Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #9

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #8

Exegesis Digest Tue, 19 Jan 1999

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:38:36 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #8

Debby Welsh says:

 > i think if we look at astrology in the way physics approaches particles and
 > sub-atomic particles, we might be able to find a vocabulary that is more
 > universally accepted - in particle physics it is, as yet, impossible to
 > scientifically dissect and expose, say action as it occurs in an
 > accelerator.....yet something happens and results are recordable and
 > predictable...the scientist addresses this something as a model that can be
 > explained in scientific terminology - even forward and backward motion in
 > time (on world lines) is accepted and not called "magick".....altho i,
 > personally have no problem with the term 'magick' and confess that
 > meditation on any mandala consistently leads me to a center, i think those
 > who insist on re-formulating astrological constructs into a more universally
 > palpable subject might look at quantum physics, models, etc.-deb

Yes, I think this is to the point. The problem is that there was a theoretical base upon which all of that rested, or the money would never have been allocated for the first accelerator (magnetron?), which was expensive for its time. We built the machine because there was some insight into what we sought and how we might find it. The theoretical base was constructed by manipulation of known physical phenomena using mathematics, and so there was the opportunity to check each step of the way.

We don't have knowledge of, or don't recognize if we do, the known physical phenomena relevant to astrology to initiate this process. All we have is a model based on an ancient effort to explain observed phenomena, and we don't have still extant the work that was done to manipulate that data. There is, however, an ongoing effort on the part of Project Hindsight to gather and definitively translate all the extant writings on astrology, and this is necessary if we are to have any chance to gain insight into that ancient work. Unfortunately, we don't have the means to quantify that ancient data such that it would yield to mathematics; it is contended that this will ultimately be found to be impossible, even if ever desirable.

Incidentally, the use of the term "magick" is generally regarded as specifically intended to refer to intent and will expressed and effected non-locally. It is a creative action, not a sensitivity such as the use of a mandala for insight might be considered. The use of magick around controlled environments and closely monitored processes such as are found in laboratory experiments is very much a no-no!! Magick is the active intrusion of the observer effect! In other venues, it is also considered a dangerous practice because it provides the means to affect the lives of others for personal reasons. But this is not to the issue at hand.

The reformulation of the astrological construct into more universally accepted terms is probably a meaningless exercise at the moment, because we can't even demonstrate that the construct is valid, much less that it reflects some describable physical reality. If we could do that, we might find the means to create cross-referential material, such that the language of astrology could be translated into some acceptable terminology. The only glimmering of success in this has been the translation of astrological language into that of a school of psychology; at least the potential is recognizable, even if it has not so far been generally realized. Ironically, it is this small victory for astrology that has led some people to regard astrology as a subset of psychology!

So far, there is no physical explanation for the effect, and there is no cohesive language of description for the results thereof, and so the efforts to link astrology in both directions have so far failed. Virtually, the only efforts have been to develop a cohesive language of description of the results, and the result of those efforts is worthy of the Tower of Babel, I think. Yes, we have common terminology, but any student of astrology knows full well the welter of contradictory usages and definitions thereof.

To date, no real effort has been put forth in the other direction: to discover what it is that astrology describes. That is what I advocate, and that is what I think will be necessary. But we have to have some accepted ground upon which to begin.

Now, it's obvious that astrology, if it is indeed a valid model as we understand it, necessary implies the fundamental involvement of the celestial sphere, especially our solar system. We know a good deal about that system, so I guess the question is: what is it that we know about it that might serve as a starting point for the effort to discover what astrology was developed to reflect. If we can identify any such knowledge, we may well have a place to start, and the language that is used to describe that knowledge might serve to provide the fundamental terms for a generally acceptable cross-reference to the language of astrology.

For instance, we know that the magnetosphere of the earth is observably shaped by solar winds; is it also shaped by the ever changing configuration of the solar gravitational field? Yes, Bart, we *know* that the local gravity of the doctor in attendance at the birth is more powerful than that of the planets, but not if one considers it in terms of power. The doctor's presence is fleeting, but the solar gravitation field and its influence on that of the earth is constantly there, and continually changing in an orderly manner. Maybe these are areas that would yield insights if explored.

Dunno whether Dr. Bok is still alive, though.....




End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 9

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

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