Exegesis V4 Issue #35

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #35

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #34

From: Andre Donnell
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #34

From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: Primal number archetypes

Exegesis Digest Mon, 10 May 1999

Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 23:03:18 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #34

[snip]
> planets which matters, ie where they appear to be when the light from them
> reaches us."

Clearly this would be an issue in any hypothesis that the influence of a given planet radiated from the planet itself. For myself, I cannot imagine how this approach would explain the power of configurations, such as we call a complex of aspects, etc. Furthermore, as far as the position of Saturn is concerned, the time of transit must vary greatly as the distance from the earth to Saturn varies. Dunno what to make of that, though.

[snip]
> work. But we do still have gravity to provide instantaneous macroscopic
> action at a distance, noting that it remains somewhat occult; experienced
> and measurable but otherwise remaining in the limbo Newton consigned it to.
> "I frame no hypotheses", he said, in regard to why it happens. Clearly he
> felt that explaining it in laws was not enough.

> What if gravity were just the most obvious feature of something more
> fundamental?

Well, how about a unified field theory? Sorry, couldn't resist that.... < grin >

The concept of the "aether" died with Michelson, et al.. or did it? From what I read, there are some that find it very tempting to return to that sort of hypothesis. Where was it I read that Einstein's cludge may well have been rather more solidly founded than it was subsequently thought? It seems somehow that it is becoming more and more obvious that there are still unexplained aspects of the macrocosm, and that labelling them anomolies doesn't make them go away. I think we will find that there is indeed more to be discovered than current accepted views suggest.

[snip]
> we expect to be able to perform simple classification procedures to prove
> correlations. Chaos theory, when it finally penetrates our philosophical
> thinking, will persuade people that nature and real life are too complex for
> such old-fashioned learning methods to succeed. Hope this doesn't come
> across as some kind of intellectual put-down, because my left brain does
> still go looking frequently for exactly that sort of correlation, even
> though my right brain knows that it is a waste of time.

One of the pictures I have about this sort of thing is that of an envelope, bounded on one side by order and on the other by chaos. Within the envelope there exists complexity. Both chaos and order are inherently entropic, of course, but it might be fair to question whether this is so for complexity. As a complex state becomes more organized, it approaches the boundary of order, and if that boundary is crossed, then the state looses the ability to change adaptively. As a complex state becomes less organized, it approaches the boundary of chaos, and if that boundary is crossed, then the state looses the capability of cohesion and it disintegrates.

Any state has inertia, one presumes, and so will resist being immediately affected, at least to the extent that even if change were initiated instantaneously, no change can take place without reference to the dimension of time: change is a process, and as such must have a temporal dimension. Presumably, at some point in any given process, irretrievable alteration must result, but up to some point, perhaps there is some amount of elasticity in that regard, such that the original state is recoverable if that point is not reached. Perhaps these points define the boundaries of the envelop of complexity.

How does this relate to astrology? Well, it seems to me that the celestial sphere represents a stable state of complexity, wherein these boundaries can be discovered in the nature of the events that observed to take place therein. It seems intuitively obvious that a reduction of the understanding of astrological wisdom to a convenient level of order crosses that boundary, but on the other hand to presume that there are too many forces at play on any given event or circumstance for any useful insight to be possible crosses the other boundary and assigns the whole process directly to chaos itself.

Unfortunately, this might be a fair statement of the nature of modern astrology. There is barely enough cohesion to keep if from disintegrating, and too much ordering seems to threaten to kill it as well. Whatever else may be said of this, it certainly doesn't make it convenient to investigate!

> Uranus on the angles is more likely to be a profitable correlation in event
> charts. Writing on this in the a.a.m newsgroup, I got into discussion with [snip]
> such roboticism would indeed be expectable. So I pointed out that Uranus
> was exactly on the Midheaven in the chart of World War I. (As well as the bombing of Hiroshima)

The meridian needs no additional adjustment, but the horizon does. Do you suggest the use of directions, with oblique ascension and descension? This is, of course, relevant to a general investigation of the effect of angular placement.

> In Ex4/32 Cynthia D'Errico Clostre wrote: "Perhaps "effect" and "time" need
> to be further dissected in terms other than
> "whether someone is in the event/moment...or not."" By all means, Cynthia,
> if it encourages you to participate in the discussion and thus raise the
> overall quality. I certainly ought to point out that the class of moments
> of time accessible for study via the lens of the horoscope is those that
> unfold on the surface of this planet. This fact immediately separates any
> possible astrological science from physics at the most fundamental level.
> Not that I'm inclined to see astrology as a potential science, unless it be
> a social science. Considerations of the subjectivity/objectivity of time,
> and the experience of natural planetary rhythmns, must be addressed (these
> took several pretty concise chapters in my book). The `effect' also
> requires the personal/collective polarity to be given in-depth
> consideration, particularly as regards such concepts as meaning, knowledge,
> reality, context, nature, society (etc...) are concerned. I'm interested to
> see you elaborate your advocacy of the Cornelius perspective, or, if it is
> more to the point, your own. I have some sympathy with it, since I
> routinely check the astroclock to assess the meaning of personally
> significant moments, regardless of whether they take the form of `events'.
> My objection is to the delusional effect that results when an astrologer's
> personal reality is promoted as collective wisdom, the polluting effect of
> the consequent disinformation in the universal mind, and the derailing of
> naive students from their path of learning when they get sucked in by an
> erudite advocate of personal fantasies.

I hasten to add that I too am interested in hearing Cynthia elaborate on her own perspective. Perhaps it is presumptive to dismiss Cornelius out of hand as I appear to have done; there is much in his work that represents contemporary views of astrologers on the subject of astrology itself. Any explication is welcome.

> Cynthia also wrote: "As consumers of the discourse which threatens to
> reduce astrology to science, perhaps we should deconstruct the very terms we
> use (coercive determinants?) so as to avoid assimilation and metaphysical
> closure, or
> should I say, closure of the metaphysical?" From my vantage point within
> the scientific belief system, I feel you need have no such apprehension.

I think it is apparent that Dennis represents the better aspects of scientific practice, where self-deconstruction is a part of the process. In science, it is called a critical review, where regularly, if not often (enough), even the "paradigmic" assumptions held as sacrosanct by academia are called into question. It used to be that things did not move as fast as they do today, and fundamental discoveries or breakthroughs occurred in numbers of decades or centuries. Now, the pace has quickened by some orders of magnitude, or so it seems. So the idea of questioning assumptions no longer involves the grinding sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch; perhaps there is a momentary stumble when the clutch is let in (new paradigm put to use) that rocks the passengers, but that's all. Modern science *expects* to produce only insights, but seldom revelations of truth.

> The good news from the multi-disciplinary overview I put together in my book
> was the extent of convergence. It is too profound to be rolled back. A
> sort of ebb tide sucking everyone back to pre-Ptolemaic pantheism, to put a
> spiritual slant on it. Remember that CSICOPS had to resort to cheating in
> their attempt to defeat Gauqelin. So much for the older generation.
> Actually that sounds funny coming from someone looking down the barrel of
> half a century! And the bright minds in subsequent generations are almost
> entirely sympathetic to alternative belief systems. I feel that the future
> of astrology is threatened more by fundamentalist astrologers than
> fundamentalist scientists or christians.

Dennis, your enthusiam is infectious!! The bright minds of future generations will have seen not only their elders stumble, but their peers that slightly precede them stumble as well. Getting it wrong and having to retrench without paying the price of a reputation in tatters will, hopefully, be a luxury available to them. That would, in my view, represent a *very* profound change (development?) for the better, especially as it would reflect the same in (some aspect of) human nature. I would really like to survive to witness the fall of the temples of scientism, which persists even though the post-modern deconstructionists do their very best; the reality of technology and the conveniences it represents is what supports scientism, and I hope it doesn't take a global disaster (like the computer Y2K phenomenon, perhaps) to bring down those temples.

> Bill: "The subjective reality of these archetypes is perhaps generated in
> the most basic consciousness of the brain stem, which is often typified, or
> actually called, the reptilian brain. It is said to involve itself in food,
> sex, battle and flight. These are the most basic considerations for
> physical survival, I would suggest. It would be interesting to see if these
> archetypes all fall in one or another of these categories. It is also said
> that this part of the brain does not recognize process, and therefore not
> time itself; all is in the eternal now."
>
> Good feedback. It would be worth knowing if your last point here has
> substantial backing, Bill. Biological body clocks cue development according
> to (genetic?) program, and any brain's function operates in this overall
> context. The extent to which an animal brain is required to "recognize
> process" therefore seems immaterial. That said, if you watch a lizard
> perform split-second action timing to catch prey you might deduce its brain
> was able to calculate and compare time intervals.

Yes, it probably does, but the cognition does not, apparently, assign any significance to this, or so the notion implies. The idea of the three levels of the brain corresponding to three levels of cognition of time comes from a brain/mind model that was privately developed recently. I was involved peripherally in its development.

Briefly, the brainstem (reptilian brain) deals with the proverbial "four Fs", and those are directly relevant to survival.

The so-called "limbic system" (the next level of brain development) involves the mechanisms of storage of experience, and this makes a recognition of a previously experienced tableu of threat possible; the body is prepared for an emergency: batten the hatches and all hands to battle stations! When the body is put on emergency status, it is a physical experience with physical sensations. To the extent that any combination of these are linked to the type of experience which has generated them, the physical experiences themselves come to represent the potential of the experience itself. And this is the basis of emotions. The most primitive emotion is fear, and it is the experience of the physical state of preparedness for a threat to survival. On the other hand, there are a wide variety of types and gradiations of physical preparedness experiences that become emotional experiences; not all, of course, of these emotions are negative in nature, but I suspect that by definition they all have to do with some potential affective situation to some aspect of the individual.

The "limbic system", then, provides the context for time, in that it differentiates that which is an already completed experience from that which is in process. Thus the concept of the past is established, at least in potential.

The cerebrum is the third level of development, and among other things it makes possible the creation of an abstract representation of physical reality. While the "limbic system" provides the ability to assess the nature of the present, it does not address consequences or results. It is the cerebrum that developed to answer the question: "What happens next?" What appears to happen is that the cerebrum itself has several functions: It provides the material for a basic framework upon which to build a representation of external reality. It provides (at least to some extent, I think) the schematic for linking the various parts of the brain so that they have appropriate input and access to this process.

It also provides a "workspace" on the prefrontal lobes, upon which a useful compilation of all available data can be projected. One of the properties of this workspace is that it is dynamic: it does not retain an image beyond its change, and so has the characteristic of short-term memory. I suspect that the workspace itself has a nearby storage facility that differentiates the recent "short term memory" past from the ongoing present moment. I'm told that the storage capacity is somewhere on the order of a few minutes.

What is important here is the realization that both of the "underbrains" have a fairly dominant role in this, in that their input is primary. The reptilian brain provides almost instantaneous information, usually responding on the order of a few milliseconds. This level of the brain is connected to the body's limbs by single neurons that can be up to two meters in length, which is why one can react so amazingly fast to a preceived threat: there is no synapse action, as it is entirely electrochemical in nature.

The limbic brain provides its input on the order of a few hundred milliseconds, having had to respond to the input from the r-brain, the entire general sensory apparatus, and having also the job to put the body into appropriate status. The information it passes to the cerebrum is the result of this status change and is perceived by the cerebrum largely in terms of the physical experience of those changes. Thus the emotions become one of the first forms of data to reach the cerebrum, and the workspace that provides us with cognitive consciousness. Following this, the ongoing framework of reality absorbes this and other relevant data and puts forth a new formulation on the workspace. This takes place in a matter of seconds usually, unless there is already cognition of potential input. If no such cognition is present it can take a matter of some seconds, and if no cognition is available, it can take place much more slowly if it does so at all.

It is the ability to develop a frame of reference for potential that creates the ability to invent the concept of "that which will (might) happen", or the future.

There is, of course, a lot more to this than I've provided here, but that's probably more than you ever wanted to know about all this.... < grin >

> "The horoscope was expressedly intended to gain insight into the nature of
> the moment, and it's use in nativity was somewhat incidental, as I recall. I
> suspect that the tradition of horary is at least as old as that of
> genethliacal use." I'm having to disagree with you here, Bill, based on my
> extensive researches into the historical development of astrology over the
> course of half a saturn cycle. I remain open to information to the
> contrary, but I am unaware of horary charts surviving from the classical
> period.

Yes, you are undoubtedly right, in that horary astrology as we presently know it dates back only to the middle ages. What we don't know is whether it was developed from earlier no longer extant information. The use of the horoscope to discern from the moment what significances can be obtained is probably something that was long recognized as valuable; what we don't know is whether, and if so, how, it was done prior to Lilly, Ashmole et al.

I recall that one of the most prized books by magicians and occultists, it was said by students thereof a few decades ago, was called the Almagest. Little was said about what that book was about at the time, but it was clearly a potent adjunct to the ability to divine the moment and/or fortell the future. That it turns out to have been your basic treatise on how to construct a horoscope seems to have escaped those metaphysical wannabees of my youth, but the point of its intended use was made very clear, and I think the point was valid.

I guess my question is whether the Arabs carried along with it any more information useful for such activity. Remember that those people didn't have means to construct a horoscope of birth *unless* they were present at the time and had means to inspect the heavens, or had access to stellar data that we can presume very few had. That means that the construction of natal horoscopes could not have been a very large part of an astrologer/wizard/seer/wearer-of-starred-cloak-and-peaked-hat's business. That leaves me to suspect that most astrological activity, at least until the publication of ephemeral data, involved divination. So I would ask what did they do, and how did they do it?

I have an interesting recent publication of the astrology (purportedly) practiced by Cornelius Agrippa, and it is geared primarily to natal horoscopy, but it also has data for divination. I haven't gone through it very thoroughly, but it doesn't seem to follow the Lilly format for horary horoscopy. I am, therefore, left with the feeling that something like horary was done rather continuously since the time of the Greeks and the invention of the horoscope itself. What were those forms and how were they used? More questions...

[snip]
> "We can imagine that the solar system does subtly shape the electromagnetic
> (gravity?) field of the earth, such that certain phenomena occur and/or are
> influenced thereby. That we don't see this mechanism doesn't mean it does
> not exist; indeed, it may be discovered as a quantum effect. That's my
> bet." I see gravity as being more relevant, and the quantum realm only
> relevant as regards potential, but I agree with your general thrust here and
> hope to take these issues further in future correspondence here.

I wonder what mandates the assumption that quantum physics only describes the reality of particles at (below?) the level of hadrons. I see that there is suspected to exist a bourgeoisie level of black hole... not royal or noble, and not serfs, but somewhere in between.. < grin > So there are apparently many more black holes than formerly thought. My knowledge of science is rudimentary and general, but it has often occurred to me that there might be some connection between a black hole and certain types of quantum particles. Anything to this notion?

Again, let me express my delight that this discussion as become substantial! Once more, Susan and Cynthia, welcome and please keep posting!!

Date: Sat, 08 May 1999 23:57:34 +1200
From: Andre Donnell
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #34

Welcome to the discussions (you appear to be a fellow Nzer too!). We hav= e gone from a famine to a feast lately. Your qualifications in Physics, Cynthia= 's in metalinguistics and semiotics (Cynthia I think I partially overlap with y= ou - my chief area at present being discursive psychology. Regardless, your contribution was not over-abstruse, and your point about the discourse of science and it's possible obscuring effects is well taken), and the very = able contributions from Susan and Ian are most welcome.

And I have a rare day of leisure on my hands, as a result of which I'm af= raid the following post is somewhat long and rambling.

> Just in case readers have not got the prior point, it hinges on the spe= ed of
> light. In the diurnal cycle, Saturn has moved on considerably by the t= ime
> its light gets here. Roberts, (p87) < snip >

One of the peculiarities of Gauquelin's findings, as I recall, was that t= he crests occurred in the cadent houses, not the *angular* houses as would h= ave been predicted by traditional house-based astrology. Many years ago I re= ad an attempt to reconcile the two views: as the French data in particular wer= e only recorded to the nearest 15 minutes, there might be a systematic "late" bi= as in birthtimes. Although on average this would amount to 7.5 minutes (assumi= ng times were always rounded down), it would close the gap somewhat.

However, if *instantaneous* rather than apparent positions are substitute= d, it seems the traditional expectation of the importance of angular planets is supported! (But read on).

Dennis, as I recall Bell's theorem does not allow *signalling* or transmi= ssion of information anyway, which is surely what the astrological effect requi= res? So I wouldn't have thought instantaneity was a starter! (Apologies if I = have this wrong: I almost completed a Physics degree 20 years ago, but then s= witched to psychology and philosophy to support my astrology work, so my recollec= tion and understanding of physics is now very rusty).

The next bit is just for those readers who may need more explanation of w= hat Roberts is getting at. The distance from the Sun to the Earth is called a= n astronomical unit (AU). It is roughly 93,000,000 miles and it takes ligh= t about eight minutes to traverse it. Saturn's orbit is about 9.5 AU from the Su= n, and it's not too eccentric so we can treat that as a constant. At closest ap= proach to the Earth, Saturn is about 9.5-1 =3D 8.5 AU distant from us (to astrol= ogers, this means 'Sun Opp Saturn'); and at farthest Saturn is about 9.5 +1 =3D = 10.5 AU ('Sun Conj Saturn'). Call this distance between Earth and a given planet (expressed in AUs) 'd'.

So for Saturn t varies between about 8.5x8=3D68 minutes and 10.5x8=3D84 m= inutes, or in other words just about the 20 degrees Roberts stated. In the case of = Mars, d varies from .5 to 2.5 AU =3D 4 to 20 minutes =3D one to five degrees of = house movement; an average of 2.5 degrees. Of course, in the case of the Moon,= t and hence house movement are effectively zero, which is why Roberts picks on = that example in particular.

The crucial test of instantaneity would be that if true we would expect t= he Mars crests to consistently differ from the Saturn crests by 20-2.5 or about 1= 7.5 degrees, and in a counterclockwise direction where Mars (in the case of t= he MC) would fall closer to the 10th house cusp than Saturn. This is just what = Roberts is saying.

Now, since Gauguelin's crests all appear to be in approximately the same position, this supports Dennis's point that the *apparent* positions of t= he planets are the salient positions, or that *if* there is an astrological = 'force' of some kind (which as Dennis notes later *might* be gravity - certainly = this is Michael Erlewine's view if I remember correctly) then it propagates at th= e speed of light.

> What if gravity were just the most obvious feature of something more
> fundamental?

I have suggested before that the solutions which express the astrological mechanism *might* be locked away in Einstein's energy-momentum tensor, or elsewhere in Physics; i.e. supposing that we are looking at a physical me= chanism at all. One supposes that there has not yet been the happy coincidence o= f an astrologer who is also a physicist looking in just the right spot; or els= e there *is* no such spot. Another possibility is that there is a hitherto unrec= ognised gap in the physics account which astrology fills.

> Susan Archer wrote in Ex4/30: "Is
> it too simple just to take one astrological event, eg
> Uranus crossing each of the angles of a natal chart, apply it to a larg= e
> number of accurately timed births and make a specific statement about w= hat
> is likely to happen and when?". Yes, unfortunately. I like your attit= ude
> Susan, as expressed here, it being pretty similar to my own initial app= roach
> to this issue....we expect to be able to perform simple classification
> procedures to prove correlations....[but] nature and real life are too = complex
> for
> such old-fashioned learning methods to succeed.

Dennis, I support your observations about chaos theory. For example, I speculate that much that is unpredictable concerning the development and = erratic course of mental disorders may be traced to the effect of simple non-line= ar determinisms in the brain. I also willingly concede (and I suspect Susan= is well aware of this too) the importance of context.

But since I read research results every day that report successful attemp= ts to tease out small effects well masked by a multitude of other factors (i.e.= , from data that contains a high degree of unrelated variance), I do not share y= our cynicism!

> Uranus on the angles is more likely to be a profitable correlation in e= vent
> charts....I suggested planets exactly on the
> angles would be the most emphatic obvious correlations. I cited Uranus
> exactly on the Midheaven at Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped = on
> it.

I don't know about "more likely", but I certainly support this line of investigation. There is an apparent effect I have observed (unsystematic= ally) almost since I began in astrology. The notion that there are significant correlations between planets transitting angles and private events (thoug= hts, intentions, decisions) etc. is one that seems little discussed by astrolo= gers, but which would support a thesis Dale and I have discussed before in rela= tion to time.

> .... I commented that even a
> sceptic might be impressed at this, given the 0.3% probability of the e= xact
> correlation being due to chance.

This is different from what Dennis is saying, but just as a general obser= vation and to forestall anyone going off in the wrong direction, we astrologers = love to hedge. Multiply by four to let the transit occur on *any* angle, and dou= ble again to allow the planet to be *within* a degree, rather than in the *sa= me* degree. Now we get one chance in 45, or 2.2%.

Then let it be *any* planet (let's exclude Centaurs and transplutonians!)= , and we're looking at 10 times that probability, or over 22%. Then, others wo= uld include midpoints, and even throw in a few thousand asteroids for good me= asure.

So if we're going to run with this everybody, be sure we stick to a decen= tly limited and strictly applied definition, such as URANUS MC same degree. = This in itself produces practical problems, as I show later.

> Dale responded to the effect that the
> sceptic would challenge me to produce another world-changing event with
> Uranus exactly on the Midheaven.

> If the sceptic was actually a skeptik,
> such roboticism would indeed be expectable. So I pointed out that Uran= us
> was exactly on the Midheaven in the chart of World War I.

Sorry, but I say harumph! to that Dennis :-). I don't recall ever seeing= a single chart that astrologers agreed upon for *any* significant (mundane) event. (Moreover, I doubt the capacity of any single chart to represent = many such events. At present I am witnessing astrologers attempting to isolat= e single charts to describe the Kosovo situation, as though a single chart = could summarise a history stretching back centuries, *and* the histories and motivations of multiple recent players. It comes back to considerations = of *context*, as you mentioned before. Similar madness is evident in some discussions of the event chart of the recent Colorado shootings). So *wh= at* chart of WWI are you pointing to?

But let me hasten to add that I agree with your general approach, just no= t your particular example. We would want the following criteria met: (1) exac= tly timed verifiable events of public record; (2) a precise and unambiguous definition of what sort of events (E) we consider will correlate with Ura= nus MC; a definition that any trained person (not necessarily an astrologer) coul= d use, and which other trained person's would duplicate to a high degree of cert= ainty (about 80% agreement is considered pretty good in social science circles)= ; (3) a precise definition of the sought astrological event, which from what you'= ve written sounds like Uranus-MC-same degree (call this U).

Most simply, the correlation we are looking for is "When U, so also E". = Now we know that U only occurs .3% of the time, so E must also only occur .3% of= the time. This implies that E is *reasonably* rare, and this should be noted= in our definition. By rare I mean in terms of content or structure, not frequen= cy, as of course E is expected to happen every day. So the definition of E shou= ld contain a combination of features that approach about a .3% prevalence. = If, upon applying the definition, the prevalence is too high or low, the defi= nition needs improvement.

Next we would gather our data, and ideally get this, where * means that c= ell has lots of instances, and the blank cells mean just that:

(Note: in practice, the data would never be as clear cut as this, owing t= o mistakes in recognising correct instances of E, mistakes in the *definiti= on* of E, and mistakes in the timing or calculation of U. Correlations can be v= ery low indeed and still be meaningful):

Where ~E means an event that does NOT meet the definition of E, and ~U me= ans Uranus is NOT on the MC, same degree. In fact, put this way the stipulat= ion that U.~E should be empty seems rather harsh. It amounts to saying that = when U, *all* events other than E just do not happen., e.g. people only drop bomb= s during U, they don't dine or watch comedies or crack jokes. It might be = better to say that most other events *can* happen while U, but that there exist = *some* events (~E) which are logically excluded by the nature of E. That E.~U s= hould be empty (E should not happen when U is not happening) goes without sayin= g (but I've said it anyway).

The important point about this table is that we can't just look for insta= nces where E.U - a fault called 'confirmation bias' - we must also be sure tha= t we DON'T get instances where E but ~U. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D A simpler design is to use a ChiSquare goodness of fit approach, which al= so gets over the problems of defining ~E as well as E. As before, we start with = a good definition of E. We then randomly select a sample of E-type events. Now= , the null hypothesis is simply this: if U has no correlation with E, then .3%= of those events will have occurred when U (Uranus MC), and 99.7% when ~U (an= y other time of the day). Thus, we expect to observe (if U and E are not correla= ted):

There is a simple formula to calculate this. It takes account of deviati= ons from the expected frequencies shown above; which can then be tested for statistical significance, or more usefully rendered as a graph or chart. Dependent on the number of events in the sample, even a seemingly poor re= sult like:

might be statistically significant, but to have practical application, mo= st astrologers would probably hope to observe something better than 10% of E= -type events falling in the U cell.

Unfortunately, with this statistic the least *expected* number in any one= cell by chance must be at least five. (The smaller this number, the more sens= itive the statistic becomes to very small differences, and the more meaningless= the result). So to be considered valid, our sample must include 5/.3% =3D 5/= 003 =3D 1800 E-type events. This looks daunting!

If we relax U to permit Uranus on any angle and a one degree orb then we = "only" need 225 events. The expected frequency for U under the null hypothesis = is then 2.2% or the five events we need.

To meet a .05 significance test, we require ChiSquare to be =3D 3.841. = Working backwards from the ChiSquare formula, we need 5 + sqrt(3.841/[1/5+1/220])= =3D 9.333 events to fall in the U cell of the table, or only 4% of our sample= As I remarked above, this would be a 'statistically significant' result, but (= like Gauquelin's findings) much more useful in theory than in practice.

> In Ex4/32 Cynthia D'Errico Clostre wrote: "Perhaps "effect" and "time" = need
> to be further dissected in terms other than
> "whether someone is in the event/moment...or not."" By all means, Cynt= hia,
> if it encourages you to participate in the discussion and thus raise th= e
> overall quality.

I think what Cynthia proposes might be interesting. Here, we are approac= hing the difficulties inherent in the sort of practical defining I advocate ab= ove. If reality is taken as fluid, fuzzy, and chaotic, then the tools with whi= ch we neatly slice it up for analysis (be it within a scientific or an astrolog= ical paradigm) must always be actively suspected. This does not mean we canno= t use them: but we must always remember the nature of the stick before we try = to disperse a fog with it!

Yes, I am currently considering a meta-hypothesis that astrology *is* a potential social science. By this, I mean only that there may be fruitfu= l application of social scientific methods (quantitative, and also the qual= itative kinds, a few of which Ian mentioned, and others of which Dale Huckeby has already demonstrated) to astrology; that astrology may offer a fruitful c= ritique of some of those methods, and encourage development of new methods; and t= hat astrology holds missing pieces of the social scientific puzzle, and vice = versa. The social sciences and astrology certainly widely overlap in their domai= n of interest: the human person, both individually and in the collective.

It is my habit however to always consider the counter-hypothesis (of whic= h Roger Satterlee is a most able proponent; especially of the notion - which I ve= nture Cynthia would support - that the scientific paradigm is entirely *inappro= priate* to astrology). It would not surprise me if the linkage I seek is not the= re. The work will have been worthwhile all the same.

> Considerations of the subjectivity/objectivity of time,
> and the experience of natural planetary rhythmns, must be addressed (th= ese
> took several pretty concise chapters in my book). The `effect' also
> requires the personal/collective polarity to be given in-depth
> consideration, particularly as regards such concepts as meaning, knowle= dge,
> reality, context, nature, society (etc...) are concerned. I'm intereste= d to
> see you elaborate your advocacy of the Cornelius perspective, or, if it= is
> more to the point, your own. I have some sympathy with it, since I
> routinely check the astroclock to assess the meaning of personally
> significant moments, regardless of whether they take the form of `event= s'.

Where might I obtain a copy of your book? It sounds well worth reading, = judging from your contributions here. Since you mention subjectivity, objectivit= y, and our "experience" of planetary rhythms, I'm wondering if we might overlap substantially in our ideas of planets and time too, as these are key conc= epts in a thought experiment I developed in the 1980s and recently expressed here.

Yes, your mention of personally significant moments is what I meant by pr= ivate events above. My earliest experience of it was when I completed the writ= ing of my first astrology course for a class I was already running. Seeking to = give an example of a chart, I glanced at my watch and noted the time. The ensuin= g chart happened to have Uranus exactly on the MC (the degree was Scorpio 18). S= everal other astrologically relevant events occurred to me in the year or two following, all showing much the same pattern. (Note that none of these e= vents entailed my dropping atomic bombs!). Now, I don't say that "proves" anyt= hing - these are unsystematic observations and would need to be repeated in the = same way as the EU discussion above, but they *are* suggestive in the same way= as your notes regarding the Hiroshima bomb and so on. I attempt to put this= into a statistically testable form later.

Rather than regard this as an instance of synchronicity, and explore no f= urther, the notion I have in mind is that it is evidence that we are *continually= * aware of the planetary positions, and that we *time* our actions in accordance = with them. This is not so much a proposition of being compelled to act in thi= s way: but of "scheduling" our activities and decisions along these lines. In e= ffect, the future affects us (often far in advance) through the presence of thes= e clocks just as the past does through learning and experience. These are,= I think, ideas which are compatible with the more general thesis that Dale = and I have discussed, and which Dale has developed to a greater degree than I h= ave.

> My objection is to the delusional effect that results when an astrologe= r's
> personal reality is promoted as collective wisdom, the polluting effect= of
> the consequent disinformation in the universal mind, and the derailing = of
> naive students from their path of learning when they get sucked in by a= n
> erudite advocate of personal fantasies.

Hmm, I broadly agree, whilst being less sure than you *seem* to be about = what is the universal mind. Perhaps I am one of these erudite advocates ;-). At= any rate, I say a little more about *that* below.

I suppose however that you are speaking of the collective wisdom that ari= ses from some such pursuit as the enterprise of science. With that I mostly = agree (having advocated disciplined methods and principles of theory building h= ere recently), yet still with a cautious glance in Roger's and Cynthia's dire= ction.

> In the same digest Bill Tallman wrote "Synchronicity is a rather ambigu= ous
> term to use to name a means of connectivity. It simply refers to effec= ts
> that are contemporary. The assumption that events that are contemporar= y
> must also be linked in some way begs the question of how they are linke= d, I
> think. Perhaps a better way of saying it might be "common temporal
> embedment", implying that there is a common source, or other type of li= nk.
> In general, I suggest that there is far too much use of vague and
> meaningless terminology attending the discussion of the nature of
> astrology." Again a call for definition of terms. Well, I'd just comm= ent
> that most people have a common understanding of synchronicity these day= s in
> my personal experience.... I personally use it to refer to any
> noteworthy coincidence in time, and I do this due to an ongoing percept= ion
> that this is the most popular usage. The pragmatist, when in Rome, spe= aks
> the local lingo in order to be understood.

I think you wriggled out of that one a bit slyly Dennis ;-). "Most peopl= e", "popular usage", and what happens in Rome have little to do with what we'= re trying to achieve here, I humbly submit! I feel inclined to repeat Bill'= s point; but also, and perhaps this was the essence of your reply, there co= mes a time when definition must stop and work begin. So then, let us *define* = what we mean by "noteworthy coincidence" in a *particular* context, and then get = on with the theory building and testing!

> I agree. I have gotten a feeling like pushing the river when interpret= ing a
> chart, later found to be wrong, to a client. The last point is a bit h= arsh,
> perhaps. Incompetent astrologers vastly outnumber the rest of us, and
> against my natural inclinations I have decided that tolerance must prev= ail.
> Sure they project like crazy and indulge themselves in the most outrage= ous
> fictions, but so do most of the lecturers on the astroconference circui= t.
> To err is human.

Heh heh. I have had the same feeling, but I shall not so deftly distingu= ish myself or "us" from the ranks of the incompetent! It seems to me implici= t in the nature of the birthchart that we must *all* project: that we can onl= y discern 'reality' through the particular lens of our birthchart pattern -= that is, supposing that astrology really has the major impact on our cognition= that astrologers seem to suppose. I have said before and I say again, astrolo= gy only describes *part* of the person. If there *is* an independent reality (un= iversal mind, whatever), and we *are* able to perceive it or agree about at least= *some* features of it, then this is evidence that we *are* at least partially independent of our charts (that in this respect of apprehending a common = reality we are *not* different), and that therefore birth charts are partial descriptions. Well, so maybe some project less than others after all!

> Good feedback. It would be worth knowing if your last point here has
> substantial backing, Bill. Biological body clocks cue development acco= rding
> to (genetic?) program, and any brain's function operates in this overal= l
> context. The extent to which an animal brain is required to "recognize
> process" therefore seems immaterial. That said, if you watch a lizard
> perform split-second action timing to catch prey you might deduce its b= rain
> was able to calculate and compare time intervals.

There is much here for future discussion, and hopefully Dale will jump ba= ck in.

> Bill comments "it would be interesting if unity and duality did encompa= ss
> all of reality." Encompass? What strikes me is the surprising extent = that
> the universe is apparently structured by the two most primal number
> archetypes. But three and four cannot be neglected from this perceptio= n
> without losing our human basis in reality. Rudhyar deserves credit for
> transcending Jung in this particular area by 1936, then progress stalle= d.

Although a number foundation to the structure of the universe appears to = be a commonplace of astrological and occult thinking (and once, ideas of inter= actions between different numbers of players from one up to 12 informed my own id= eas about aspects), I am afraid the significance of "primal number" now only = strikes me as a projection upon the universe of our limited ability to count. Th= e fundamental dimensionless quantities in Physics seem more promising. Wou= ld you care to elaborate some time?

> I see gravity as being more relevant, and the quantum realm only
> relevant as regards potential, but I agree with your general thrust her= e and
> hope to take these issues further in future correspondence here.

Whereas I once favoured a *new* force, or some other mechanism altogether= which has more to do with the simple but under-rated fact we can *see* the plan= ets (to Saturn), and that the passage of both the seasons and the day was once inextricably linked to our survival. A good deal of this (physical mecha= nisms) has already been discussed - not perhaps in the depth which you may bring= to it Dennis - but it might be worth looking back through the recent archives i= f they are up to date, and proceeding from there.

Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 23:02:41 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
To: exegesis
Subject: Primal number archetypes

=93After C.G. Jung had completed his work on synchronicity in =93Synchron= icity: An Acausal Connecting Principle=94, he hazarded the conjecture, already briefly suggested in his paper, that it might be possible to take a furth= er step into the realization of the unity of psyche and matter through resea= rch into the archetypes of the natural numbers. He even began to note down s= ome of the mathematical characteristics of the first five integers on a slip = of paper. But, about two years before his death, he handed this slip to me with the words: =93I am too old to be able to write this now, so I hand = it over to you.=94 =85after Jung=92s death the problem allowed me no rest=85= This work has thus come into being over a period of more than six years=85=94

> From the preface, =93Number and Time: Reflections Leading Towards a Unification of Psychology and Physics=94, Marie-Louise von Franz, 1970.

=93The great problem posed by the application of natural numbers to the understanding of synchronistic phenomena is, as already mentioned, the fa= ct that a qualitative aspect rarely taken into account in modern Western num= ber theory, must be attributed to them.=94 (p59) =93This element has certai= nly been recognized time and again, but no one knows what to make of it. Hen= ri Poincare, for instance, says: =93Every whole [natural] number is detache= d from the others, it possesses its own individuality, so to speak; each o= ne of them forms a kind of exception, for which reason also general theorems= of number theory are but seldom forthcoming.=94 * Nevertheless, this individ= ual aspect of number appears to contain the mysterious factor that enables it= to organize psyche and matter jointly. [*Translated from Science et Methode (Paris, 1927), p36. Herman Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (Princeton, NJ, 1949), pp 7f, likewise says: Within the domain o= f natural numbers, 1 is an individual, for it is the only such number which does not follow upon any other. Indeed, all natural numbers are individuals. The mystery that clings to numbers, the magic of numbers, m= ay spring from this very fact, that the intellect, in the form of the number series, creates an infinite manifold of well-distinguished individuals.=94 (p60)

=93Whereas most mathematical assumptions deal with pure acts of conscious= ness, with mathematicians doing their utmost to imply nothing beyond their formulated assumptions, in the case of natural numbers and sets of object= s found in nature we are dealing more with a priori facts of nature, which = are not created by human consciousness. This fact applies whenever it is a question of the numerical structure of matter, or of `natural=92 numbers perceived in the preconscious sense of the unconscious. Such numbers wer= e `discovered=92; they are not arbitrarily posited by our consciousness. = They therefore possess a `content=92 which can only be subsequently derived. = In other words, they behave in the realm of the psyche like all other symbol= s produced by the unconscious. In this sense the natural number is an `encountered=92 natural phenomenon.=94 (p72)

=93As Jung points out, the lowest collective level of our psyche is simpl= y nature, =93Nature, which includes everything, thus also the unknown, incl= usive of matter.=94* In it the preconscious aspect of the object is to be foun= d, as it were, on the `animal=92 or instinctual level of the psyche. It is onl= y with the activation of this level that synchronistic events appear to be constellated. In so far as similar structures manifest themselves throug= h synchronistic phenomena both in the unconscious psyche and in matter, the unity of existence (already conjectured by the ancient alchemists) which underlies the duality of psyche and matter becomes more comprehensible to us. Jung applied the term unus mundus to this aspect of the unity of existence.=94 (p7/8) {somatic processes, archetypes in nature} [*Jung,= Ein Brief zur Frage der Synchronizitat, pp4f, 1961]

=93Jung used the expression unus mundus to designate the transcendental unitary reality underlying the dualism of psyche and matter. The idea of such a unity behind all existence is itself based on an archetypal foundation. The expression unus mundus originated in medieval natural philosophy, where it denoted the timeless, preexistent, cosmic plan or antecedent world model, potential in God=92s mind, according to which he realized actual creation.=94 (p171)

=93The Sapentia Dei or Sophia is a kind of primal unity, a uni-form image which reproduces herself, yielding a multitude of primal forms, which abi= de simultaneously in the unity=85 Since god created the world (vide Wisdom o= f Solomon 11:21) =93in conformity with mass, number, and weight=94, the Sap= ienta Dei, or archetypus mundus was also equated by many theologians with a mathematical ordering of nature=85 According to Paracelsus=92 pupil, Gerh= ard Dorn, the highest grade of the alchemical coniunctio consisted in the uni= on of the total man with the unus mundus. The medieval philosophers merely ascribed potential reality to this one world (i.e. as a nothingness lying= on the far side of being and non-being); Jung also stresses the fact that h= e views the unitary reality underlying synchronistic phenomena as a `potential=92 reality =93in so far as all those conditions which determin= e the form of empirical phenomena are inherent in it=94. The phenomena of synchronicity, however, represent sporadic actualizations of this unitary world.* In contradistinction to the medieval speculations, synchronistic phenomena provide us, as Jung emphasizes, with empirical evidence of the existence of such a unus mundus. According to Jung, the symbolic structu= re of the mandala forms our psychic equivalent of the unus mundus. At the s= ame time, it represents an attempt to describe the archetype of the Self as t= he regulating center of archetypal and numerical fields. The rhythmical configurations of the number four play an especially outstanding role in = the mandala.=94 [*Strictly speaking, the experience of synchronistic events = is not based on the coincidence of inner and outer events but, as Jung says, =93on the simultaneous occurrence of two different psychic states=94.] (p172/3/4)

=93One, as the first numeral, is unity. But it is also `The unity=92, th= e One, All-oneness, individuality and non-duality =96 not a numeral but a philosophical concept, an archetype and attribute of God, the monad.=94 [Jung, Memories, pp287f.] (p39)

=93I think you are correct in assuming that synchronicity, though in prac= tice a relatively rare phenomenon, is an all-pervading factor or principle in = the universe, i.e. in the unus mundus, where there is no incommensurability between so-called matter and so-called psyche. Here one gets into deep waters, at least I myself must confess that I am far from having sounded these abysmal depths. In this connection I have always come upon the enigma of the natural numb= er. I have a distinct feeling that number is a key to the mystery, since it i= s as much discovered as it is invented. It is quantity as well as meaning. For the latter I refer to the arithmetical qualities of the fundamental archetype of the so-called Self (monad, microcosm, etc.) and its historically and empirically well-documented variants of the Four, the 3+= 1 and the 4-1.=94 (Jung quoted p9/10: letter to S.I. Abrams 21 Oct 1957, = in Jung, Briefe, ed. A. Jaffe (Olten, 1973), III, 135.)

=93In the past, to predict the future one usually turned for assistance t= o some numerical procedure. Jung therefore conjectured that the archetypes= of natural numbers might be specially bound up with the unus mundus. For th= is reason, toward the end of his life he planned to investigate more closely the role of number in connection with the principle of synchronicity. Number, at all events (as his legacy of observation makes clear to us), should not be understood solely as a construction of consciousness, but a= lso as an archetype and thus as a constituent of nature, both without and within.=94 (p12/13)

The above quotes have been copied to Outlook in text-only format from my compilation in Word. All italics in the original von Franz text have therefore disappeared. Apparently this is the price we must pay in order= to communicate here. Readers who couldn't cope with all the interpolated characters that riddled my introductory piece "foundations/mechanism/archetypes", but would like helpful context to the above material, please email me and I'll send you a clean copy. Apparent= ly articles written in Word suffer such a fate when posted to the Exegesis list, due to a format incompatibility. Bill Tallman advises me that the problem can be circumvented via a text-only transfer.

The relevance of the above Jungian material was explained in that debut article of mine: the number archetypes structure space/time in obvious fundamental aspects, produce synchronicity, play a fundamental role in structuring natural forms, play an obscure yet discernible role in structuring human consciousness, and apparently structure natural time cycles. Of course, it is not enough for me to merely assert this; more explanation of how is required.