|Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #66
Exegesis Digest Mon, 07 Dec 1998
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 11:02:06 +1300
From: Andre Donnell
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #65
> 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.
Quite so. I was merely indicating a possible solution to your problem - one easier than attempting to solve n-body planetary dynamics.
My sample is restricted to the 20th century as my clients and the populations of interest to me are (at present) restricted to the 20th century ! Effectively, I am able to test particular sub-populations without having to worry about the usual representativeness problems with regard to the general (20th C) population.
The usual sampling problems arise with the subpopulations. For example, Nasa host a biographical resource containing birthdata (dates and places) of over 150 astronauts. Such a sample is biased in a number of ways: the Neptune-Pluto sextile that astrologers are generally aware of; the relatively short existence of the space programme and the large impact of sub-programmes within it (e.g. the shuttle programme) producing humps in the number of astronauts recruited at particular times; and changes in selection criteria. Although Nasa indicate what their selection measures are (in a general way), it seems likely that these have changed since the first astronaut recruitments in the 1950s.
Nevertheless, such a sample - analysed with careful attention to such biasing factors - might produce useful results.
> This was published in Kosmos about 1973, as I recall....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.
I think the "effort" would be well worth while Mark. Please do attempt to retrieve the data.
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 15:33:59 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #65
Good! We now have the beginnings of a dialogue.
> [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.
> Sveinn Freyr
These are all technical considerations that are part of the construct we call Astrology. We will not find the mechanism that this construct mirrors by manipulating these technical matters of Astrology; to do so is to engage in a selfreferential attempt at definition: a horse is a horse because it is a horse, etc..
It will be an investigation of our universe itself in its own terms that will be the only means to unveil that mechanism, not an investigation of the Astrological construct that was developed to mirror that mechanism. Astrology only defines the reality we attempt to understand; it is *not* the reality itself.
> ***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.
Finally!! Now there are two people on this list that comprehend what I'm trying to say. The other person is, of course, Mary Downing. (Hello out there, Mary...)
There are some promising avenues of investigation, although we don't currently see how to proceed, I suppose. Alain Aspect's experimental verification of Bell's Theorem in the '70s (?) demonstrated, to an acceptable level of certainty, the existence of a non-local linkage at the quantum level. Two particles proceeding at near the speed of light in opposite directions showed linkage of direction of spin to a statistical significance; what that linkage is/was is not understood as far as I know.
So there do exist some ways to proceed on this, it simply means that there needs to be a strong enough effort to discover and monitor them, I think.
> 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.
> Mark A. Melton
Well, in my experience, a couple of short paragraphs become regarded as enigmatic and eventually too ambivalent (subject to too many different, even mutually exclusive, interpretations) to be useful. Our use of language has become a matter of imprecision, lest said language threaten to become too restrictive, or so we are told. Words change their meaning in imperceptible increments until whole sentences and paragraphs are required to insure that an intended meaning remains accessible. As I recall, the standard protocol is the three sentence paragraph: Tell what you are going to say, say it, and then tell what you have said. That would require more than a couple of paragraphs, I think. Nevertheless, I'll attempt a reduction.
I define Astrology as a working model of our universe that has the form of a construct. The model is, thus, a virtual reality, a reflection of the actual reality of interest to us. The supporting hypothesis for this is, in my view, what I have called the fundamental theorem of astrology, and it is in the quoted material above, set off by triple asterisks. So, the basic structure of the model is the predetermined celestial configuration, and an interpretation of terrestrial phenomenon based thereon. However, the model does not specify, nor does it imply, the mechanism that links the configuration to the interpretation,
We will only be able to ascertain the validity of the model when we discover the real nature of that linking mechanism, such that it can also be represented in the model. In short, until the linking mechanism is understood in reality, it cannot be represented in the model, and so the model must until that time remain incomplete and therefore unverifiable. No amount of tinkering with the model itself will reveal that linking mechanism, I think; it can only be discovered in actual, as opposed to virtual, or astrological, reality itself.
Does that work?
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 3 Issue 66
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.