Exegesis Volume 2 Issue #46

From: John Reder
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #45

Exegesis Digest Mon, 13 Oct 1997

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 23:40:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Reder
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V2 #45

At 06:03 PM 10/3/97 BST, you wrote:
 > Exegesis Digest Fri, 03 Oct 1997 Volume 2 Issue 45

 > Astrology is subject to change, along with people's world-views, something
 > that I would like to discuss.
 > ***
 > Here are some "headlines", after which follows some speculation around
 > these issues: (This may be considered a long posting to this mailing list.
 > I am sorry. Please also have patience with my imperfect English.)
 > * when new symbols are incorporated with the astrological
 > framework, the "old" symbols change. As does our views of the aspects of
 > life that these symbols are connected with.

This is a statement I hear all the time The basic premise is that "man has evolved to a point where he has outgrown traditional astrological interpretation and the system must change to reflect this." I think that is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to put it all in one short succinct explanation. On the human level, man has not evolved anywhere near the extent that people want to believe. He is still the same basically savage animal he was 5,000 years ago. Just because he has a computer now instead of cave painting doesn't mean he will not slaughter his neighbor over some tribal rivalry. He is still subject to the same instinctive emotional urges as he fore bearers, he just dresses better. The idea that astrology methods must change to reflect "modern" man is just a reflection of a generational pride. Each generation gets more technology and thinks, not that it has more tools, but that it has more intelligence, more maturity, more civilization than it's parents generation did. Which is all self-delusion. The self delusion usually continues when astrologers start throwing out old proven techniques and begin to replace the old with techniques that they feel are superior to what has worked for thousands of years. The idea being "In my couple of years of astrological study, I have found techniques that thousands of astrologers over thousands of years have not been able to grasp, because I am so much intellectually superior to them." When pressed for an explanation of their theory, you will ALWAYS find that it is based on some really bad misunderstanding of some astrological technique. Basically, they didn't study enough to understand what they were doing in the first place and when it didn't work, instead of trying to find their fault, they blamed the system. I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, seen or heard of anyone coming up with any new radical astrological theorem, that did not have as a basis some inaccurate conception of tradition astrology, NOR did I ever see anyone who took the "modern superiority" view that didn't show that their reason for rejecting the old was not based on a fault in their own comprehension.

_\|/_ (o o)

John Reder (jreder


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 2 Issue 46

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

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.