Exegesis V4 Issue #7

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #7

From: Debby Welch < No Subject: found >

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #6

Exegesis Digest Fri, 15 Jan 1999

Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:45:59 -0500
From: Debby Welch
To: exegesis < No Subject: found >

focus and concentration on anything......venus conj the galactic center or your finger in front of your nose, brings a quieting of the mind and a presence of mental awareness....there is information on the petal of a flower as well as on the reams of astrological charts as they fly off one's printer...i agree, simplify...and as e.m. forstner said: "only connect..."-deb

Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:18:23 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #6

> 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).

You have expressed the confusion that is at the core of my contention: astrology and the phenomenon it mirrors are two separate entities. Astrology is a construct we use to gain insight into the phenomenon; the phenomenon itself has, as yet, no name. So, I say the phenomenon exists, and we do indeed observe it; because we do, we have developed the astrological construct to assist us in gaining insights and understanding into and of ourselves and our environment that are (one imagines) not available elsewhere.

Certainly astrology is subject to human intervention, as it is a human invention in the first place. Astrology itself observes the laws that appear to govern the phenomenon of interest here.

> 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.

That (proof) may indeed be possible. I've suggested that it may be that one cannot validate astrology (the construct we use) from within itself. I've no idea how this can be demonstrated, though

As to the depth of the discussion.... well, perhaps the problem is that we don't have a well developed (and commonly understood) language with which to work, and so we have to use a lot of descriptive verbage just in order to get what may well turn out to be a rather simple idea actually communicated. I recall somewhere in Jung's writings that he lamented the fact that he had to invent terminology and laboriously define it before he could even begin to put forth his ideas! I certainly hope we don't need to do that here.

[snip]
> ........................................................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.

Oh yes! I do understand this. There is a good reason that I have not even thought to pursue this while I was working; being now retired, it's time for me to do the things I've been putting off, and this is one of those.

> .....................................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?

There is indeed a school of astrological practice that asserts the horoscope is a mandala through which the practitioner can read or do things not otherwise possible through the use of psychic powers and/or magical efforts. On the face of it, this would also seem to be hogwash, but on thinking it through, I've decided that it may well not be. I would suggest that there is a *lot* more work to be done in creating some sort of "field theory" of astrology before we can usefully address these questions.

As far as astrology being linked to the laws of physics, it's quite likely that the majority of astrologers either refute this bluntly, or are uncomfortable with the idea. But you have made here the important differentiation: it is the *phenomenon* that is subject to the laws of physics, not astrology itself.

Maybe that leaves it necessary to define astrology in a new and more comprehensive manner, so that these issues are more clearly defined and sorted out. Some thoughts: because we've invented astrology, there is almost certainly an original and presumably continuing need to have done so. Does that need arise from a developed sense of the phenomenon itself, such that astrology is a conceptual construct that has produced a language with which we can communicate that experience? I've suggested that this may well be the case, and it would certainly explain why, absent the ability to differentiate between astrology and the phenomenon, the assumption arises that they are one and the same.

Thus, if the phenomenon is ignored, astrology itself is seen as the active subjective reality, and that's why it is difficult for many astrologers to wrap their heads around these ideas. I've introduced a new ingredient, and many probably see it as unnecessary. There are good arguments for their doing so, but in the end I think science will have its say about astrology, and we may best be prepared to embrace that; hence, the need to recognize the existence of a phenomenon that science can address and eventually describe.

The impression I got was that he assumed I was incapable of "real" astrological discussion, not having a grasp of the lore and tradition. Perhaps he figured he was casting pearls..... Nonetheless, his withdrawal reduces us, and that's sad.

> 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.

Yes!!! There is always a need to simplify, to extract the essence. Remember the words of the good Abbot: Essentia non sunt multiplicans.....

So the "lowest common denominator" is probably the most useful result we can achieve here. How about we see if we can reduce what has transpired so far to an acceptable set of conclusions, always keeping in mind that they are constantly subject to test and revision as we go.

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

As I understand it, astrological research has developed a rather bad odour, having been roundly thrashed by bad work, bad criticism, and bad critical review. So I suspect that any research in progress has been put on the back burner for the nonce.

I think there is good reason that this is so. Science looks for a deep understanding, such that one can recognize something about surface appearances and obvious phenomena. In order to do this, there needs to exist some idea of what is being observed, some foundation upon which to form an hypothesis, and this does not exist. I've said before and I'll say it again: the assumption that astrology is a valid construct that can be demonstrated does not constitute such an idea, because there are way too many conflicts and contradictions in that construct for it to be at all useful in this regard.

Until we can come up with some notion about astrology that covers *all* of the data, it is pointless to proceed in this manner. I suspect that a theoretical approach from *outside* the astrological construct, that does *not* use the language of astrology, will eventually turn out to be the only way to proceed. For the moment though, this does not appear to be something that astrologers find worth doing. Perhaps I'm wrong?