Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #36

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #34

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #35

Exegesis Digest Thu, 30 Apr 1998

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:29:56 +0000
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #34

 > From: mary downing
 > Subject: Financial, Cycles, Psychology, etc.

 > I apologize for not responding sooner. Been busy.

No apologies necessary!

 > Re: Financial astrology--A few good folks doing it profitably. I [snip excellent information]
 > The major consideration in this as many other concerns, is that
 > astrology offers an edge. It isn't the entire answer. There simply
 > isn't any replacement for understanding market dynamics per se.

This is an extremely important point, and I think it's no truer here than it is in any other application of astrology. It also implies an insight about astrology that is all too often missed, I think. Astrology is only the study of the stars... period! What that study produces in this regard is a construct representing celestial configurations as they are found to be applicable to the terrestrial environment. In practical application, there is no implied significance without context. We can and do study the constructs that have been found useful to seek insights into the nature of the workings of the universe, but then we have to apply them in use to gain the wisdom that leads to understanding.

We cannot do that without some knowledge of the field to which it is applied. Nothing useful can come of applying astrology to the field of finance without a knowledge of finance; nothing useful can come of applying astrology to the fields of psychology, sociology, or other human studies without a direct knowledge of those fields; nothing useful can come of applying astrology to the understanding of a human being without some knowledge of humanity in general and a willingness to seek direct understanding of the human individual (perhaps in particular, the self).

 > My own thrust is corporate charts and business applications. I've
 > had thirty years in advertising and public relations. No amount of
 > astrological expertise will make up for that business experience,
 > but certainly my knowledge of business lets me investigate company
 > charts vis a vis transits (current trends) and interpret them.
 > Studying employee charts compared to their employers -- and
 > actually seeing how it played out -- gives one a very good idea what
 > works and what doesn't. If that's to be passed on, it will be as
 > "lore", a la Lilly and his aphorisms, not as theory. There is no
 > theory, only observation.

Indeed, this is currently the situation. But observation, especially knowledgeable observation, is part of the essence of good science.. and good scholarship, as well. The creation of theory is another part of that process, but it is not the whole of the process even if it is generally considered to be the essential thrust thereof.

The core of science is to achieve an understanding of the subject or phenomenon of interest, and so far the best way of doing that is to be able to describe the mechanisms involved and how they work together to produce or create that which is of interest. A general statement of that understanding becomes the theory thereof, and is validated and refined by testing. In practice, all this goes forth in a cyclical fashion as theoretical understanding produces the ability to generate new insights and ways to identify new subjects of observation, new sources of data, etc.

Although clinical data provides some amount of value, it will never replace the need to really understand the "astrological mechanism", which is the phenomena that the astrological construct is designed to reflect, and that means theoretical work. It is important to realize, however, that this work must necessarily take place outside of the study of astrology, and so, at this point, Mary is quite right, I think. Nothing can be done from within astrology except the compilation and analysis of clinical data.

 > Regarding the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. Well worth the
 > $70 a year they charge for membership. Very nice publication called [snip good info]
 > ................................................... Actually, the financial contingent
 > studies weather, because a number of the lunar and planetary cycles
 > that seem to affect one also affect the other.

It would be interesting to discover what the linkage is thought to be between these two phenomenon... by these people, that is.

 > Re: the discussion concerning the marriage of astrology and
 > psychology. I'd suggest an annulment on the grounds of gross
 > incompatibility.

Well, perhaps, but I think a baby is floating in that bathwater, somewhere...

 > One of the other mailing lists (ACT) currently has a discussion
 > covering developmental (child) psychology, which actually is quite
 > compatible with astrology. So is behaviorism. I'm all in favor of
 > absorbing anything objective. We all should be aware of the
 > literature available from market research channels. Lots of studies
 > on what and why consumers consume. Cultural anthropology
 > (particularly "Urban") offers marvelous material.

What do you recommend doing with all this material? Obviously, for people who have an interest in these fields, the study of this material has its own merit, and application to the astrological construct can perhaps produce insights into the nature of astrology itself. What about astrologer's in general? Do you see a way in which these materials can contribute to a general understanding of astrology.

 > Unfortunately, it's the very fuzzy Jungian tradition that attracts
 > the astrologer because its telling him what he already knows. Of
 > course the person doing the telling is now stamped 'cross the
 > forehead with the good-marketing-seal of academia. If we didn't
 > intuitively understand archetypes, why would we be doing astrology
 > which leans heavily on that very thing? Where do they think Jung
 > got that idea anyway?

I agree that astrologers are subject to seize the opportunity to wear the good-marketing seal wherever they find it. Could you elaborate on Jung's astrological sources of the notion of archetypes? This would be good information for those of us who aren't really knowledgeable in this regard.

 > Jung simply recognized the transcendence of certain images across
 > cultural lines. Now we have a generation of astrologers babbling
 > about "Hero's Journey" as though they could book it on Amtrak.
 > Cotton candy for the mind.

Hero's Journey? I must admit that I am somewhat out of touch with the most recent astrological fads.... Well, there is some amount of pretty substantial work about that sort of thing in western philosophy, and it is found also in the east as well; the I Ching cycle of hexagrams can also be seen as a journey, a pilgrimage.

Hardly cotton candy for the mind, but anything that is degenerated to the level of faddish argot certainly loses any nourishing qualities. It is perhaps facile to include "New age" airheadism in the list of the usual suspects, but it's tempting, I must admit.

 > It would be very nice if we simply investigated phenomena (on the
 > premise astrology really worked), rather than wasting all sorts of
 > effort trying to prove it does by using inadequate tools borrowed
 > from other disciplines. Then we might be able to use what we found
 > out. How original.

Hear hear!!!

I would, however, strongly suggest that we do *not* give up the theoretical work. Trying to prove the validity of astrology without an adequate theoretical basis from which to work is useless, for it can't be done, I think. What we should be trying to do, per discussion above, is to discover why it works, so that we can discern what part of it does work and what part of it doesn't.

The clinical approach is eminently useful, of course, but in the final analysis, it cannot be conclusive; the meaning and significance of clinical data without an understanding of the underlying mechanisms is forever open to endless debate.

All of these approaches are appropriate to this list, I think, and I'd like to hear discussion about all of them! Thanks, Mary, good stuff!!



Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:42:29 -0400
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #35

I have never been able to conceive of astrology as being other than pschological phenomena, so I can see why some people would react to the idea of "marrying" these two would seem like incest...:)



 > Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:41:47 +0000
 > From: Judithanne Young
 > To: Exegesis
 > Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #34
 > Re: the discussion concerning the marriage of astrology and psychology.
 > Personally, I love Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas and the others who
 > have married Jungian psychology to astrology. I think that using this
 > technique is merely one way of illustrating astrological principles and
 > how they work in our lives. I do not think any one system or style works
 > for everyone (Vedic, Horary, Mundane, predictive, counseling etc ) in
 > that everyone has different interests and ways of learning. Some are
 > visual, kinesthetic or auditory in learning styles so its impossible to
 > know who benefits or enjoys
 > what.
 > Judithanne Young

 > roger9 11:53PM EDT 26Jul50 76W48 42N06 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 36

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

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