Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #11

From: Andre Donnell
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #9

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #10

Exegesis Digest Mon, 25 Jan 1999

Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:38:15 +1300
From: Andre Donnell
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #9

 > < snip > 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.

I think this is just what Dale Huckeby (and I, on a more modest scale) have argued, with regard to what Dale calls temporal templates. In my terms, the planetary cycles have a cognitive function that living (? thinking of Mary, this might include any dynamic system, such as a volcano or a weather system ???) beings make use of to order and structure their living processes. It is not that the planets *force* us to do anything: they merely provide convenient clocks around which life as we know it has been able to assemble itself.

Although I use the word 'convenient', it is important not to - on that account - underestimate the possible importance of such clocks. It is not merely like deciding whether to catch this train or the next one! It is that if the many life processes which make us up happen to have tuned themselves to such external rhythms, then there will be times when some things we consciously will ourselves to do will just not be "at the right time" in terms of our organic readiness for the activity.

As William states, fleeting and irregular events such as the 'presence' of a doctor may well influence life but could not provide any basis for regulating or timing ongoing processes. Cycles that are more or less *eternally* present are necessary. The planets in our solar system may happen to perform this function.

If there is not some as yet undiscovered force at work, a gravitational mechanism such as William speculates may be plausible. The question then is whether the hypothetical mechanism by which we sense the gravitational rhythms is direct (which suggests some *highly* sensitive, inbuilt biological mechanism) or indirect (which suggests the Earth itself and it's environment is the sensor, and we in turn pick up these rhythms through our immersion in this same environment). The direct case I imagine might be rather easy to test in the laboratory (at some inconvenience to participants !), because all we need to do is to arrange a (hidden) gravitational oscillation over some cycle approximating those we already know; the second case more difficult because it depends on also hypothesising what senses we use to detect these *particular* rhythms in the environment. An isolation chamber perhaps?



Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:41:32 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #10

 > I think that is the most apt term I have yet heard describing astrological
 > verbage! I joined a couple of astrology lists and I really am tired of this
 > conj. that opp. to this configuration....."wow!"

For most astrology lists, this is undoubtedly appropriate, because it is, after all, the language of astrology. Unfortunately, the references are to celestial configurations, the significance of which is not at all subject to common agreement; different schools of thought and practice have views that diverge to the point of incompatability in some cases. The result is that much less is communicated with the use of the astrological language than one might expect.

On this list, I have been interested in how we can discover what these configurations effect in an objective sense, if that is possible. If it is, then perhaps we have a chance of discovering how the astrological language can be better used and understood.

 > Again, I go to my previous example from physics - of world lines........here
 > is illustrated a principle that is rejected by most: the ability to move
 > forward or backward in time, yet when viewed in the context of physics and
 > particle accelerators, graphs included, it sticks. It goes on to make a
 > broader statement when linked to the alledged abilities of certain 'holy
 > men' and yogis to travel, through reaching meditative jnana, both forward
 > and backward in time. The idea that lights the bulb in a non-technical but
 > interested mind, is: ENERGY.

Clearly, time in the sense of understood cycles are a fundamental part of the astrological construct. To move forward and backward has, in these regards, a different meaning that to do so in time viewed as a linear function. One of the more interesting books written about astrology was by Rodney Collins: "The Theory of Celestial Influence". His argument is that time is not merely cyclical, but helical, in that the center of the cycle is itself in motion, and of course that motion is also helical, etc., etc..

I would be interested in how that might be seen from the view of a physicist. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give this some thought!

 > All of this is to say that world lines and particle movement is not of much
 > interest (unfortunately) to the general populace; but the implications of
 > this model is enormously important to all of us. So too the astrological
 > jargon, becoming relevant and alive when those who live can relate it to
 > life!

Well, I, for one, would invite you to hold forth a little on this subject.

It is also necessary to understand, as you have pointed out, that there are many astrologers for whom the *experience* that is described by the astrological language is of prime importance, for it is not the nature of the astrological effect that is of interest to them, but how that effect affects them and their environment.

 > In studying astrology, it has occurred to me that it maybe should not be a
 > stand alone subject, rather a subject that moves in and out of physics,
 > psychology, philosophy, biology, etc......

Most assuredly!! Would that we could get the world community to accept this. To the extent that astrology was adequately linked to Jungian psychology, it found some measure of respect, but it is held by many that astrology is merely a subdiscipline of psychology. This is not at all an unreasonable view *if* the only purpose of astrology is to describe the subjective experience of the astrological effect. Unfortunately and undeservedly, that leaves astrology an unwanted orphan in the minds of many practitioners thereof!

The point is that the description of the subjective experience is only a relatively recent use of astrology; other practices have a far greater history. The problem is that we can see how we might someday be able to understand how astrology serves to elucidate the subjective experience, but any other use smacks of magic (without a 'k'); here, magic is defined as a process wherein the link between cause and effect is not known, somewhat like a "black box". The assumption by science is, of course, that if science cannot produce an explanation for the astrological effect, it does not, and therefore cannot, exist.

It is that single assumption, based on faulty logic, that keeps astrology from being the subject of serious research by the scientific community; the inability to demonstrate the mechanism of an effect does not support the contention that the effect does not exist; failure to demonstrate is simply failure to demonstrate, and that's all. It is thought that this assumption is re-enforced by certain "powers that be"; but whatever the case, there seems at the moment no way in which astrology can become a academically correct subject of inquiry, sad to say.

Again, I would really be interested in your thoughts about time as an helical function from the viewpoint of someone informed in physics!



End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 11

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

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