Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #9

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8

Exegesis Digest Fri, 30 Jan 1998

Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:35:55 +0000
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8

 > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:08:20 -0000
 > From: Matthew Wilson

 > .............................................The fact is that as a supernatural
 > phenomena astrology seems to require a spiritual home to align
 > itself to.

This does appear to be the case. This is a tenet I suggest we are best served by rejecting. We cannot address effectively anything we cannot analyze objectively, and one of the oldest 'truths' of our culture is that religious and/or spiritual subjects to not permit definitive analysis. These are, so far, matters of a subjective nature only.

I think the only thing we can do to further the case of astrology in the modern world is to assume that does *not* require a spiritual basis, that is, to assume that it does in fact have a basis in objective reality, where that basis must permit the possibility of discovery, measurement and analysis.

It would be interesting to contemplate whether a third option may exist here: is it possible that astrology has a basis that is neither (or both) subjective and objective and so must be regarded from some other perspective? If so, what perspective might that be?

 > The interest in Project Hindsight without a corresponding move to
 > Platonic Pantheism or an interest in Jyotish without becoming Hindu
 > seems to suggest otherwise.

Thank you for mentioning Project Hindsight. Indeed there are isolated yet powerful efforts on behalf of astrology. Unfortunately, these are the exception rather than the rule.

 > There has been significant scientific evaluation both of the
 > astrologers and of astrology (note the distinction) see Cornelius
 > 'Moment of Astrology' for more on this. The problem is that the
 > results have not been of any sensational significance to be of
 > interest to any but the theorists of which I include myself.

Perhaps you would be good enough to summarize some of this work. That would give us someplace to start.

 > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 13:45:16 -0800
 > From: "Joanna M. Ashmun"

 > Greetings to you long-winded sons-of-guns!

Greetings and welcome, Joanna!

 > If sloth had been the original sin we'd still be in paradise.

Ah yes. I suggest that for us poor mortals there must be a sufficient quantity of heat before there is light. How much heat that is, I dunno; I just hope we can raise a glimmer before we run out of gas!

 > I would like to see reviews of books and articles. On anything
 > relevant and anything that can be made relevant.

Another vote for Matthew summarizing work with which he is familiar?

 > Does anybody happen to know anything about stochastic resonance?

This is exactly the sort of question we need. Someone on this list must be at least familiar with stochastic resonance.

The issue here is signal to noise ratio, and what is involved in detecting signals otherwise too weak to be differentiated from noise. One of the more successful ways to increase differentiation is to generate what part of the signal one expects to exist and compare it to what is received. The difference then becomes a signal that may have meaning. A number of interesting questions arise from this idea.

Signals imply cyclicity. Has anyone investigated The Foundation for the Study of Cycles? It has a site < http://wanda.pond.com/~cycles >

Again, an open question to the moderator: previously posted articles that are of interest should or should not be reposted here, the alternative being to cite them so the reader can look them up in the archive?




End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 9

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

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