Exegesis V3 Issue #21

Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #21

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #20

From: John Reder
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #20

Exegesis Digest Mon, 02 Mar 1998

Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:36:26 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #20

ON: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:36:32 +0000 "William D. Tallman" Wrote:
> To: exegesis
> Subject: Some questions.
> Message-Id:
>
> Hello All, < snip >
> It seems that most astrologers, if those who post on this list are a
> fair sample, are not interested in being anything more than operators
> of astrology. < snip >
> Anyone with successful operation experience has a ready store of at
> least anecdotal evidence of the changes and developments in the field
> of interest. And anyone with such experience can tell you that they
> have succeeded in proportion to the extent to which they have been
> able to successfully respond to those changes. And they will most
> likely be proud to disclose that they have learned somewhat of the
> whys and hows in order to make that response.
>
> Why does this not apply also to astrology? Can anyone of us explain
> to the lay person why astrology is exempt from this sort of
> phenomena? If we cannot, are we then to suggest that this person's
> question and concern is irrelevant (at least), or an example of the
> devotee of scientism's kneejerk trashing of astrology (most likely,
> it is sadly apparent). < snip >
> wtallman
>
> ------------------------------

If one excepts that Astrology is an Art, and the astrologist an artist, we need only sort out who's art is most acceptable to whom. Van Gogh could have been a poor operator of brushes, I would'nt know exactly, and he sometimes put the paint in his mouth instead of the on the canvas, but I like his work in general...The same is true concerning the work of Dane Ruhdyar. Technology has a away of putting artists out of work during the introduction period of a new one, like photo portraits-vs-portrait painters, and juke boxes-vs-local bands of live musicians, etc,...but artists find ways to adapt and flourish inspite of these changes. The real problem, as I see it, is that most astrologists still trash other abstract arts...go figure...:) There is only one transition important to astrology in general...that being that it is finally being more recognized as an fine art and less as a poor science...:) Each successful artist in the astrological community either participates in a popularized school of thought or writes a book and so forth in an attempt to create his own school and following....this is as it should be. Artists are different than scientists concerning the sharing of information due to the nature of the *information*--it's is seldom certain what is worth communicating or how to communicate *it*. Astrologers are participating in something akin to magic, and like magicians they are slow to divulge the trick...unlike magians, we astrologers usually have no idea how our tricks work...:)

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:52:10 -0500 (EST)
From: John Reder
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #20

At 09:43 PM 2/26/98 GMT, you wrote:
> Exegesis Digest Thu, 26 Feb 1998 Volume 3 Issue 20
>
>
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
>
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> Subject: Some questions.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 00:36:32 +0000
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> To: exegesis
> Subject: Some questions.
> Message-Id:
>
> Hello All,
>
> It seems that most astrologers, if those who post on this list are a
> fair sample, are not interested in being anything more than operators
> of astrology.
>
> Let me explain: an operator is someone who uses a device or system
> to perform a task. A driver of an automobile is an operator; the
> driver need know nothing more than the use of the controls of the
> device in order to make it function to an intended purpose, the
> transportation of said operator from one location to another being an
> example of such a purpose. Deeper knowledge of the automobile may be
> useful but not necessary to the successful operation of the vehicle.
>

Maybe, from a point of symantics, the problem begins with the basic "astrologer' label Why is it astrologer and not astrologist?