Exegesis Volume 2 Issue #4

Exegesis Digest Mon, 10 Mar 1997


Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 12:37:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Star485@aol.com
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #2

Hi Fran,

Well don't kill it just yet, now that we know it has only been dormant all this time! I just looked over the organizing principles you proposed for this list once again, and they are still every bit as interesting to me now, as they were when first proposed.

Perhaps we could get the ball rolling with a topic that has been under discussion currently on alt.astrology. I would like see some more opinions on the conception chart issue. It seems to me that a chart of one's conception would likely have meaning, and usefulness, however I am concerned that people are accepting questionable methods for obtaining such a chart.

Any thoughts on the subject?

There is another issue that may not necessarily be in line with the purpose of this list, but is on my mind. Fran, if you feel this is off topic, feel free to just delete it.

What are we, as individual Astrologers, doing now that the long awaited Uranus in Aquarius is here, and sextile Pluto to boot. Right now the timing exists for Astrology to make some real advances, not unlike the Uranus Pluto conjunction of the sixties. It seems to me that one way we can make the best of the opportunity this sextile presents is to maintain a presence on alt.astrology. The newsgroup format presents a unique opportunity for Astrologers and Astrology to have a public forum. What we make of this opportunity, right now, can go a long way in helping to change how we are percieved by the general public. I plan to maintain a presence there as long as it seems to me that people who never had any contact with Astrology before can see every day from the posts we make that Astrologers are people of integrity with something useful to offer the community as opposed to the image of scam artist, or loony, that so many people still associate with Astrology.



Date: Sat, 8 Mar 97 12:34 EST
From: mdowning@allware.com
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #2

Gracious, nobody has sent anything to Exegesis in months! I'm surprised it's still working.

But, to be gracious, HELLO!

Mary Downing


Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:19:51 PST
From: Aphrodette North
Subject: Exegesis !!

Greetings !!

I just joined this list last week and thought i had made an error !! I just got a new system and have had a lot of changes with modems, servers etc. Glad to know there is someone else out there !!

Interesting eclipse today. Had hugs from all my clients after session. There were a few tears - but a true feeling of compassion seemed to be touching everyone. Family issues predominated as did forgiveness...

Tonight, i will be working doing tarot at a nightclub in West Palm. All this Pisces energy may find people a bit overindulgent. The footwear should prove fascinating !! :) :) :)

How many subscribers to this list are there ?

May blessings crowd the path you walk upon, and wisdom Light your way..

Smiles, Aphrodette


Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 19:48:52 -0600
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #3/ Reply

>Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:02:43 +0900
>From: NMU 
>Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #2
>However, such levity is probably not proper in a list dedicated to
>"the theory, philosophy, history and cultural implications of
>I'm willing to get the ball rolling: is anyone out there willing
>to kick it back? Here are a few statements. Any takers for a
>"It is impossible to ascertain the level of consciousness of an
>individual from the birth-chart alone."
>"Astrology is a tool for psychological and spiritual growth and
>should not be used solely to make predictions."
>"So-called Sun-sign astrology in newspapers and magazines is a
>cancer on the body of astrology."

Well you are actually throuwing three different balls at us, aren't you?

About the level of consciousness in the chart, I'd rather think that to every snapshot of heavens there corresponds a consciousness quantifier, whose fluctuations in time are given too, within the chart. It is just that to every chart there is a moment of death implicit in it. If no human being was born with that chart, then still you can say "If a human being had been born at this time and place, then he/she be dying at this other date". Of course if noone was born at that time and place then there is no one to die at this other time and place, right? Of course, knowing your future opens tha possibility of changing it, by taking proper action at certain times. But still, your chart tells you now when again you will die, if you do nothing about it. In this context I must say that I don't believe there is any information about a person that may not be accessed directly from the natal chart, given a sufficiently expert astrologer.

I believe your statement about astrology as a tool for psychological growth is correct, yet I am interested in astrology as a method for quantitative and qualitative prediction of the future, primarily. I have been teaching a course in predictive astrology for the last 20 years. I am not interested in astropsychobabbling, but I am fairly tolerant about itfor as long as you don't begin to say that astrology should not be used for predicting because it is basically a tool for spiritual growth, because then my Aries Sun/Mercury takes over and I tend to grab the torch and through well directed flames. After 2 years in the astrology lists though, I am learning to control myself.

Your third ball is about Sun sign astrology: I will agree that Sun sign astrology is a commercial endeavor not worth the time of any self-respecting astrologer, however, given that people like to read oracular phrases printed in magazines and newspapers, I am sure you will agree with me that. statistically, you'll be doing better usung astrology than if you just make up the oracular sentences, getting them from out of the blue you know. Like if there is a stellium of 6 planets in Aquarius that month, and the New Moon will be activating them, you can say that "Taurus will be having sore throat problems this week" and score pretty good, wouldn't you think? I think astropsychobabbling does a lot more harm to astrology than Sun sign astrology.

About the first ball: rather than predicting something as fuzzy as the level of consciousness from the chart, I'd like to throw another ball onto the field here: predicting sex from a rectified birth chart via mid-point analysis....Any one interested in sharing? Of course, we are told that sex is predicted easy in the conception chart, but I am interested in sexing charts via mid-point structures involving the rectified Ascendant....

Best Regards

Dr. Gonzalo Pena Tamez


Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 20:19:44 -0500
From: Roger L. Satterlee
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #3

Fran wrote:

>>>perhaps I *should* just kill it...any 

Rog comments:

Ah...if it is not too inconvenient...DON'T KILL THIS LIST!

(Now back to our regularly scheduled station break...:)

11:53PM EDT 26Jul50 76W48 42N06


Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 18:49:49 +0000
From: Francis G. Kostella
Subject: An Exegesis on Exegesis

On Sat, Mar. 8, 1997, Dinesh wrote:

> I am new to the list. But this is the first mail I have received.
> I think we should continue with the list.
> A few suggestion to get the list going are :
> 01. Send a mail explaining the content and purpose of the list.
> 02. Resend old mail. Maybe a new user or an old member would like
> to share something new about it.

Since the original inception of Exegesis about a year ago, the list has gone from a promising beginning to wacky, brilliant, studious, boring, contentious then finally, dormant. And all in about 60 messages. Part of blame for the dormancy, I think, comes from my own conception about how the list should be structured. I specifically wanted to avoid the tendency of online astrologers to focus on techniques and gossip and personalities, not that those are bad things (I engage in those things myself, and enjoy them for what they are), but because there are plenty of channels available for them already. Instead, I wanted to dig down under that level and deal with astrology from a more abstract level...from a conceptual foundations level, if you will, and from a sociological view.

At the time, I wrote a longish Proposal and published it on alt.astrology and a few astrology lists, inviting people to comment on the Proposal and join in if they were interested. As a result, about thirty people asked to join. Of those, more than half sent me email detailing their own concerns with the topics I'd outlined. The truly wonderful thing was that, in their private email to me, people were very honest and thoughtful about the theory of astrology and the position of astrology in the intellectual domain. However, it turns out, very few felt "proficient" enough to discourse at length on the topic in public. Also, and even though I'd raised the issue a number of times, nobody actually voiced any criticism about the structure for the list that I had outlined in the Proposal. My idea was to take a "journal" format, in the hopes that people would move towards a high-content, low-noise form of discourse. Although I was disappointed that there was no discussion about the parameters of discourse, I did distill my concerns into a "Proposed Charter for the Group":

  1. Subject: Theory, history, philosophy and culture of astrology.
  2. Limits: No personal attacks or evangelism.
  3. Hopes: Please be as thoughtful and forgiving as you are able.
  4. Dreams: Let us form a unique focal point for astrological topics on the internet. When the history of astrology in cyberspace is written, let this place be seen as the seed for a thousand important flowerings.
  5. Reasons: You have all of these amazing thoughts and experiences, share them. Nobody else will do it, it is up to you.

Which expressed my concerns very well. I think 1 is clear as a rough list of the general topics under discussion. 2 and 3 are sort of mushy signposts about being polite, even if you don't like what other have to say. 4 and 5, I think are the crux of the matter, there are no experts among us, or, rather, WE are the experts that now exist! I was disappointed that all of the folks who sent me interesting writing on astrology in private email wouldn't post those ideas to the group--THAT was the purpose of the group, to get these ideas out and under discussion. There are no gurus out there who are going to provide us with all the answers. WE need to come up with our own answers, no matter how tentative and messy. The key, I think, is that we have some sense of reasonableness, and some idea about how astrology is somehow always human-scaled.

On the other hand, there were a few folks who posted massive TOEs (Theory Of Everything) that placed astrology at the center of the universe. But these TOEs were so subjective and pseudo-scientific that nobody would touch them with a ten foot pole. They just sat there and glowered at people, adding to the general desire to not appear foolish by posting. (I should add that I don't think astrology theory needs to be scientific, but only that scientific sounding verbiage needs to be avoided.)

On the other, other hand, I think there's also a tendency for astrologers to believe that by simply somehow connecting astrology to mainstream scientific thought that all problems vanish, that by adding a patina of science to astrology we will somehow be "legitimate". Opposed to this approach is the modern NewAge idea that suggests that astrology is already a science, but that scientists are currently "too limited" to perceive this "fact". Both I think, go too far, and in the wrong ways. Truth, of whatever stripe, is rarely so simple. I fault myself for being too contentious when such "extreme" issues arise and being willing to argue. I hope I've learned to cool my impulse to do so.

If the current subscribers are willing to try again, I have no objection, in fact, I'd always hoped the list would restart itself without my intervention.

All of the past Exegesis messages are archived at my web site:
The archives take up nearly 500K, so I am loath to resend them over Metalog again. Perhaps I can make them available via email if there is a strong need by those lacking web access, but only for those without web access, as it is burdensome to organize and actually re-mail all of the old messages. The beauty of the web archive is that people can read them at their leisure with little effort on my part. If you do not have web access, perhaps you can check with your system administrator to see if it is available, or if a text-only interface, such an LYNX, is available. Otherwise, send me email, and I will gauge the need and may eventually do a mass re-mailing directly, rather than through the list.

--fran (fgk@pgh.net -or- http://www3.pgh.net/~fgk/)


Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:30:20 +1200
From: pollux@ihug.co.nz
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #3

> "It is impossible to ascertain the level of consciousness of an
> individual from the birth-chart alone."

Yes, absolutely agree, though an occasional astrologer feels they can assess this. However it is more likely to be a rather clever intuitive guess than anything found in the chart. Arroyo gives an example of his twin sisters born extremely closel together and says that he has watched them as they've developed and matured and finds a distinct difference in their levels of consciousness, despite their charts being virtually identical. I would challenge any astrologer to tell us how he/she thinks they are able to ascertain level of consciousness from the chart.

> "Astrology is a tool for psychological and spiritual growth and
> should not be used solely to make predictions."

Yes, absolutely, it is something of a prostitution of our fine art to see it used solely for predictive work. This may have been OK in previous centuries but today our current state of planetary consciousness demands that we fully explore the psycho and spiritual ramifications of the chart. In my view this is probably the only truly worthwhile application of astrological knowledge.

> "So-called Sun-sign astrology in newspapers and magazines is a
> cancer on the body of astrology."

Yes, absolutely, it has the unfortunate effect of bringing astrology into public ridicule by all save the gullible and suggestible who unquestioningly believe anything told them by any scam-artist who sets themselves up as an oracle. (We have a good number in our country doing this on 0900 lines and I hear that they are earning enormous sums of money at over $4 a minute on the phone.) Sadly, it brings astrology into disrepute, making it even harder for the genuine astrologers to convince people that there is more to astrology than the rubbish they see in their magazines.

Now you have my three absolutions. Any takers for a debate? How about it Dinesh. Good to hear that somebody finally squeaked. I think Dinesh's suggestions are good for re-stimulating interest in the list. Incidentally, I love the quotes in this digest.



Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 12:46:22 +0530 (GMT+5:30)
From: Dinesh R. Thakkar
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #3


On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Metalog wrote:

> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:02:43 +0900
> From: NMU 
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #2
> "Astrology is a tool for psychological and spiritual growth and
> should not be used solely to make predictions."

Astrology is the only science which explain a little bit about time. It is a science for growth - psychological, spiritual and material. One should use astrology for trying to make this life a little better. Material aspect of life is also important. If we are born, we have to live and die. If we live, we live in a society. Predictions are also important. They help use make better decisions. Like for example in the case of medical astrology. It helps the doctor to understand the patient better and to be sure that the diagnosis he has reached is correct. It helps the doctor to choose the proper time to admister the medicine so that the patient suffers the least, has to take the least amount of medicine and is fit again to go back to the society healthy. Also by the help of astrology if a doctors cures a patient quickly, he does a greater service to the society by avoid a chance of spreading an epidemic.

> "So-called Sun-sign astrology in newspapers and magazines is a
> cancer on the body of astrology."

I agree with you.



Date: Sun, 9 Mar 97 11:18 EST
From: mdowning@allware.com
Subject: Exegesis Digest V2 #3

OK, it's Sunday morning, let's see if we can start an arguement!

Proposition #!"It is impossible to ascertain the level of
consciousness of an individual from the birth-chart alone."

What do you mean by "level of consciousness"? Do you mean awareness to the environment- or perhaps to a "spiritual" plane? In short, what sort of consciousness is implied? Raw intellegence, satori, political gut-awareness?

Unrefined intellegence shows. "Spacy-ness" shows. A "political sense" shows. The ability to manipulate people and the environment, creative ability, etc. All of these indicate a heightened awareness -- some of them are just more socially acceptable than others. The phrase "level of consciousness" carries baggage.

Example: If you run through a list of chess champions you'll find heavy Mars/Neptune configurations. You'll find the same thing in field generals, CEO's of major corporations and a gaggle of politicians like Bill Clinton. I suggest you're looking at a strategic awareness. That's not the "level of consciousness" you mean, but it certainly is a level of awareness.

In my experience the phrase "level of consciousness" has been used as a put-down by people who considered themselves morally superior to their confreres based on a closed-group set of mutually held beliefs. Religious rigidity also shows in natal charts.

However, if the operative emphasis is "LEVEL of consciousness", I would agree that while the trait is shown, the degree it will be realized is not demonstrated in the natus. No potential shows the degree of final realization.

We're back to the nature vs nurture problem.

"Astrology is a tool for psychological and spiritual growth and
should not be used solely to make predictions."

Right now, much to my dismay, astrology is such a tool for psychological and spiritual growth that very few astrologers are even capable of making predictions. Spiritual growth should occur within the person and be a live-long journey. It and psychology are no more the proper aim of astrology than beef-stew is the sole aim of a cow.

Astrology can be applied to everything that exists in time. Everything. Show me spiritual growth for a septic system or the psychology of an earthquake.

"So-called Sun-sign astrology in newspapers and magazines is a
cancer on the body of astrology."

Only if they're paying someone else to write it.

Mary Downing


Date: 09 Mar 97 12:07:21 +0000
From: Tees Reitsma
Subject: Exegesis Digest V2 #3

Hello NMU,

 M> I'm willing to get the ball rolling: is anyone out there willing 
 M> to kick it back? Here are a few statements. Any takers for a 
 M> discussion?

OK, I'll give my opinion, keeping in mind that all answers depend on our individual frame of reference and philosophy.

 M> "It is impossible to ascertain the level of consciousness of an
 M> individual from the birth-chart alone."

I agree, and it is also impossible to say much of anything about the birthchart without knowing the person involved: a horoscope can be lived in many different ways and on many levels.

 M> "Astrology is a tool for psychological and spiritual growth and
 M> should not be used solely to make predictions."

Exact prediction of events is not possible with natal astrology; astrology is a symbolic language and we ourselves attach the 'meaning' to each symbol whether in our horoscope or in life.



Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996 -1997 their respective authors.

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