|Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #59
Exegesis Digest Tue, 20 Oct 1998
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:35:46 -0700
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Roger's Hierarchy of Prime Movers...:)
Hi Mary, All, I suggest that astrologers are like all other dedicated specialists in that we all have an egocentric tendency which begs us create subset catagories for the other guy's specialization...and, in so doing, we at times create unnecessarily small pigeonholes for some pretty broad areas...its like pigeonholing Art in a Mason jar marked--"things *I* find attractive"...:) It is not uncommon to find astrologers who are willing to concede that there are artistic aspects of astrology...but tell them Art is actually the larger category and watch the fur fly...:) Art is my label for all human experiences involving some form of perception of pattern which invokes a type recognition or identification process...all that which we "feel" is significant despite of the fact such experiences are too intangible to measure or manipulate in an objective manner. So like the Jean Cocteau quote; "Art is science made clear." We can observe the movement of a science *upward* into the realm of increased artistic significance as well art reduced to more objective formulas and marvelously *clever* (and soul-less) mechanisms. If one takes Astrology out of Art's domain it dies..the clever soul-less astrological machines which have not yet been invented will in the even more distant future stand like Egyptian monuments in a nearly lifeless human desert. It seems the universe does remain the "one poem" and I think Astrology falls under the larger umbrella of *the artistic behaviors of human consciousness*. It, astrology, includes and embraces both rational and irrational thinking, but displays little if any conventional, scientifically acceptable, objectivity...which has nothing to do with its appreciable validity of course. Astrology is understandably a verypersistent artform...:)
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: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 20:41:37 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Various responses.
Mary's descriptive definition is clear enough:
> 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 phenomena 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.
Her statement of the concerns of astrology are inclusive, but I think it's a little more complex than that. Essentially, astrology fairly early on became the explicit study of what we might term magical processes, and what is now astronomy became the celestial component of the explicit study of the scientific processes. Here, I define a magical process as one in which the mechanisms at work are not understood, and a scientific process is one in which they are understood. Scientific processes include tides, eclipses, and the diurnal cycle. I don't know whether the mechanisms at work in the celestial influence of storms is known or unknown. The rest, mass trends, and cyclic emergence and decline theories are, as far as I know, magical processes.
So, astrology is generally considered to treat only the magical processes, I think. It is this insight that lead me to ask the original question of this thread: does the phenomena that astrology addresses require life? It appears that the magical processes all involve a living component somewhere, and I'd like to see how that might be confirmed or refuted.
If I appear to have contradicted myself, it is only a matter of emphasis. Even though the modern version of astrology treats only the magical processes, by and large, this does not mean that they are the exclusive concern. Indeed, any earthly event that occurs can be said to have human significance in some way, and that there was a study to determine how they might be predicted is sufficient testimony to this, I think. Thus, that study, in the larger sense, is appropriate to that of astrology.
Mr Melton speaks of astrological research and its requirements and states:
> 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
Well, Geoffry Dean has managed to do more harm that good to astrology, I think, even though he is said to regard himself as a passionate proponent thereof. I tend to regard critics who can do nothing but tear things down as suspect. If he was good enough to criticize, why couldn't he come up with something that he though would work instead. Absent that, one suspects his regard for astrology.
What constitutes experimental science? Is that a field that is subject to investigation by testing an hypothesis by experiment? Or does that mean a field in which the aspects thereof can be manipulated to observe results? Or both?
I think that astrology could well become an experimental science. It lacks the proper protocols, and it lacks a theoretical base, even the bare structure within which one can be built. That is the fault of astrologers, not astrology, I think. It is well within the purview of this list, as I understand it, to discuss such matters; why don't we think about those lacks and see what can be done?
Mark also states:
> 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.
Indeed! The whole idea is to continue to develop accuracy and precision, I think. Knowledge of the mechanisms involved would certain serve this end, one would hope. One of the most fundamental parts of the purpose of astrology is, and has always been, prediction, and so those two parameters are explicitly important.
Rog, I think, speaks from the point of view that all we are ever likely to know about what astrology is and what it addresses is our personal experience thereof. There is much to recommend this view, according to the fairly dismal performance of most astrologers when it comes to prediction. In my mind, his view offers continuing support for that performance, and so is not what I would suggest is in the best interests of the future of astrology. Perhaps his view should spur us to strive for greater clarity of vision and accuracy of practice. The hard part is to discover just how to go about doing that.
Perhaps it's time for a restatement of the thesis I have offered in other posts. That's another post, I think.
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998 14:43:58 +0000
From: Sveinn Freyr
Subject: To get to the point. -
In our Western tradition of Astrology the main branch of thought comes to us from the Chaldean - Egypt - Greek - lineage. Most of the old time writings=20 are lost. Among the outstanding works so often referred to is the book "Almagest" recorded by Claudius Ptolemeus.
This extraordinary book is supposed to be written mostly in the years 128= to=20 the year 152, but Ptolemy is said to have lived to the year 178 Almagest = is=20 a treatise of Astronomy and Geometry. In geometry it deals with celestial= ,=20 planetary and geographical geometry. The book Almagest is of such a high=20 quality, that any other writing by the same person, would have been accepted on the basis of authority in the old times.
In the Roman times two books dealing with Astrology were attributed to=20 Ptolemy. These books are Tetrabiblom and Centiloquium. It is more unlikely than likely that these books were written by Ptolemy. The flow of thought and the quality of the text is very different to his=20 writings in Almagest. Among the Romans, the predictive astrologers made a= =20 fortune and were wealthy. A text book of Astrology by the name of Ptolemy= =20 was of certain value.
In the old times, the summer solstices of the Ecliptic were used as a=20 geographical point in high latitudes. Beyond this point was the Polar Thu= le,=20 North or South. This was and is, a geographical point, and a deciding fac= tor=20 for the Arctic Circle. Many of the tables in Almagest, are for practical = use=20 for determining the global locality for the observer. They are navigation= al,=20 where the solstices are " bench-marks," factors for surveying.
Gradually, the early astrologers identified the imaginary path of the sol= ar=20 ecliptic, and the tables given by Ptolemy, to what would be the sphere o= f=20 influence of the global Zodiac, and identified the Houses thereto also. =20 In southern localities as in the Mediterraneans such an identification is= =20 not immediately obviously wrong in natal charts. But when it comes to the= =20 higher latitudes, such as to the land of England, it should be clearly obvious.
By using an old astronomical method, intended for a calendar and a=20 navigation, as a given astrological guideline in our times, is not suitab= le. The confusion between finding a degree in the solar ecliptic path for a=20 geographical location, and for finding a degree in a Zodiac Sign, for an=20 astrological reason; has lead to a certain static conditions in the progr= ess=20 of astrological studies.
In all the House divisional systems, using the "solar ecliptic path" as t= he=20 ascendant,- the ascendant then at certain times becomes undefined at the=20 Arctic Circles. Then at 66=B033=A8 South and North, the ecliptic and the = horizon=20 coincide.
There are not many astrologers who have promoted a system that is not=20 dependent on the "solar ecliptic path." But of those, we should mention= :
Morin de Villefranche. 1583 - 1656 Alan Leo writes about Morinus, in his book: Casting the Horoscope, p. - 1= 11=20 "Rational and Universal Method, proposed by Morinus. Practically abandoned. The principle of this system is the Trisection of said Quadran= t of the Equator by great circles passing through the Poles of the Ecliptic= "=20 "The method seems more fanciful than practical, and does not seem ever to= =20 have been employed to any considerable extent."
We can see that Alan Leo did not care much for the possible accuracy of t= he=20 Morinus system, it was contrary to his own choice. Morinus was a profess= or=20 of mathematics at the University of Paris. He adopted the esoteric=20 astrological system then taught in Scotland, and wrote extensively.
His best known writing about Astrology is: "Astrologia Gallica". The=20 Morinus system is independent of the longitude of the ascendant of the=20 "solar ecliptic path." The system projects equal divisions onto the Eclip= tic=20 by means of circles of equal longitude passing through the Ecliptic Poles= =20 The ascendant is then the cusp of the first House, close to, or 90=B0 tow= ards=20 the M.C.
An Australian Astrologer who introduced an equal House system. In this=20
system the Equator is divided into twelve equal segments starting from th=
meridian. Zariel introduced his system with enthusiasm, but being to far=20
away from the Polar regions, he was on a week ground to prove his point b=
In the book, "The Modern Textbook of Astrology" by Margaret E. Hone, ther= e=20 is a note in the end of the chapter seven; "Method of charting and system= s=20 of House division" The comment there made is quite clear. But it should = be=20 obvious that the two systems there mentioned can not reconcile.
In the book, "Teach yourself Astrology" by Jeff Mayo, in chapter eight; "= The=20 houses: spheres of life" - This statement is made: "One system, the=20 Placidean, still commonly used though proven worthless, particularly sinc= e=20 it presents a gross distortion and misrepresentation of individuals born = in=20 the higher latitudes (beyond 60=B0)." ..... "The system of Equal House=20 Divisions taught in this book, which I personally use".....
In this choice by Jeff Mayo, the text in Tetrabiblos is literally taking=20 over the meaning of the text in Almagest. " And thence we establish the=20 beginnings of the solar days at the positions of the sun as it passes the= =20 meridian, and not from the sun=B4s risings or settings;=20
About this method described by Jeff Mayo, Alan Leo writes: " This may be=
described as a "rough and ready" method. It has been practically=20
abandoned"......."proposed in times before logarithmic tables were as com=
Let us look at this text from the book Almagest: ... "And thence we=20
establish the beginnings of the solar days at the positions of the sun as=
passes the meridian, and not from the sun=B4s risings or settings;
because the difference considered with respect to horizons can amount
to many hours and is not the same everywhere, but changes with the
excess of the longest over the shortest day in each latitude of the spher=
But the difference at the meridian is the same everywhere and does not=20
exceed the total time of anomalistic difference"....
The Almagest, III - 9. On the Inequality of Solar Days.
Leading astrologers in the end of the last century were most influential = in=20 England. From England the dominant astrological systems reached North=20 America. Thereby the Placidian system and other quadrant systems reached=20 strong ground in the Western world.
In England, astrologers have been gradually abandoning the Placidean system by choosing the Equal House system, based on the imaginary solar ecliptic path for the purpose to find the rising Zodiac Sign. In our wor= ld further West, astrologers have not been easily willing to leave behind th= e=20 M.C. as the deciding factor for the 10.th House.
In the decade 1960 - I took part in a corresponding study course held by The Faculty of Astrological Studies, London, England. At that time the graduate students for diploma could choose between the=20 Placidian System or the Equal House System.
For a student of Astrology in the high North latitude, a choose of a syst=
can only be made, when the system has proven to be correct in his local=20
area. To do things in another way is worthless and a disrespect for=20
Astrology. Thereby I was back to the "Book of Nature" for an experimental=
I. In the high latitude north of the Arctic Circle there are times when= =20 the Sun is not seen above the local horizon. The sun then passes the twel= ve=20 Houses in equal time each House, but remains below the horizon all the ti= me.
If a man is born under such circumstances at local noon. Then he has the= =20 Sun in M.C. in a Zodiac Sign and degree equally as if he would have, if b= orn=20 at the same time in a southern location. The rising Zodiac Sign is 90=B0= in=20 aspect to M.C. and other aspects in right angles proportionally.
II. In the high latitude of the Arctic Circle there are times when it i= s=20 sunshine for 24 hours. Then there is no sunrise and no sunset. The Sun=20 passes the twelve Houses in equal time each House, but remains above the=20 horizon all the time.
If a man is born under such circumstances at local midnight. Then he has= =20 the Sun at I.C. in a Zodiac Sign and degree equally as if he would have, = if=20 born at the same time in a southern location. The rising Zodiac Sign is = 90=B0=20 in aspect to I.C. and M.C. and other aspects in right angles proportional= ly.
- Sveinn Freyr
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 59
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.