Exegesis V4 Issue #4

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #4

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #2

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #3

From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #3

Exegesis Digest Tue, 12 Jan 1999

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:10:23 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #2

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 21:27:09 -0800
> From: "Mark A. Melton"
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #1
> Message-ID:
>
> 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--thisuse of
> words does seem to be an oxymoron, but only incidentally so like "jumbo
> shrimp". Objective astrology is only the persona of astrology...the soulof
> 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

Mark, Astrology is a subjective experience which can be shared--a fictional account like the telling a short story whose plot and characterization elements seem meaningful--the tale can be representative of something to which one can relate. The interpretation of a natal chart is not much different from the act of concocting an impromptu poem (of sorts) which is often uncannily relevant to the native's individual life experience. The *objectivity* of astrology depends on what the observer attends to...no doubt a million things are ignored due to the pro-astrology bias of the observer in any attempt at *objective* astrology.

If I restrict myself to the ten planets and the Placidus system, (if only to reduce the razzle-dazzle of infinite complications), I do sense the presence of patterned behaviorisms when I compare individuals to their natal charts. And, I prefer to look for more *objective media* than is currently employed by astrologers in the main (to the best of my knowledge).

The most objective experiences I have had with natal charts involves the overlap of symbolisms that occasionally occur. Given God-only-knows-what favorable and fertile circumstances, patterns of similarity do seem to emerge which allow a comparison of something more graphic and more specific than the usual type of chart delineation or *interpretation*,... whatever. In as much as the native appears to *express* the pattern of the natal chart, I call this eventuality, Horoscopic Expressionism. It seems to me that even our autobiographies are so restricted in details that our very life seems rendered in a more expressionistic fashion...not even as detailed as the impressionistic school of painting, for instance....we are confined to such abstractions, I guess.

Because I prefer to be an the observer and not so much the co-participant, I take the learning theory Psychologist Piaget's suggestion that we mush ask open-ended questions (or, in my case, set up democratic situations which allow the native to perform free of any specific expectation). Below is an example of the results which can be obtained by pursuing the possible...in this case a drawing, simply because the native loves to draw. This one was performed spontaneously some *months* after I provided the instruction book on how to draw Warner Brother Cartoon characters. He is also my little brother, so he drew a satirical cartoon of *his* brother, me..:) In general, the special circumstances required to elicit meaningful symbolism is probably what makes psychoanalysis, and many, many other pursuits, such long and dubiously productive processes.

This illustration addresses the "Mars Effect" but only as a matter of serendipity--a fortunate piece of sheer luck; the topic on the subjects mind (unconsciously I would guess) has something to do with aggression. Thus, Mars finds *expression*...all pointed objects and things in motion tend to be in the direction of natal Mars. This is a type of research that could be pursued using more formal and objective methods. The premise is that *the natal chart itself is just a drawing*--a ritually constructed diagram/pictogram whose construction is guided by human collective forces--meaning the drawing/chart is more a matter of performing a ritual in accordance with socially defined parameters than of purely individualistic innovations. The drawing to which I compare this natal chart also exhibits the influence of culture--the ritual of projecting the likeness of culturally defined objects and their interaction. If the drawing did not have a collective component, it would then be totally *nonobjective* and abstract like a Jackson Pollock dribble painting. So, I am here comparing two products from two different human art forms with an astrologer's eye for some appearance of similarity...looking for those overlapping symbolisms which perhaps seem a Jungian sychronicity.

As to the expression of Mars here, it should be obvious that natal Mars is dependent on multiple interactions for the form and functions of its expression here--its aspects to planets, and the aspects to those planets, etc.. It would seem all attempts to isolate a natal planet would come to this same dilemma. It seems true that a natal planet *may not* find expression except by way of its involvement with these co-dependent others. This is to say that there seems no pure act of assertiveness or aggression, for this would be an idealistic conception. Any signal that we are to perceive as *Mars-like* has to have a medium for us to observe--the striking out with the hand inevitably involves both Mercury and Gemini, for instance, and Jupiter as force, and Saturn as hardness, and so on and so forth. For this reason, I conclude, at this time, the *unit* to be sought for by objective means is the *individual* and not his dissected, and therefor meaningless, components...like his Mars, or his adrenal glands, ...or whatever...:) The natal chart should probably be viewed as an organism, a system, and the individual native as the only possible means for the expression of that totally integrated composite of these interacting, idealized, potentials. Fortunately, the native may project these separate ideal parts for us to observe in their articulated (connected) form.

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:48:08 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #3

> Exegesis Digest Fri, 08 Jan 1999 Volume 4 Issue 3
>
>
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
>
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #1
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 22:13:31 -0800
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #1
> Message-ID:
> < snip >
>
> I think you are confusing astrology and philosophy, or astrology and
> psychology. Astrology is neither of these, although part of its tradition
> has evolved from common sources or roots. The language of astrology finds
> convenient and useful application in these matters, but that doesn't mean
> that astrology itself will do so.
>
> The sticking point that we come back to time and again is that the positions
> of the planets of the Solar system is *the* basic substance of the
> astrological construct, and that is a matter of objective, undebatable and
> uncompromisable reality. Astrology is not centered on human existence, it
> is centered on the configuration of the heavens; literature, philosophy,
> psychology and religion are human centered and those configurations are
> barely incidental thereto.
>
> The horoscope of a moment in time and space is not subject to human whim;
> you can debate house systems and other technical concerns, but the ephemeris
> never changes, regardless of how much one might wish it to do so.
>

William, I'm sorry to have mislead you in some way; I don't agree that there is any astrological *mechanism*......I don't think that there is any astrology in the non-human world. The mechanics of nature certainly seem to exist, that is why we can objectify concepts like DNA with a higher degree of certainty; whereas astrology is a subjectively sensed pattern and thus a case of a more individually structured set of biases at work. And, these biases of an individual's perceptions are the naturally occurring phenomena I think we should attempt *measure* (in the manner of the soft sciences) concerning the task of collecting more objective information about whatever astrology *is*...:) We could for instance probably show a *trend* in terms of differences in the preferences between groups of *natives* that are sorted on the basis of certain selected natal aspects...say dramatic hard angles between Sun and the outer planets vs natives with soft angles between these chart components. A pencil and paper survey will likely show the former group (negatively biased) opts to identify with quotations from or culture's expressive literature which describes life's limitations and illusions as serious challenges to be dealt with, say something from Hamlet perhaps, or General Patton ("pressure makes diamonds"), and the latter group (more positively biased) prefers to identify with quotes where difficulties and changes are no more debilitating than the satirized pessimism of Eyore by A.A. Milne in Winnie the Pooh"...:) This is not a very specific example of what I would actually use, but the idea is that a bias for seeking out hardship to identify with can probably be formulated, and groups of persons thus sorted by *hypothesized" bias can probably be a source for an experimental design which can be repeated by many different observers--astrologers and non-astrologers should get very similar results....This would be a small amount of objectivity, yes, but even that amount would be a significant improvement! I'd rather pursue the possible here, William...not the imaginary *mechanism* of the *astrology-makes-me-tick-like-a-clock* astrologers. I truly believe that people who think that astrology has a powerful *objective* mechanism are simply becoming a J.R.R. Tolkien's ring wraiths....the desire to manipulate has fostered a very convincing illusion (see the Saturn trine to a partile conjunction of Neptune and Pluto in Gemini, and Capricorn Sun at the midpoint of Scorpio Mars trine Jupiter).

Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 16:54:04 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #3

>
> 3. It takes a fairly consistent fraction of a 30-year cycle to initiate
> the training for a career, build experience and get the credentials,
> then work for success. This seems to fit in the Saturn cycle. Is this
> just a coincidence, or is there some genuine effect of Saturn such that,
> if one initiates the building of a career at the wrong point, failure is
> fore-ordained. Can you find an astrological effect in this? Is it really
> true that persons with Saturn in the 7th House fit this cycle better
> than those with Saturn in the 1st House (see Grant Lewi, Astrol. for the
> Millions). With our modern, more flexible educational system, does it
> matter less now than it did in 1930 when the educational system was much
> more rigid?
>
> I think you are drifting away from the core issue into matters of
> astrological lore, such that will not be confirmed or refuted except by
> massive statistical efforts. The core question is: *if* the astrological
> phenomenon exists, how is Saturn involved? To the extent this can be
> answered, perhaps we can see how to understand the astrological lore
> regarding Saturn. So, no, I don't think this serves the search for the
> astrological effect, at least at this point.

No. It is entirely within the core issue that I started with the Eskimos, progressed to with the Kansan clams, and finished with the Saturn cycle. In the first, there is a direct and measurable physical influence. It made the Eskimos stay up all night playing baseball, whereas I followed my temperate latitude habits. The same physical influence affected me differently from the Eskimos, and also the plants and wildlife. Most people would not call this astrology but perhaps sociology.

There is a question about whether the Saturn cycle is coincidence or astrology. Is it real? If you can't answer that you simply do not know enough about astrological phenomena to study it.

> I don't want to belabor the question: I still think we have not made it
> clear just what sort of correlation with astronomical phenomena we would
> consider a manifestation of astrology. And until we have done that, we
> cannot test the purely observational regularities to see which ones need
> explaining. This was already discussed in the preceeding mailing but I
> think the conclusion needs more work.
>
> Good lord, no!!! You are *not* needlessly belaboring the question!!!! It
> is a regular return to touchstone issues like this that will serve to keep
> this discussion on track. The fact of the matter is, I assert, we have
> *not* even begun to discuss what constitutes a manifestation of the
> astrological phenomenon.
>
> -----e-----