Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #19

From: John Reder
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #17

Exegesis Digest Tue, 17 Feb 1998

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 15:57:30 -0500 (EST)
From: John Reder
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #17

 > Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 12:04:01 -0500
 > From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
 > To: Exegesis
 > Subject: "...how to get through a day to your best astrological advantage..."
 > I did express these identical sentiments when I studied only
 > Horary...and I became very good at Horary...in fact it totally dominated my
 > anxious mind...the one true form of occult study, I thought, and so
 > segregated it, and myself in the process...:) Well, partly because Horary
 > seems only as rewarding as one's last accurate prediction, and partly
 > because it left me with an unsatisfied, uninformed, sort of feeling in
 > general when trying to endure other occult students, I decided to try and
 > discover for myself why everyone else interested in an occult discipline
 > seemed quite irrational and obviously mistaken about everything...:) This
 > quest quite naturally led me to start rooting through all the traditional
 > genethlical techniques, most of the psychobabble, and finally the potboiling
 > new age soul-centered mumbo-jumbo. All I can say is that I think I find
 > something familiar in any novel idea as expressed by any person, and that
 > seems to be *the* religious (re-linking) function/experience of *any* mental
 > discipline.
 > Well, John, I personally had to approach natal charts as if they were
 > Horary charts of some kind...So, if we consider the birth moment as
 > prediction of some defining life event which lies in a potential until it
 > unfolds...What self-defining event might satisfy the portends of this my
 > natal figure, John...:)?

Reading natals as if they were horary is really my point. In the beginning there was no distinction between the two. Then there became a "free will movement", which said that there was no predestiny and what you saw in the chart could be changed. So, in reading natals a lot of traditional methods were abandoned, such as the void-of-course Moon. These were considered to be opposed to the concept of free will, so modern natal interpretation abandoned them. Again, this is fitting astrology to match your philosophy of it. Rearranging the facts to fit the scenario. If you look at books prior to the 1800's on meanings of planets and aspects, you get a much different description than you do today. Then you got descriptions of people , today you get descriptions of emotional conditions. It was the physical world versus the spiritual. To me, if you are going to judge the psychological and spiritual conditions first, you have to have your own stuff together yo do it. Confucius said you shouldn't study the I-Ching until you are in your 60's, Hebrew scholars say the same thing about the Talmud. You just are not ready for the spiritual study until you have life experience in the physical world. Today's astrology pundents want to jump straight into the deeper mind. The want to be psychologists and mystics immediately and they make their pronouncements from a self exalted position. Which is pretty arrogant. They have already dismissed, without much study, the void-of course Moons, the Via-Combusta, etc., because it doesn't fit in with that approach. So, what is happening is that they are jumping levels of astrological study. So you have people building conclusions on incomplete data. I think the proper study attitude should be to always assume you know les than you do. What I see as the problem is people thinking they know more than the do and feeling thy can just go steamrolling ahead. All I say is, never throw out the old, because it doesn't fit what you want to do. Don't make astrology fit your philosophy. Make your philosophy fit the facts. Which means a lot of time consuming and boring study, but you don't go off half cocked.

_\|/_ (o o)

John Reder (jreder


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 19

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

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