Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #6

From: Joe Bennett
Subject: (no subject)

Exegesis Digest Thu, 14 Jan 1999

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:26:10 -0500
From: Joe Bennett
To: "exegesis
Subject: (no subject)

Mr. Tallman wrote:

"Or do we tell them that we don't know, but we are actively interested in finding out, because our experience is that it *does* in fact work!!"

You should know I'm not a professional astrologer, but one in study of the subject, and my submission should be considered in that context. That said, the answer I quoted would seem to be the most honest, based on what I've read from this list, and other readings. Maybe except for that part where you say it works. I'd say it exists, and we observe it. Saying it works implies it is more mechanical, and therefore subject to human intervention. What seems to work is the application of our(your) understanding of the laws that seem to govern it (astrology).

" I understand your opinion that the tradition of astrology should be susceptible to testing, and I guess I have to agree that it must be, at least in theory. The question I ask is: if this is possible, then why hasn't it been done? There seems to be some (growing?) concensus that it probably cannot be done for whatever reason; my suspicion is that there are things we don't know, or if we do, we don't see how to use, without which we can't make those tests."

I've been hoping that someone would decide upon such a study as a result of this list. Maybe it's impossible, but even the proof of that impossiblility could be attempted. I've seen no evidence of any contributor engaged in the kind of study that would answer some of these questions. In all fairness, the talk has been profoundly deep, in many cases, beyond me. But I simplify.

"I have asked questions that seems to be too difficult to even consider, it seems. Apparently, astrologers would like astrology to remain a magical

practice, such that no one can tell why it functions, if indeed it functions at all. I propose simply that we see what can be done to help it into the realm of science so that it *can* be accepted when the means to do so develops."

Maybe the subject(s) of this list might lead to the kind of research I'd like to read about. When you say you have asked questions that seem to be too difficult to consider, I have to admit, sometimes the stuff you write is either so over my head, or I just don't have the energy to give it a good reading. This is a philosophical discussion, but sometimes it goes to such an 'nth' level that it's difficult to absorb on the first reading. I hope you take no offense as none is meant. Some of the writing reminds me of some time I spent at Michigan State University in the library. I worked there and one day found the area where the dissertations where stored. No one ever read them. I picked out a few after glancing at one written by one of my profs. They were all, magnifications of magnifications of magnifications, to such a degree, that to everyone, except their intended audience, meaningless. Anyway, sir, maybe that's why as you write, "astrologers would like astrology to remain a magical practice, such that no one can tell why it functions, even if it functions at all." I think maybe a lot of them out there reading this list are a lot like me and just don't plain have the energy to read into the depth probing writing I've witnessed. It's good, yes, but hey, I worked all day. Maybe astrologers would like it to seem to remain a magical practice, but that statement sounds like a condemnation, as if because no one will respond to you they think 'yes, magic works for me, and my clients too.' That's hogwash. Does anyone on this list doubt that this phenomina is linked to the laws of physics and a bunch of other stuff we don't understand, and that it can be discovered (or rediscoverd) through study?

 > This will be my last submission to this List.
 > Mark A. Melton

Mr. Melton decamps, apparently.

Anyone else out there think this subject is worth discussing?


I think this is too bad, maybe Mark was offended.

Now I know that this submission is admittedly a 'lowest common denominator' in this discussion, but maybe some new readers will contribute, now that I've stuck my neck out. I think that might be a good thing.

Again, I look for the study. Who is doing research out there; publishable research?

Finest regards to all!

Joe Bennett


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 6

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

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.