Exegesis V4 Issue #19

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #19

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #18

From: Sveinn Freyr
Subject: Powerful time. -

Exegesis Digest Sat, 06 Mar 1999

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:33:26 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #18

> Yet - I think the trick is to realise that quantification and mathematics do not
> actually *try* to explain anything, much though many may think they do. The
> mystery lurks undiminished within the equations. Mathematics is also poetry!

Mathematics is poetry to mathematicians. I've seen more than one wax ecstatic on contemplation of a particularly elegant mathematic expression. Quantification has little to do with pure mathematics, actually; one might say that mathematics strives for an abstract description. I suspect that mathematics is the starting place from whence we journey to seek an explanation, to penetrate the mystery.

> When all is said and done, all we are expressing is relationships we perceive
> between different parts of our experience *as humans*. I quite agree then that
> "music, mathematics, and myth" illuminate our irrationality.

Some of the most powerful mathematical entities are those that are irrational, that cannot be shown in relationship to anything that is expressable. We can describe our experience of them, but we find it difficult to grasp their reality. I suspect this is because we don't have a grasp of the reality of our universe; was it J.B.S. Haldane that said that not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we *can* imagine.

> Well Rog, I don't know that it is entirely fair to equate William's efforts with
> a desire to prove we are rational - if that is what you mean. There *does* seem
> to be a part of us we name "rational", and which seems to need it's own peculiar
> kind of food. But that does not mean we should confuse the particular process
> with the intent!

We tend to strive for predictability, if only to reduce the necessity to reinvent the wheel; of course, another and compelling drive is for security. So we try to connect what we discover with what we have already experienced, whether or not we understand either. Such a connection, to the extent we can understand it, can be termed a ratio, and so, to that extent, we strive for rationality. The idea of proving that one is rational is merely a culture based intellectual swagger that many young people indulge; unfortunately, there are those who worship this process, because it can produce short term rewards. Ultimately, one is forced to acknowledge that "pure rationality", like the character of Spock, is not inherent in human nature, and so must be regarded as simply a process, a tool to be used in its appropriate place. It *is*, however, a powerful tool the lack of which is usually detrimental eventually.

> Or in other words, my own interest in what William has to say is that he appears
> - astonishing concept! - to be trying to motivate the undoubted talent and
> wisdom on this list toward a concerted effort to get closer to certain mysteries
> that we may collectively agree upon. That may mean, novelly, a changing of
> views for all of us, and a more than merely rational outcome: better than the
> shaking of bones at each other (mostly on other lists) which I have lost
> patience with. He, and you, have kept me interested.

Outstandingly and succinctly put, Andre! Yes, I am actively soliciting the involvement of the members of this list. I have the notion that those who subscribe hereto are genuinely interested in these subjects, and so we have the basis, I think, to assume they have the wisdom to recognize them as important. Yet, they remain silent! Why is this? Can anyone explain?

I fancy my contribution as an attempt to establish the parameters of the foundation upon which we can endeavor to construct a workable general field theory of astrology. I'm not trying to define that theory, or even contribute materially thereto. I'm trying to point out the issues it must address, and to some extent how those issues might be connected.

Now, I said I would expand on my comments about the business of combining intuition with astrological prediction. Here goes....

We define astrological prediction as extending the astrological tradition of interpretation into the future. We can do so because we have very precise information on the appropriate celestial configurations that will occur in the future. On the face of it, this would seem to be a reasonable exercise. It is certainly true that astrological prediction is traditionally the principal reason for the existence of astrology in the first place. Of this, there is no question; the history is clear and compelling. All questions about prediction, therefore, do not involve the fact that it has alway been considered an appropriate astrological usage.

One of the problems we are seeing is that astrological prediction is very much more difficult than it appears, as many astrologers have had reason to discover. We can show that there are literally too many configurations that have psychological interpretive significance than can be useful in prediction: there is, so we are told, *always* one or more configurations in power. It follows that, at least apparently, one can expect some of these to be in sufficient conflict to render a determination impossible.

And we can show predictions that are made on very sound principles that turn out to have been not even in the same town, much less the same ballpark! Supporting this is the common experience of astrologers of having given a very sound "reading", that is, demonstrably applicable, from a horoscope that is wrongly erected, or erected for a time/place other than of given interest. Wrong year; wrong time standard; wrong time of day; wrong place, etc. On this account, there are those who have actually given up astrology because it seems impossible to establish any reasonable criterion for performance; indeed, any real reason to suppose that astrology *per se* has any validity at all.

On the other hand, some of us have had the good(?!) fortune to have witnessed predictions of the sort of precision and accuracy legendarily attributed to astrologers of old. And then what of horary astrology? What of those who can do this with consistent accuracy and demonstrate that their system of interpretation does work. Some will simply refuse to acknowledge that any of this actually occurs or exists. It's easier that way, I suppose. Nevertheless, there are some astrologers that get phenomenal results. Lest you respond thus, I give no presently living examples. But I will cite William Lilly and Elias Ashmole; perhaps even Nicholas Culpepper, who knows. These gentlemen were highly regarded in their time, and if they had *not* produced the results as advertized, it is very highly unlikely that we would have ever heard of them.

What, then, do we make of this? What is the difference between those who can and those who cannot predict dependably and accurately?

We recognize that there are always a number of patterns (configuration threads) taking place for any given horoscope. We observe them from several technical points of view: progressions, directions, transits, returns, etc., etc.. We create artificial entities from horoscopic data, and observe the patterns they create. And so forth. How do we choose between all (any..some..) of these? It seems that this is the secret to prediction: having the ability to discern which line of development to follow. A reading of William Lilly makes that fairly clear, especially in the examples that he gives. As I understand it, this has been supported by those who are currently (or recently) successful in prediction.

If this is so, then we have some insight into the nature of the successful process. The astrologer has a knack for choosing the valid or meaningful thread(s) to follow. We can now easily suppose that it is intuition that supports or provides that knack. But it is not fruitful to presume that we have solved this matter by assuming that those who can, have intuition, and those that can't, do not. It leaves us believing that it is a matter of simple inherent ability or some such that makes one astrologer able to do this and another unable to so do.

Elsewhere I have posited that there is, in fact, an internal sensibility to the astrological mechanism as it functions within us, or through us, as the case may be. I have suggested that there may well be a smaller difference in sensitivity between those who accept the reality of that function, and those who passionately repudiate it. Further, I suggested that, in fact, many astrologers do use psychic or intuitive abilities when they interpret a horoscope, because they are actually using the chart as a mandala upon which to overlay their own direct perceptions. As a result, we can conclude that there are, perhaps, two types of astrologers: the technical and the intuitive. Whatever else the merits, I would suggest that they both are valid ways of operating, as they are both soundly based.

The point here is the same as that which has been made before. If these observations are valid, and the insights into the astrological process are true, then we can at least imagine that we can actually develop these abilities. As far as I am concerned, I have assumed that this is so for the entirety of my astrological practice. I have always made it clear to clients that the horoscope is their own and they can themselves come to be able to benefit by the insights it can provide; the process, of course, would be the development of their own astrological sensibility and the enhancement of whatever sensitivity already exists.

In this case, the point would be that, for the astrologer, it seems reasonable to assume that this specialized sort of intuition can be developed. The nature of that intuition is approximately the ability to perceive what flows of all that are potential are actually manifest and functional. Accordingly, we might assume that all these potentially conflicting, mutually diverse, supplementing, complimenting, chaos creating configuration threads are to be regarded as potential. Some (one...many..) may be manifest at any given point in the process, and it might be that the ability to recognize this allows the astrologer to be able to develop the ability to predict accurately and dependably.

I hasten to add that I do recognize the implications of these ideas. Clearly, if they are valid, the astrologer has the ability and the fulcrum upon which to use it to change a person's life: what is recognized and re-enforced becomes more powerful and therefore more likely to prevail over other potentials. It is not my purpose to debate the ethics of these matters, but to try to illuminate a way to strive to understand them.

So, intuition does obviously play an important part in astrological practice, but it is not a substitute for the technical aspects of astrological prediction. It does not establish the existence of what is potential (from the astrological point of view) but it does allow one to recognize what is already or is likely to become manifest. Intuition is an important aspect of astrological practice, but it is not primary. If it were, the practice would not be astrology. And it is astrology that we are attempting to investigate in this forum.

Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 20:06:57 +0000
From: Sveinn Freyr
To: exegesis
Subject: Powerful time. -

I had been up for few minutes in the morning when I noticed from the snow, an exceptional hue of light reflection. As I looked out, in order to see the location of the Moon in the Sky, I noticed that the Moon was passing the cusp of the seventh House.

There were no clouds in the Sky. The first rays of dawn met the reflecting rays of the Moon, - snow clad land and shining mountains. This was a time of rare beauty.

I thought: - Have I ever seen it so beautiful before? And, - what was the time? Yes, - the clock at the wall: 07:30 clock-time!

I thought: - Powerful time. -- The Sun is just passing the cusp of the first House, in exact conjunction with the degree of the Rising Zodiac Sign; - "The Ascendant" - and entering the twelfth House. The Moon has just left the seventh House and entered the sixth House. The Sun - Moon opposition was exact to a degree. Pluto ruled the Midheaven and the ecliptic path was somewhere in the tenth House.