Exegesis V3 Issue #44

Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #44

From: mary downing
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #42

From: skyweasel
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #43

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #43

Exegesis Digest Wed, 13 May 1998

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: mary downing
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #42

Bill Tallman wrote regarding the study on alcohol/depression and Saturn Neptune midpoints:

Be edified; you're wrong. I'm the NCGR director of publications, among other things. However the Mountain Astrologer published it after we rejected. That has happened in at least two other instances, as well.

In this case, since I'm a cosmobiologist and use dials and midpoints as well as multiplanet interpretative protocols, I wrote to the young gentleman and explained how a Uranian or Cosmo would actually go about deriving a tendency to depression using midpoints. Remember the thrust of his thesis was to disprove midpoints.

I received a very hostile reply, saying he'd read in one of Rob Hand's books that Saturn/Neptune was depressive (it certainly isn't likely to create a bubbly personality). Not only that, Eleanora Kimmel (the grande dame of Cosmo in the US) had used the same combination in another book. Therefore it must be holy writ. Never mind that both disciplines combine multiple influences in "trees" for interpretation. He never addressed the use of alcoholics as depressives. He simply sent it off to TMA.

Normally we run our statistical material through our research director who is a Ph.D. in botany. There are some things she's rejected that I believe could have been reworked , particularly the replication of the Red Head study by Judith Hill, which showed something very interesting in the graphs that was not reflected when the numbers were crunched. I think we were using the wrong statistical techniques, and Judith didn't do her own mathematical analysis. Something was there, but what and how do you get it out? (also went to TMA)

1. There are more sophisticated sampling techniques than we've routinely used. My husband was an operations research analyst and taught probability and statistics. I've never been able to interest him in astrological research, mores the pity, but at least typing his assorted thesis gave me some idea of what's possible beyond chi squares. Mark Urban Lorrain has done multivariate analysis productively on astrological samples. Major limitation: this type of mathematician isn't common and they like to get paid.

You see we can't offer them anything. If their name is attached to a "positive" astro study, they've committed professional suicide. Remember how Gauquelin was trashed.

2. The research community is not inclined to help one another, or the rest of us.(Most of course, not all. There are some good folk like Lorrain and Marc Pottenger out there. Neil Michelsen was universally generous with time, publishing, and computer assistance.) They routinely engage in character assassination wholesale. Really! They don't share their databases, which I think is the sine qua non of developing a handle on astro reality. You're never really sure when you run something by one of them that they aren't sniping at it simply because the author is one of their rivals. It's a really great situation. The researchers who compile birth data have even formed an organization that is trying to limit use of their collections, no matter that this is public domain material! This of course isn't limited to the astro contingent, it's pandemic throughout all research communities. Absolutely unbelievable.

Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:57:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: skyweasel
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #43

> From: mary downing
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #42
>
> Which is the reason I'm so nervous about certification and other attempts to
> homogenize astrology. Most of it doesn't work very well. It works enough
> to be seductive; which is I believe why few astrologers practice prediction.
> If you do, you learn early on what is reliable and what isn't and limit your
> activities to paying techniques. You also, though, find truly extraordinary
> connections that defy pure chance; and they don't always relate to people.
> They shock me.

> Perhaps we can develop a system for testing techniques and recording data
> that will give us a cumulative effect for all kinds of things. That's to
> some extent happening now with the declination revival, but it's very
> unfocused as one would expect.

__________sss k k y y w w eee a sss eee l __________ _________ss kk yy www ee aaa ss ee l _________ _______sss k k y w w eee a a sss eee llll________ duncan

Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:01:54 GMT
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #43

> Exegesis Digest Tue, 12 May 1998 Volume 3 Issue 43
>
>
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
>
> From: mary downing
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #42
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:28:27 -0400 (EDT)
> From: mary downing
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #42
> Message-Id:
>
> To Jan Tunney
>
> I very well know that your psychological thrust is based on good material
> derived from careful observation of childhood development. Again, I applaud
> that. However, to me "astrology" mirrors a force in the environment that
> has been neither defined, recognized or studied. That is a fundamentally
> different perch from which to form a perspective.

>
> In short, I think there is a real measurable "force" that influences us --
> most likely on a molecular level.

And, this where I get off..:) The attempted factualization of the mythical voids its mythical potential, to my mind at least. Granted I would have shot anyone as obscure as I am now, when I was younger...:)

> There is incredible evidence in nature to
> support that concept. It's hard to believe that the only reason one would
> find squid's mating cycles interesting is that they benefit mankind in some
> way. Of course, if I were a fried calamari fan I might feel differently
> about that. Art for art's sake, etc.
>
> To Bill Tallman
>
> Yes, I understand where you're coming from regarding testing everything
> until you have a tool kit that works. Had to do that too.
>
> Which is the reason I'm so nervous about certification and other attempts to
> homogenize astrology.

Nervous? That's putting it mildly--suddenly, I feel I've got to dust of my civil disobedience hat!

> Most of it doesn't work very well. It works enough
> to be seductive; which is I believe why few astrologers practice prediction.
> If you do, you learn early on what is reliable and what isn't and limit your
> activities to paying techniques. You also, though, find truly extraordinary
> connections that defy pure chance; and they don't always relate to people.
> They shock me.
>
> It took me a long time to "know" that astrology was true -- and you must
> feel that gut certainty before you go looking for what it really is. The
> higher up the food chain you get, the more variation you find. Individuals
> operate with so many societal constraints that they are, truly, difficult to
> predict unless you have a handle on that individual personally (through
> interview and probing in my case). Earthquakes and hurricanes are much more
> predictable, and groups are beautiful! Cities and corporations respond
> regularly in a given fashion.

Herein lies my biggest problem in trying to relate to "astrologers", I can't for the life of me see why any group statistic serves to better define the individual...it seem antithetical.

>
> Perhaps we can develop a system for testing techniques and recording data
> that will give us a cumulative effect for all kinds of things. That's to
> some extent happening now with the declination revival, but it's very
> unfocused as one would expect.

I am currently convinced my awareness expands by increases in my ability to recognize pattern--not in my ability to predict patterns.
>
>
> --Mary