|Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #65
Exegesis Digest Sun, 06 Dec 1998
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 20:46:41 +0000
From: Sveinn Freyr
Subject: Illusions. -
Yes, hallo all. -
I have just received the Exegesis Digest V3 #64 This time, I really thought that the list was dead. !!!
Here are my comments:
[W. D. Tallman wrote:]
> Astrology, as we practice it, perhaps as it has always been practiced,
> is not real; it is an illusion, a reflection.
The group mind of Astrologers is held in a prison of illusions.
Astrology as it is real, is not practiced by the group. Here and there, you may find individuals who know more than the group. But are they doing their duty towards the group.? If they would try. Then who would be willing to listen.?
The first illusion that we must get rid of, is the illusion of the Ecliptic.
When we have done so, then we will find the Zodiac. And more than one. The imaginary factor of the Ecliptic, is not a factor for a Zodiac Sign. The idea of the Ecliptic, was a Stone Age method to explain the fact of the Zodiac.
> < > ... In short, discussions of how to validate astrology have so far proved fruitless, and any attempt to understand astrology in its own terms will almost certainly also prove futile. Astrology, as we practice it, perhaps as it has always been practiced, is not real; it is an illusion, a reflection. It is a virtual image. I submit we are better advised to see how to seek the reality it reflects: the real image.
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 12:28:47 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #64
> Exegesis Digest Thu, 03 Dec 1998 Volume 3 Issue 64
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> Subject: Another approach to astrology.
> From: "Francis G. Kostella"
> Subject: Lost! Sorry!
> From: Andre Donnell
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #62
> ***There exists a mechanism by which certain terrestrial phenomena are made
> subject to influence by certain celestial configurations.***
> What we don't understand is *anything* about that mechanism. We've no idea
> whether it is a matter of cause and effect, embedded microcosm, linked by
> common source, etc., or even if the mechanism exists such that we could
> presently understand it. I would suggest, however, that we have to assume
> that we can come to understand it, else our efforts are in vain. There
> would seem to be reason enough to make that assumption: we are involved in
> that mechanism; it does not lie totally outside of our universe, our
> environment, indeed, ourselves!
> Now, it's probably relevant to think about how we might discover that
> phenomenon, and the form in which it might present itself.
Yes I think it is reasonable to assume there is a "mechanism" behind astrology, that is not based on any currently known physics. It would not be the first time that has happened. "Action at a distance," propogation of light through a vacuum (without the aether), radioactivity, and consciousness without an immaterial soul, were all bugaboos involving unknown processes or mechanisms, but were eventually studied by scientific method. I wish wtallman would boil the rest of his thesis down to a couple of short paragraphs so we could get a better handle on it.
> incidence of every astrological factor I use. The results were enlightening - such as
> the 30-50% probability (orb of 6-10) of any given chart having a TSquare.
The problem with using daily data in the 20th Century has been the constant Neptune-Pluto sextile since the '40s --an aspect that has lasted 60 years! You cannot use any sampling of the 20th Century as representative of time in general. I would suggest creating Julian dates ( to 4 decimal points) by a random-number generator from roughly 100 BC to the present. This would give you an over-all set of probabilities, but they would not be representative of the 20th Century.
> Mark, you mentioned that you had "tried some statistical experiments in astrology" (V3
> #60): would you care to outline in greater detail what you did and where you feel any
> weaknesses lay - other than the matter of accurate birthtimes ?
This was published in Kosmos about 1973, as I recall. As a geologist I was aware that there have been a certain class of extremely dedicated, practical, down-to-earth geologists who everyone knew could never be anthing but a geologist. These are often called "Rock-in-the-box Geologists." With the help of half-a-dozen or so colleagues, who did not know what I was trying to do, I collected about 25 names of such geologists. I then got the help of the geological library librarians at the Univ. of Okla. and Univ of Ore. to look up their birthdates in bibliographies and Festschrifts and the like. I then looked up the planets. Only about a 4th of these birthdates were timed. Even so, there was a highly improbable concentration of Moons in Taurus. That did not surprise me much as my father was one such geologist and he had Moon in Taurus, as did several of my own associates. I admit I probably biased the study, but new data still follow the pattern. However, there was something that I did not anticipate, which is what one often finds in fruitful scientific studies, namely the over-all earth score was higher than normal. I do not remember now how much higher but it was impressive at the time. I might be able to find all the original data if someone wants to see it, but it would take a sizeable effort.
Mark A. Melton
> End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 64
-- FIRST LAW OF PREDICTION: Hindsight is an exact science
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 65
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.