Exegesis Volume 2 Issue #6

Exegesis Digest Wed, 12 Mar 1997


Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 02:48:33 +0900
From: NMU
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #4

Greetings one and all,

Well, I'm really glad that we've managed to stimulate a little discussion at last. Let's keep up the momentum.

>From: Star485@aol.com

Hello Susan:)

>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?

I'm sure this post will provoke comment;)

If we take conception to be the moment that the egg is fertilized, it is impossible to ACCURATELY ascertain the moment of conception from a medical point of view unless you have an electron microscope in the vicinity at the time. All astrological formulas which claim to be able to do so are purely artificial constructs which have no basis in the (for want of a better word) "reality" of nature. The sperm fertilizes the egg in it's own good time, sometimes hours later, sometimes almost immediately. That's rather too large a margin of error for astrology to handle, esp. when the ascending degree can change as quickly as every 4 minutes. That point in time when our lungs first gulp the air is the only truly measureable one.

Secondly, if we talk of conception/birth, we must talk of the soul. Accurate and well-documented psychics such as Edgar Cayce have taught that when an entity becomes ensouled is subject to a high degree of variation. Cayce stated that sometimes the soul hovers over the newly-born child (sometimes for days) deciding whether to incarnate or not. He also insisted that the chart at the moment of actual physical birth rather than conception is the most accurate reflection of one's nature.

If one is not willing to accept the testaments of psychics or talk of souls, then consider physical birth. Actual birth (which I take to be the time when the first breath is taken) is a most sacred moment: we are born conscious reality through the gates of life, out of the dark sea of the womb (Moon/Neptune) into the harsh light of the physical world (Saturn). It is at this moment that separation truly occurs, when we become differentiated, an individual, if you like. We begin to function as an "independent" entity (yes, I'm aware that a baby will die without being fed etc - what I mean is that we start breathing/functioning on our own. Complete independence can never be a reality - how can you be independent of God or if not God then humans, animals, plants or air?).

Lastly, I am of the opinion that a conception chart is irrelevant, and another unnecessary addition to what is already a complex art. There are so many points, fixed stars,arabian parts, yet-to-be-discovered planets etc being thrown carelessly into the chart analysis nowadays at the expense of the incredible riches of our tradition or as a substitute for careful analysis. (No, that does _n_o_t_ mean I'm some kind of Luddite who wants to turn the clock back or deny innovation. Nor does it mean that I find the aforementioned areas of astrology to be useless. But so often the points etc are used to obfuscate, confuse or to demonstrate the cleverness of the astrologer and to disguise the paucity of his/her real knowledge. Or else as some kind of amazingly complex intellectual mind game which has no point except for kind of mental calisthenics. We're so clever inventing all these little games to play which disguise the "truth" instead of revealing it.) It is possible to extract so much information from the basics (signs, houses, the 10 planets + asc & MC, ptolemaic aspects + (perhaps) inconjunts, semi-sextiles and semi-squares) that in the end other methods, theories or techniques so often just add sauce to the main dish, they add nice little touches but that's it. I mean you can talk for hours just about ONE aspect in the chart, the infinite variations on a theme therein. Should we not concentrate on honing the fundamentals? - the treasures within them cannot be exhausted.


Hello Dr G:)

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

I wouldn't say "throwing", rather, gently rolling them towards 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.

Perhaps "any information" is a little strong. For instance, you can't tell what my grandmother's maiden name is or what type of flowers I have in my bedroom and how many there are of them, from the chart alone. Please understand I am not being flippant. We can derive a great deal of information from the chart, whether it be natal, horary or mundane (I was given a good example the other day - William Lilly's horary chart for "fish stolen" is masterful. He described the thief's figure and face exactly, and the place where the thief lived then he captured the thief and retrieved the fish!) but we cannot describe "reality" since that is bound to be subjective nor can we describe a whole human being. Oh, we can talk ABOUT the person and have a good picture of their psyche but one cannot _f_u_l_l_y_ describe a person.

>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.

As I said in my original statement "astrology... should not be used SOLELY to make predictions."

Please define "astropsychobabbling". I'm not sure what you mean.

>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.

Again what is "astropsychobabbling"? Please give examples. Whether Sun-sign astrology is more "statistically" accurate or not, I feel quite ambivalent about it. Does it just further tarnish our rather low reputation, esp. amongst serious thinkers, giving the media, the scientific establishment (note I did not say scientists) etc another stick to beat us with, another easy target to hit or does it serve some useful purpose (eg introducing people to astrology)? As Donna Cunningham has said, astrologers will only begin to get respect when they deserve it.

>From: "Francis G. Kostella"

>(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.

These last two paragraphs raise some very important points. There is a tendency in present-day astrology to throw in all kinds of scientific jargon, to indulge in statistical analyses based on specious assumptions, to kowtow to that Mammon Science. If we do that we fall into a very dangerous trap - we're playing the game by somebody else's rules. Science is only ONE way of ascertaining truth, it is not THE way of ascertaining truth. Astrologers should stick to their guns and learn to trust their judgements. Some things will never be scientifically proved but that does not mean they don't exist. Happiness cannot be measured but I've seen plenty of evidence of it.

When we engage in statistical analyses etc we are attempting to break down into little pieces something that is not meant to be taken apart like that. Astrology is like a painting or a novel - when you take it apart, try to classify it, fit it into artificial categories it loses all meaning.

For the record, I don't reject science but the scientific establishment is too much like the mediaeval church - intolerant of critics (heretics like astrologers), refusing to recognise the validity of other paths, pretending to be the neutral arbiter (every time you watch a news programme the scientist is presented as the neutral, infallible viewpoint which magically rises above all others) etc.

I haven't been able to say exactly what I want here but I'm sure I'll be able to come back to it in the ensuing discussion:)

>From: pollux@ihug.co.nz

Hello Ann:)

>an occasional astrologer feels they can assess this [the level of consciousness]. 
>However it is more likely to be a rather clever intuitive guess than anything found in 
>the chart. 

I don't think it can even be that. You need to meet/talk to the person, find out what level they live their life.

>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.

A bit harsh, no? Not all of them are scam artists and neither are all the magazines rubbish.

>Now you have my three absolutions. 

What about my Hail Mary's?;-)

>From: "Dinesh R. Thakkar" 

Hello Dinesh:)

>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.

As I said above "astrology... should not be used SOLELY to make predictions."

>From: mdowning@allware.com

Hello Mary:)

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


>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?

What I mean is that certain astrologers claim to be able to tell the level of spiritual development of an individual from the chart alone, from certain aspects or planetary placements. I think this is a fallacy.I agree with what Tees writes below...

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

>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

Absolutely. We are ALL just struggling souls on the same path, some might be a little ahead or behind but it's the same path.

>Religious rigidity also shows in natal charts.

How? I don't think there are rigid religious aspects, for example. The energy inherent in aspects or certain planetart placements can be expressed in so many different ways.

>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.

That's what I meant.

> We're back to the nature vs nurture problem.

It's not "nature vs nurture" but "nature AND nurture"!

>"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. 

Yes but meaningless predictions of outer events is what I'm talking about. The more unconscious the individual is of his motives the more likely outer events are to occur and to mirror the transit. Internal changes/experiences are much more likely manifestations if an individual has some insight into him/herself. If someone resists change because they are not attuned to their inner self then it's much more likely that the universe is going to have to kick them up the arse to get the changes it requires.

>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.

What is the "aim" of astrology? Does it even have one?

>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.

Yes, but hopefully one has enough wisdom not to try to find how much the septic tank is growing spiritually;) Perhaps I should add "primarily" to my statement so it would read...

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

>From: Tees Reitsma 

>Hello NMU,

Hello Tees:)

>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.

You're probably right.

I'm completely knackered after writing all that lot. Time to send this off into cyberspace...

Warmest Regards,


Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:30:12 +0000
From: Francis G. Kostella
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #5

On 11 Mar 97, Joanna M. Ashmun" wrote:

>      If Fran will post the URLs, you can get Web files by email
>      by
> writing to w3mail@gmd.de.  The following command will retrieve
> formatted text with full information on links:
> get -a  

The directory of all the exegesis html pages is


If you append the following filenames to that path, you can retrieve the entire web:

  exegesis.html   - the home page
  exegesis_toc.html   - the table of contents
  exegesis0001.html   - first issue
  exegesis0002.html   - second issue
  [same name format, with numbers from 0003-0032]
  exegesis0033.html   - 33rd issue (last available)
  exegsubs.html   - subscription info

there is also an /images/ directory, but there is nothing there that is critical. Please note that I'm planning on redesigning the site at some point in the near future, when I get around to adding the new issues.



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

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