limb amputated. When those persons are asked where
there wish the amputation to occur, the majority indicate a point just
above the left knee.
people to put out these more useful individuated symbols. The problem
is
not the our dependence on symbols, its the task of disambiguation and
recognizing authenticity that is central to showing astrology's
parallels to individual identity, and natal charts as being primarily
identity symbols/maps.
expressions? Probably not:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0930407504/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-8491031-2013508#reader-link
http://pedantus.free.fr/Jung_CG_01.gif
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] The effects of transits on expressed symbolisms?
chart inclinations, should we suspect that transits stir the
soup--create a diversity of internal perspectives and perhaps some
observable chronology of emphasized expressive "events".
came to my attention that JFK's most famous quote, "Ask not...." has
been scrutinized by persons questioning its authorship. Was that
particular piece rhetoric the work of his speech writer? In truth,
I
could not claim to know if an observed self-expressing phrase seems
created or merely adopted. [The folk wedding (alchemical) tradition
concerning the gift formula comes to mind, something old , something
new, something borrowed, something blue.]
composition, at least seems to point to the transition planets as
incorporated inspiration:
expected, the t-Sun is in Capricorn [poetically the efficient transfer
of authority required that we change the date of inauguration and thus
shorten the lame duck period], but the transits specific to the Kennedy
would be the presence of t-Mer-Jup-Sat opposite n-Saturn and Neptune.
These transits seem to lend active voice to natal plantes in Taurus
-House 8, etc., and seemed a fitting symbolism for the "ask not..."
inspiration.
thematic apperception test to draw out natal chart symbolism parallels
through creative release, and I experimented with myself as subject.
of babbled communication, then an image happened--the image of
fundamentalists speaking in tongues while the scripture (creed dogma)
spewing "translator" lets a well-meaning village idiot feel as though
s/he actually had a possibility of being a participant (as one having
important knowledge in spite of being both inexperienced and
illiterate), and then I wondered."...am unconsciously referring to
*myself* ?"
(Ok, no surprise here) just to see if I could slip some utter nonsense
passed my censoring ego, and tried to utter a metaphor choosing
words
at "random" (if that can actually be done, I dunno) and I came up with,
"Jealousy is a table with four legs."
way too personal to have any shared significance. I am still considering
, Bill's mention of "meaning fields" and see it a little like
this, as
of today:
closest aspects occurring between transit and natal planets:
"translator" creating "logical" creed, dogma, etc., out of mystical
(babbled) "expressions".
As to the fact that I cannot make any sense out of my
silly metaphor
above, it may mean that some things really are just babble, but these
only noticeably different by way of specific comparisons--their
inclusions in whatever meaning fields are...:)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:47:01 +1000
From: "Robert Tulip"
Subject: [e] 911 - Outer Planetary Aspects [SEC=PERSONAL]
it is interesting to look back on the outer planetary aspects of that
time. The correlations with the actions of the terrorists present
an
amazing combination of reinforcing cosmic trends. I recently
made a
graph of outer planetary aspects which I can email to those interested,
and have used it to help produce this analysis. The interpretations
here are not my own, but come from The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoian
and Acker, published in 1973. Other good sources on these themes
are
http://www.astro-noetics.com/astro_us_6.html and
http://www.astro-noetics.com/sept_11.html
Saturn station opposite Pluto, 1 August 2001 to 1 November 2001 (during
event) and again 26 May 02 and station March 03:
Sakoian and Acker: "This opposition indicates serious karmic problems.
The natives can be the perpetrators or victims of oppression, cruelty
and harsh treatment, usually because of their personal connection with
adverse conditions of mass destiny which thwart their ambitions and
endanger their safety. Saturn, as the grim reaper, will bring
misfortune into their lives... Sometimes the deaths of the natives
are
fated in some peculiar way. The natives are thwarted in self
expression
and creative self-development. This opposition requires regeneration
through hard work and discipline."
Jupiter Opposite Pluto: 1 September 2000 to 9 October 2000, and again
on
3 May 2001 (ie during preparation phase):
Sakoian and Acker: "Natives often try to indoctrinate others
in their
religious and philosophical views. They feel it is their responsibility
to reform others spiritually. Since others may not agree with
their
dogma, conflict is likely. In some cases the desire for great
wealth or
power tempts the natives to use dishonourable means to attain their
ends.... The desire for importance stands in the way of harmonious
relationships with others... Autocratic attitudes and lack
of humility
can cause unpopularity. If carried too far they will result in
the
natives' ultimate downfall."
Saturn trine Neptune, 24/6/01 and 2/4/02 (before and after)
Sakoian and Acker: - "ability to carry on organizational plans behind
the scenes ... favours secret projects"
Mars opposite Jupiter, 16/2/1, 10/6/1 and 1/10/1 (before and after)
Sakoian and Acker: "...extravagant tendencies... their holy crusades
are
designed to promote their own material well-being, their sense of
importance, or both. Opinionated and aggressive in promoting
their
religious and philosophical viewpoints, which trait often antagonizes
others... attempt great things without the necessary resources to
succeed ... desire for travel and adventure ... prone to boast and
exaggerate their own importance... reputations for wastefulness and
unreliability ... a lack of steady, sustained, well-regulated effort."
Mars opposite Saturn 2/2/01 and station in opposition 28/7/01.
(just
before)
Sakoian and Acker: "a resentful and oppressive nature... often
frustration and a need to demonstrate personal prowess or superiority
through some kind of violent, aggressive action as a cover-up for the
fear of personal inadequacies in relating to others... Professional
ambitions are stifled... May seek status in undesirable or destructive
ways, encountering obstacles and opposition in the process, or they
may
become victims of this type of behaviour in others... Strained
relationships... unfriendly attitudes... others will not help them...
in
extreme cases, cruelty or criminal tendencies.... Military involvements
are also possible."
Mars conjunct Pluto, 18/3/1 and again in station 18-28/7/01 (just
before)
Sakoian and Acker: "tremendous energy and power in action...
Able to
tap the energy of universal power... can accomplish things beyond the
scope of the ordinary person. Their immense courage and willpower
gives
them the ability to face danger, and even death, unflinchingly."
Mars sextile Uranus, station 7-13/4/01 and again on 23/8/01.
Sakoian and Acker: "capacity for rapid, decisive action... bestows
willpower and courage.... A do or die attitude ... forceful dispositions
and know exactly what they want ... It especially favours those who
are
involved with aviation."
Robert Tulip
11 September 2006
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:25:49 +1200
From: andre
Subject: [e] Re: archetypes according to Bill
lunatic fringe. Properly speaking, Jung was (like Freud) a psychiatrist,
though this does not make him any less interesting for psychology.
His
ideas were at least partially a reaction to Freud's, and it may be
that
as Freud's ideas lost appeal, so did Jung's.
that there is more data, methods, and theoretical alternatives than
were
apparent when these people were leading the field. I reflected on this
very point today, reading some papers from the 1930s and 1940s.
Techniques have advanced, and we know far more, yet the analyses in
these old papers are still frequently astute.
in many fields outside psychiatry and psychology.
> psychological drives was how I learnt it. Again, Andre may
correct me but I
> get the distinct impression that even psychological drives are no
longer
> fashionable in academic psychology.
psychology some time ago 'got on its horse and rode off in all
directions' - thus rendering a lot of once "good" ideas less
fashionable. :-)
in the 1940s and 1950s. It gained currency because, I suspect,
it
seemed inherently sensible. Primary drives (now just 'drives')
are
based on biological needs such as for food and water. Such needs induce
states that are felt subjectively, though it is moot whether the
subjective experience is part of whether one responds or not.
The "need"
is quenched by eating, drinking, etc; hence we are said to have
responded to a "drive" to do these things. Since the "drive"
for needs
such as these ceased once the "need" was met, this was called "drive
reduction theory".
drives exist, and help explain a small, critical part of behaviour;
yet
one can detect an element of circularity in the argument! How
did we
know someone needed to eat? Because they ate. Why did they
eat?
Because they needed to...
drives to that of "secondary" drives. Such drives are not biological
but learned, and so can take potentially any form. Plausibly,
one could
have a "need" to cast charts and read peoples' fortunes, for example.
As with primary drives, secondary drives are satisfied by acting in
some
way that "reduces the drive"., i.e., meets the "need".
are other problems, which I won't go into).
satisfied eventually has severe consequences that we can easily see,
regardless of whether one reifies or constructs this in need/drive
terms
or not. Besides, there are independent ways of determining that
a
living being needs food!
is motivated by a secondary drive of some sort? Since one can
only
deduce the existence of secondary drives from peoples' actions, one
learns and understands nothing new.
has a _drive_ to talk fast". How do we know she has this drive
to talk fast?
Because she does. How can we tell whether someone else also has
this
drive We watch them, and if they talk fast then we know they
have this
drive...
psychology split and evolved in many different directions. We
are
complex beings, and there are simply many different possible motivations
(and viable alternative theories) for doing the same thing!
I now understand it) was one I rejected pretty quickly when I first
encountered astrology. It seemed to me unlikely there could be
such a
ready-made connection between astrology and psychology. Indeed,
I was
not even sure astrology and psychology have _any_ connection.
(I am
still not sure, as I have expressed in this forum on previous occasions.
Certainly, it is a crucial question whether what psychologists mean
by
peoples' behaviour and what astrologers mean by it is the same thing).
severed the circularity of secondary drive-reduction theory, and given
it a testable foundation in astrology.
carefully, the many interesting posts from Bill, Dale, Dennis, Lois,
Robert, Roger and others at present. I nearly unsub'd last week,
but on
balance this is one 'secondary drive' that seems worth keeping).
