Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #2 From: "Mark A. Melton" Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #1
Exegesis Digest Thu, 07 Jan 1999

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:27:09 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #1
 

Metalog wrote:
 >
 > Exegesis Digest Mon, 04 Jan 1999 Volume 4 Issue 1
 >
 > Contents
 >
 > -----e-----
 >
 > From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
 > Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #72
 >
 > cannot be attracted to the distraction of *objective* astrology--this use of
 > words does seem to be an oxymoron, but only incidentally so like "jumbo
 > shrimp". Objective astrology is only the persona of astrology...the soul of
 > the thing is a nameless participant in nature. Objective astrology refined
 > to the nth degree would still be like the well defined details of mythical
 > Olympus, which helps us to identify/organize its assembly of gods, whatever.

As I claim to study "objective astrology," I would like to understand Roger's comments about it. Sorry, but I do not even understand what he includes in the term, "astrology." He certainly needs to define this. Does he include Uranian astrology and Trans-Plutonian planets? I have seen almost nothing that would induce me to give that any credence. Roger is correct that astrology is a human endeavor; so is science. No one has any trouble with the term, "objective science." OF COURSE it is not ultimately and metaphysically objective. It is objective to the point that it is a human enterprise that achieves a measure of objectivity by calling upon a corpus of observers, all of whom can agree that they see the same thing, usually some sort of pointer reading at the conclusion of an experiment. Science is supposed to be democratic in that sense. I think astrology can also be. Let's have a clearly defined subject of discourse.

Mark A. Melton

End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 2

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]