|Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #58
Exegesis Digest Thu, 15 Oct 1998
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:48:04 -0700
From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: RE: Volume 3 Issue 57
> only redeeming quality of astrology's basic assumptions is that many
> individual practitioners can somehow, at times, share a general impression
> of a symbolic figure they are attempting to interpret. The emotional jolt
> this mystifying, occasional consensus gives rise to the durable existence of
> the art itself.
If Roger Saterlee wishes to find beauty in astrology, and others find religion in it, I have no problem with that. However the "random hits" that reinforce a believe in the fundamental idea of astrology can also be found in tea-leaf reading, palmistry, and presumably haruspicey, although I have never tried the last one. I am virtually certain there is more to astrology than that, and if one does charts and gives advice to paying customers, it had better be for more than kicks. Professional responsibility requires honing one's knowledge to the greatest possible extent, to make it the most generally applicable.
Mark A. Melton
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 14:48:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: mary downing
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #57
To Mssrs Tallman and Satterlee
I indeed state that is not a subset of psychology. Psychology is only a theoretical representation of mental states, which may or may not have real-world correspondence.
Astrology on the other hand concerns the interaction "of earth and heaven" which includes such measurable phemomina as tides, eclipses, seasons, storms, the diurnal cycle and mass trends visible through stock market, economic and other cycles, and the cyclic emergence and decline of theories of government.
Mundane astrology treats of non-corporal mass entities and horary interprets reality according to a highly structured schema that relates actors and script according to diurnal placement.
Natal astrology is a subset of astrology. Psychological astrology is a subset of natal.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 22:26:04 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #55
> Dear, Oh dear! -- Mr Tallman,
> You certainly never heard me say ".. astrology is only a "subjective
> language" and is relevant solely to the study of the human psyche". I,
> sir, am that much maligned creature, a pragmatic astrologer. If it doesn't
> work I wont use it, and I'm bored with inner reality because it's,
> well...familiar. 'Objective' at least changes the scenery.
Madam! I am delighted to meet you once again! Pragmatic astrologers are not only much maligned but apparently quite rare (and possibly endangered) creatures. Indeed you are correct, I've never heard you say such a thing, and if I had, I probably wouldn't be discoursing with you now, having left you behind as I have all the other twits that can't see beyond what they have had force-fed them. But I am, because I have had the opportunity to do so quite enjoyably in the past!
As I recall, you are the only astrologer that I have had occasion to meet that did not reject the notion of the "astrological phenomenon" as the reality that the construct of astrology addresses, out of hand! In fact, you put it quite succinctly: "(Isn't anyone) interested in how all this works?", or words to that effect. Now I wonder: does that make *me* a pragmatic astrologer? I hope so!!
> That assumes I can 'truly observe' external reality, or that there's even a
> 'reality' to observe. But we aren't here to discuss epistemology or
> metaphysics. I concede that my universe is dualistic, but it's flavored
> with taoist leanings. There is an external reality, but everything is
> sharing it. If 'being' changes, it is imperfect so time exists. I f being
> were unchanging, then time would not exist and past and future meld. Then we
> have a predestination problem. I certainly experience 'change'.
These assumptions are important considerations, of course, but in the interests of observing the Abbot of Occam's hoary blade, it is probably best if we see how we can proceed without treating of them.
Let me propose an assumption: if we can experience the astrological effect, then we might assume that it exists (at least in part) within the framework of our universe according to the rules we commonly assign there. The implications of this would neatly take care of the epistemological and metaphysical aspects, I think. So we could begin with what seems a part of our dependable knowledge of ourselves and our universe.
> Could earthquakes be Gaia twitches? Anything can be anything, depending on
> your point of departure. I think that's an unnecessary complication. The
> tides move, the seasons change. There's ample evidence for interaction
> between earth and heavens. We simply choose to dismiss such common
> knowlege. It is too simple and too obvious.
It is an historical fact that the practice of predicting eclipses and Nile floods was an important part of the practice of astrology. The evidence of the calendar is ample proof that a knowledge of the interaction of the heavens and the earth was deemed of profound importance. You are right, in my view. It is considered trite to contemplate that these too were once proper subjects of astrological consideration.
The reason for this is obvious. We have discovered the mechanisms by which these interactions take place and it is assumed that they are no longer matters for astrological consideration, which is now (probably) properly concerned with the significances involved in the celestial/terrestrial interaction. But the elision of those concerns from astrology is based on an assumption that is ridiculously easy to falsify. The assumption is, or must be if the logic follows, that tides and floods and earthquakes and eclipses have no significance whatever! This is patently absurd!!!
In order to separate these concerns properly from astrology, it is necessary to demonstrate why they are now no longer of human significance. It is not allowable to make the assumption that it is not; the burden of proof rests on those who would make the assertion, and I'd bet the farm that they can't do that!
> Perhaps we should start there?
Well, it seems we have. Now where do we go from here?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 03:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mary Downing
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #56
Dear Sveinn ;
Your comments are interesting. Would you proceed?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 20:01:37 -0700
From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: 'Natural View of Astrology'
I claim to study "objective astrology" and do not think doing so removes any of its value to people, in the slightest.
I suggest that whoever wishes to use the terms, "Natural Astrology," "Natural View of Astrology," etc. carefully define what s/he means by the term. Otherwise any debate on the issue will be pointless. Indeed, we may find that there is no disagreement at all, but that different people are talking about the same thing using different words.
In my work I try to find experimental designs such that any two or larger group of people, when they see the evidence, will have no alternative but to say that Theory A, for example, predicted events a(1), a(2), a(3), and so on, and that the data at hand did, or did not, verify the predictions. This is necessary because of the ambiguity in predictions. For example, I can predict an earthquake and severe storm tomorrow. I am sure I will be right because, give or take 12 hours, and "tomorrow" is a function of location, there is almost always a severe storm and earthquake somewhere. Of course, "severe storm" and "earthquake" must be defined as to magnitude. And so on and so on. Geoffry Dean amongst others has hammered on this for 15 years or more --sometimes a bit too stringently I think. Astrology will never be an experimental science like chemistry. But the possibility does exist of finding a set of principles that work for all knowing and experienced practitioners.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 58
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.