|Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #38
Exegesis Digest Wed, 19 May 1999
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 17:28:32 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: number archetypes
Andre wrote in Ex4/34: "as the French data in particular were only recorded to the nearest 15 minutes, there might be a systematic "late" bias in birthtimes. Although on average this would amount to 7.5 minutes (assuming times were always rounded down), it would close the gap somewhat."
Most people approximate times to the nearest hour or half or quarter, regardless of whether the event is a birth or not. It seems to be normal to note the time of birth somewhat after the fact, so a generic error biasing data in favour of later times as against correct times ought to be recognised. I always felt Gauqelin's main strategic mistake was not enough categories in the distribution. Not only is every 20 degrees too coarse, it isn't even in the ballpark from the point of view of anyone who is serious about discovering the real precision of the data peaks.
"However, if *instantaneous* rather than apparent positions are substituted, it seems the traditional expectation of the importance of angular planets is supported!"
I can't see how this can be true, or perhaps I don't understand the point.
"Dennis, as I recall Bell's theorem does not allow *signalling* or transmission of information anyway, which is surely what the astrological effect requires? 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 switched to psychology and philosophy to support my astrology work, so my recollection and understanding of physics is now very rusty)."
OK the short answer here is that superluminal signalling seems to be effectively proven at the subatomic level. Statements to this effect can be obtained from books written by physicists attempting to translate the findings into contemporary scientific philosophy. I have compiled some. However if I transport them into this forum they will be subjected to the garbling effect of the Metalog software, and others on the list will find the material inaccessible. Even in ungarbled form much of the raw material relevant to the aims of this list is difficult to comprehend and requires contemplation. I'd rather wait till the technical problem is solved.
The long answer is that experimental verification of Bell's theorem actually produced two possible interpretations of which superluminal signalling is that most favoured. No authority exists on this matter: we must survey the range of authoritative interpretations. "Unfortunately, Bell's theorem presents astrology with more new problems, rather than solving the old ones. Bell's theorem does tell us that everything is connected to everything else, instantaneously. It also show that this interaction is not weakened by distance, and it does not involve the sizes of the interacting parts. This means that all the one hundred thousand million stars which form the Milky Way, most of which we do not see, play just as important a part as the planets and stars which we do see. It also means that all the other galaxies in the universe also play a part, which is just as important... Bell's work does not help us to understand why only the objects close to us, and which we can see, should play a part in astrological prediction." Thus the gung-ho Percy, taking off into the wild blue yonder (p79/80, "Astrology: The Evidence of Science", Dr Percy Seymour, 1988). Unlike more authoritative sources, I have been able to inject this quote because it wasn't already compiled, thus I could type it straight into Outlook.
The alert reader will see immediately the profound extent of the operation of the number one archetype. Unity is universal, and all parts of all wholes are interconnected at the deepest level. Unlike Percy, I'm inclined to be cautious about the extent to which this coordination percolates up the physical and social holarchies. Seems to me increasing complexity of natural systems produces increasing degree of autonomy, and thus free-will.
Andre writes: "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 mechanism at all. One supposes that there has not yet been the happy coincidence of an astrologer who is also a physicist looking in just the right spot; or else there *is* no such spot. Another possibility is that there is a hitherto unrecognised gap in the physics account which astrology fills."
Well, my suggestion is that the number archetypes structure space-time. This is a metaphysical premise that transcends physics. It provides a more comprehensive theory of how nature operates. One proceeds to build the theory upon the premise by noting the way that the number archetypes manifest in the infrastructure of nature. The astrological mechanism derives from synchronicity, so it is necessary to explain how the number archetypes produce synchronicity. One only need consider the first two, essentially, or perhaps three if the human mind and astrological experience are to be included. In 1990 I sent a thesis paper achieving this to Correlation, the journal which purports the provide for progress in the astrology/science interface, but a professor on the editorial board sat on it for two years. It was published in another journal, Considerations, in 1992.
Later: "So which chart of WWI are you pointing to?"
The best response, of course! The chart of WWI in my files is for the declaration of war by Britain on Germany. This took effect at "midnight on 4 August" according to p270 of the book "Archduke of Sarajevo". I recently confirmed this data by reading Barbara Tuchman's "August 1914". Uranus exact on MC at London, synchronous with Dragon's head exact on the 11th placidus cusp, creating what I call a placidean (or mundane) paran. Sudden change in the geopolitical hierarchy, plus the future path to destiny lying along the group/state interface.
Acts of parliament and decrees of the British government take effect from midnight, but reporting often blurs this precise data with a 24 hour potential error. Normal convention these days is that midnight begins the day, but human behaviour tends to locate it at the end of the day. Ancillary reading of the details of relevant processes and source cross-checking ought to be mandatory for political astrologers. Things got a tad murky when compiling Tuchman's essential details, of which more if necessary.
Incidentally, I asked Dale if he would moderate his refusal to acknowledge the significance of these correlations if I produced a third world-changing event with Uranus exactly culminating, but have waited months for a response. It has to be said that viewing this issue through the lens of the redundant paradigm is probably a tactical error, but one cannot blame people for doing what they are used to doing.
Andre: "But let me hasten to add that I agree with your general approach, just not your particular example. We would want the following criteria met: (1) exactly timed verifiable events of public record; (2) a precise and unambiguous definition of what sort of events we consider will correlate with Uranus MC; a definition that any trained person (not necessarily an astrologer) could use, and which other trained person's would duplicate to a high degree of certainty (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"..
Pretty much what I suggested to Dale. In theory, a collection of accurately timed world-changing events could be made, but a scientific approach on the terms of the mechanistic paradigm presumes agreement as to which events can be put into that category. Thus we immediately are confronted with human nature, subjective perception, and personal differences of interpretation of the meaning of an event. If consensus can be demonstrated on the categorising of events, the old-fashioned approach can be implemented. The fact that nobody has tried, or is yet volunteering, is tacit acknowledgement that events are too unique to be thus readily categorised in practice. People seem to unconsciously sense that they are in the new paradigm, perhaps even those still wearing their old-science ideological blinkers.
Andre: "It is my habit however to always consider the counter-hypothesis.. that the scientific paradigm is entirely *inappropriate* to astrology)."
Have to agree. However I wonder if you have made a freudian slip. Which scientific paradigm?
"Rather than regard this as an instance of synchronicity, and explore no further, 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 this way: but of "scheduling" our activities and decisions along these lines. In effect, the future affects us (often far in advance) through the presence of these 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 have."
I cannot understand why someone would assume that deeming an event to be an instance of synchronicity requires no further exploration. And it seems obvious to me that the timing of actions has a basis in nature, and astrology has evolved in recognition of this. If something here escapes me, maybe elucidation is required.
Andre (re quality control in the astro community): "I broadly agree, whilst being less sure than you *seem* to be about what is the universal mind."
This subject indeed merits in-depth consideration. For now, suffice to say that in the late '60s, when I first heard Jim Morrison sing "I was doing time in the universal mind", I knew what he meant. The concept was already a long-standing element of culture.
"I think you wriggled out of that one a bit slyly Dennis ;-). "Most people", "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 comes a time when definition must stop and work begin. So then, let us *define* what we mean by "noteworthy coincidence" in a *particular* context"..
Well, I was not actually being evasive. The entire point of the significance of coincidence is that it is a profound common experience. Astrologers will get a better standing in the community if they do not migrate from the lunatic fringe to the ivory tower. Succinct definitions of terms must be grounded in common experience in order to be exportable, thus making it easy for people to access the belief system.
"I am afraid the significance of "primal number" now only strikes me as a projection upon the universe of our limited ability to count.. Would you care to elaborate some time?"
It requires use of the right brain to achieve cognition. Look in the mirror and contemplate why you have only one head, but two eyes. The division of the cosmos by the plane of the flat earth that we experience every day is also fundamental in structuring consciousness. Keep remembering that we were brainwashed by those who didn't want us to see such things. From the redundant Newtonian paradigm, we can at least learn that there are three space dimensions, so we can experience distance, and a fourth dimension gives us the experience of duration. Consider how natural time cycles have an archetypal generic structure provided by the number archetypes. Marvel that astrologers, despite being prone to delusions, actually figured this out in ancient times.
Thanks for your feedback, Andre.
regards to all,
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 19:40:29 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #37
> Hello Everyone,
> Andre wrote:
> "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 sounds like an authoritative scavenging from the realm of statistics,
> etc., that could really be useful, though similar data analysis which went
> underappreciated cost Gauquelin his life. I am so attracted to this way of
> analysing astrological data, however, that I conveniently forget how the
> cannibalising of other methodologies (some scientific, some sociological) to
> "prove" the workability of Astrology, more often than not, manages to
> suppress its inherent bimodality, and--dare I say it in this venue--its
> experiential symbolism. Yes, I freely admit, that, in the absence of a
> cohering base theory, I explain to myself what I do in mythic/symbolic
> terms. I resort to this because there is no language for or of astrology,
> except those terms that have percolated through modern culture, many of
> which are pillaged from psychology, itself now imbued with collective
> symbolist theory.
I have heard that Gauquelin's work was finally discovered to have been fudged, in part; that doesn't mean all of it was, I think. That he committed suicide is a matter about which at some point I'd like to investigate. The assumption seems to be that he was hounded to it, but I'm not convinced that's all there was to it.
The use of statistics is a robust scientific methodology when applied and interpreted correctly, but because of its power, it is so often abused and misused. There is, I think, a growing tendency in lay circles to regard statistics as a bogus business, the common opinion being that one can "prove" anything one wants to with "numbers". Just how one might define "lay circles" is problematic, because it just might include many who work in the sciences but are not schooled statistians. In any case, the use of statistics in the investigation of astrology has a rather foul smelling history, I think. This is very unfortunate, because I too regard statistics as a very relevant tool in this regard.
By bi-modality, do you refer to the two approaches I suggested in my last post?
I think you are not only justified but welcomed to bring up astrology's inherent experiential symbolism; at least you are so by me. A great deal has been said about this by many people, and it would really be useful to have a knowledgeable assessment of this. It is, as I've said, probably the most resource rich approach to understanding astrology.
> So, Astrology ends up displaced, at the end of the (pure)
> epistemological food chain, relying for self-explication on the terminology
> of other (acceptable) disciplines, like a mute for whom others must speak.
> Without its own language--and here I do not address its variegated
> tradition(s)--Astrology is the proverbial oak in a flowerpot; we're all
> trying to nurse an oak by continually feeding it flower food.
This is so true! Astrology does have a language, but it has been discarded as having no basis in fact (observable, demonstrable, or otherwise, etc.). In my view, the recovery of that language is of profound importance. Project Hindsight is dedicated to the restoration and definitive translation of all extant historical documents of, about, or relating to astrology. What will come of this is a very important concern, I think; we need to know how astrology was regarded and practiced before the age of scientific enlightenment, and we need to thoroughly investigate the information available there. If we do not, we not only choke the oak in the flowerpot, but we cut off its roots as well, I think.
That we deal with astrology using the terminology of (apparently) related disciplines reflects the ongoing attempt to investigate astrology using whatever tools seem appropriate. The problem begins when this investigation is deemed to be definitive of astrology before it is even well begun. This is an abdication of scholarship in the face of popular opinion, I think. The result of this is the constraint of succeeding work to advocacy "scholarship" which is all too prevalent, of course.
> Having its own language is important because the entry into language
> signals the entry into the social order. Without its proper language and
> language proper to it, Astrology remains estranged, marginalized, really on
> the outskirts, the syphlitic sibling that could never be king.
> The original language of Astrology must have been divination. But no,
> the original language of Astrology was Astronomy. No, wrong again: the
> original language was ontological storytelling, or an incipient religiosity
> that created a collective voice. No, that's not quite it, either. "Oh if
> only we had more information, we could know for sure what Astrology is".
> (i.e., "If only I knew more of Bill Shakespeare's bio, I'd be better able to
> analyse his works.") Well, that's just nostalgia, archaelogizing the roots
> of Astrology is fascinating, but we need to focus on the thing itself, as we
> have found it and the traditions which belong to it (rather than the
> traditions it piggybacks). First, I say, we must identify its language,
> razoring through the coterminously displacing lingos barnacled onto it.
> See ya all soon!
The original language of astrology *was* divinatory. The historical use of astrology was to discover what "the gods" had in store for whatever enterprise was of interest. But that refers only to astrology as we know it. Astrology is literally only the study of the stars. It wasn't until the rise of institutional science that astronomy was born, and it reflects the current idea that the celestial sphere has only its own objective existence, and no effect on our environment at all. Astrology as it was originally includes the creation and use of calendars, then in the form of architecture artifacts for the purpose of recording pertinant celestial positions, and at some point later, including the recorded data garnered from those observations.
One of the most primary concerns of humanity as it distinguished itself from the other primates was the need to be able to discern "What happens next." How that was conceptualized depended on who was asking the question. If it was the king, then the astrologer simply gave the indications as they were observed (and often lost his head if he was badly wrong...). If, however, it was the lay community, the conceptual format needed to be appropriate to the way things seemed in general. And that was quite different.
Remember that one of the most deeply defining forces in the rise of civilization was the concept that the gods spoke to the kings and priests, but not to the commoners. Kings, as opposed to war chiefs, were so by divine right as a result of the "descent of kingship" as a direct order from the gods. From this, came the notion that "there are some things that mankind was never meant to know", and a very significant part of that was always the reality of the gods themselves. For the lay people, myths (from whatever source) met the need to conprehend these matters.
> From these beginnings we get the basic cultural infrastructure that survives quite intact to the modern day. Institutions are assumed to be authoritative in matters not accessable to the common man, and of course, one of the most ancient of these is that which we now call religion. We are finally seeing these assumptions challenged by the lay community, and I think that it has not been before because the means to do so did not exist. Viva la Informatione!!! (Did I say that right?)
> Astrology is Astronomy with God factored back in. (Unknown)
Well, how about "the gods" instead. Yes, I know it was a cute tag... just being picky < grin >
> With all this inveighing against "fundamentalist astrologers", "erudite
> advocate(s) of personal fantasies," and "incompetent astrologers", I must
> speak! Granted, I too have met astrologers that I would have liked to have
> slapped around a bit, but let's all just take a pill. We're not really
> talking here about the common practice of astrology so much as what
> underlies the discipline itself, n'est-ce pas? (Here's my thing: I don't
> have a lot of time, so pardon me if my analyses jump around a lot.)
Astrological "fundies"... EAPFs... and the bottom 10% of the class... hmmm.... well, I think we all understand that these are general case phenomena, found in any discipline, and I will be good and not cite my favorite example < grin > . Your point is well made, though: it's very difficult, if not impossible, to establish any standards absent any structure from which they may be drawn, ie, the generally accepted academic base, which astrology does not possess. I do try to refrain from being judgmental for this very reason.
> After the extremely civilised demolition derby of my self-intro (which I
> enjoyed tremendously), I am compelled to point out that which, of all I have
> read so far, is the most fruitful starting-point towards an understanding of
> "...it hinges on the speed of light. In the diurnal cycle, Saturn has moved
> on considerably by the time its light gets here....In fact, it is the
> apparent position of the planets which matters, ie where they appear to be
> when the light from them reaches us." (Dennis, Digest #34: sorry, I lost
> all my email recently so am quoting from hard copies).
> Mind you, I think apparent motion has been covered in the unquestioned
> acceptance of retrogradation by practising astrologers.
Good point, I think. It is probably relevant to discover what the ancients thought about retrogradation. In any case, we can say the the *practical construct* of astrology observes retrogradation, but that does not address the astrological effect itself. Everything else being equal we can perhaps expect to find the retrogradation phenomena reflected in the mechanisms of the astrological effect.
> But Dennis' larger
> argument as presented here has significant merit in that it exemplifies a
> congenial equi-poise between a careful distillation of physics, its
> relationship with, and definition of, speed, light, and time--real,
> relative, and apparent--and, the best it has to offer to Astrology, which
> itself has a covalent relationship with these conditions and their disparate
Dennis is the first person I've met that didn't back away from the notion that physics should be able to address some aspect of astrology, ie the astrological effect as opposed to our experience thereof. As such, I am really interested in whatever contributions he may make here. By astrology having a covalent relationship, do you mean the the relationship between the astrological effect in its own right, and our experience of that effect?
> What is astonishing to me is that Dennis' semiosis (and that is not the
> same as "post-modern deconstructive theory") does not collapse into
> astronomy or mere nomenclature, for as he noted:
> "...the nature of reality (was) being too long ignored or marginalized in
> acadaemia, so it was necessary to (collate) multi-disciplinary consensus as
> well...(in order) to constellate the emerging paradigm."
I think he, as are many of us, is acutely aware of the relationship between astrology and astronomy. Astronomy is not the only science that is relevant to a study of astrology, I think; astrophysics is a discipline in its own right, and not a subset of astronomy, or so I suppose. If this is not so, Dennis can inform us. So, astronomical terminology is probably not all that science has to offer in this regard.
> It centres on the conditions under which "effects' may manifest at all.
Yes. Good point, I think. We may suppose, however, that those conditions are, for all practical purpose, treatable as a constant in some way.
> What has been troubling to me about the lack of theory underlying
> astrological practice (which I believe, by the way, leads to
> self-annihilation which therefore makes theorization and its valuable
> concomitant, self-authentication, urgent), is that one cannot, except
> artificially, distil the practice from the effect(s). It strikes me as both
> regressive and derivative to examine Astrology as the Idealists studied
> Sculpture, believing that a globulous mass of plaster contained within
> itself the ideal image discoverable only in the act of art-making itself.
Yes, in the discussions that resulted from the work done by Project Hindsight, there would be the occasional intrusion of quite irrelevant opinions that had no apparent basis in fact. It was rather quickly determined that the sort of knowledge from whence these opinions arose was properly called "revealed knowledge". I suppose somewhere, inevitably, there have been discussions about whether there is any connection or relationship between "artistic inspiration" and "devine inspiration (subset of which is "revealed knowledge, perhaps). Your point is eloquently made, although I thought it was more usual to suppose that the finished sculpture resided within a very expensive and fine piece of marble. < grin >
> This would be my humble definition, Dennis, of the menacing "fundamentalist
> astrologers" to whom you refer--and with no great show of tolerance, I might
> add. But I leave my dinosaur half out of this discussion.
> "...a regressive mystification...may yield nothing more than a new 'lingo',
> a code doomed to repetition and extinction." (Domna C. Stanton, "Language &
Your self-awareness does you credit, Cynthia. Many as academically enriched as are you are not nearly so aware.
> but I have clearly misled you and others here about Cornelius'
> view of Astrology; no one's fault but mine. So when you "certainly (must)
> point out that the class of moments of time accessible for study via the
> lens of the horoscope (are) those that unfold on the surface of this
> planet...(a fact which) immediately separates any possible astrological
> science from physics at the most fundamental level...." , it is equally
> certain that you are bound by that ubiquitous oculocentrism that
> dictates--what?--that if Guido Bonatus didn't have a telescope as powerful
> as ours today, his Astrology was hopelessly invalid?
Not at all. The solar system, until the discovery of Uranus, was accessable to the naked eye. The positions of the planets could be observed, and an astrologer who practiced would have those observations available, I must suppose. There is a large difference, though, between the ascertation of the general position of a planet, and the precise position most usually considered necessary in modern practice. What I have seen of older astrology does not require modern precision, but an astrologer did have to either have an ephemeris or some sort of data available; otherwise the erecting of an horoscope was not possible.
> Or that every
> time-bound moment is significant only because accessible--accessible for
> what, and by what means, and in what order of significance, and on which
> part of the planet?
Is it a particle or is it a wave? Do we witness the motion, or do we witness the position. Which is of primary concern? Antique astrological practice inspected both of these aspects, without collapsing one into the other! Oops, this is *macro*cosm, not *micro*cosm, sorry. < grin >
The cycles of the planets were used as fundamental means of gaining insight into the dynamics of a situation as it was a part of a process. For genethliacal, the process was a human life, of course. Relative positions at a given point in time spoke of things as they were/are at the moment. There seems to have been no fundamental difference between these as they were regarded then and as they are regarded now.
> Perhaps I've misunderstood your point here, not being an adept in
> physics and its presuppositions. But horary (whose roots precede
> genethliacal if you trace through to the Arabs and omen-reading, I think)
> stands as an anomaly to this way of thinking, does it not? Wm. Tallman
I agree that divinatory astrology preceeded the application to the individual.
> "(Cornelius') axiomatic question is why successful natal horoscope
> interpretations can be given from horoscopes erected on faulty data: the
> right reading from the wrong chart....An astrologer who (does this)...(may
> be doing something) perfectly valid...(but) it is not astrology."
> If he, the astrologer, yet works with and within the tools, traditions,
> and techniques of Astrology, what else is he doing? He has made "reference
> to the stars"; he has exhumed the bodies of tradition and given them chart
> form, charted their form. Okay, I'm being facile now but this is to me what
> is precisely problematic about my pitiable, disenfranchised Astrology: how
> does one separate the practice from the effect? Is that even the right
> dialectical praxis: practice and effect? Where did such a practice come
> from since it has no obvious base in theory? (Oh sure, empiricism, but
> isn't that where science originated?).
Your observations are both facile and useful. It seems to be, indeed, the assumption that if one is using the tools of astrological practice, then one is doing astrology. My point is that I disagree, and I submit that any real investigation of astrology has to recognize that tools can be used ritualistically without their having any real power in the process. One can go through all the motions, and then when the consultation begins, disregard the horoscope as an astrological tool and do something not connected to the tradition of astrology.
It can be argued that this is very unlikely, because anyone who can perform these rituals is sufficiently knowledgable about astrology to be influence by that knowledge at some level, regardless. It can even be argued that the practitioner is actually interpreting the astrological effect directly. I accept these arguments and have elsewhere expanded on them as legitimate usages, but they are *not* astrological in nature and do not constitute the basis for a proper practice of astrology.
Now, this assertion is most relevant to the present discussion, where we are seeking a way of investigating astrology itself. It is not our primary purpose here to legitimize this or that sort of "astrological" practice in the real world. What we are trying to do here is discover what it is that astrology is about; astrology is a *study*, it is an intellectual discipline that supports the ability to discern the significance of the celestial sphere as it relates to our environment and our lives. From that study, we presume to be able to make that discernment; indeed, we do so such that we can advertize our ability to do so on demand, that we offer it as a service on the open market.
If in fact all that is merely ritual and there is some other mechanism at work, then we should strive to determine that. It has been suggested that the celestial sphere is a sort of memnonic for the use of some psychic ability having nothing to do with the solar system, etc. Perhaps this is true, to some extent, or it is the entire truth, or maybe not true at all. It is a question that has been raised, and should be answered if possible.
> Perhaps my astrologer is the intersecting point of a third thing,
> neither astrology nor non-astrology. I promised myself I wouldn't delve
> into subject-object relations, but...I lied. And, I fear I must fall back
> on metalinguistics to make this point. In metalinguistics, there is always
> and ever a praxis that exists between two opposites (binaries) yet is
> beyond, about and around them. There is nothing at all mystical about it,
> by the way, and it has nothing to do with psychology or the psychobabble
> that attends much of modern astrology.
Did I just address this in the previous paragraph? Or are we talking about the objective existence of the effect versus our experience of that effect? Are you saying that a binary is by its very nature a subset of a larger set? Well, A opposes antiA, not null A. A is a subset in null A as is antiA. Is this a method of determining context?
> Temporally and spatially dislocated, this marginalized presence both
> precedes and follows the binaries it commands and intersects. For Julia
> Kristeva, poetry is the only true historical discourse, meaning the only
> true trans-temporal signifier:
> "poetry is a practice of the speaking subject, consequently implying a
> dialectic between limits, both signified and signifying, and the setting of
> a pre- and trans-logical rhythm solely within this limit....Poetic discourse
> measures rhythm against the meaning of language structure and is thus always
> eluded by meaning in the present while continually postponing it to an
> impossible time-to-come. Consequently, it is assuredly the most appropriate
> historical discourse..." (Kristeva, Desire in Language, my translation in parts)
> Beyond the phonic invocation or the inscribing gesture (the entry into
> language), she continues, is an affective force which...cannot be signified,
> for it cannot break through the threshold of signification and cannot find
> any sign (among the network of signifying distinctive marks ) to designate
> it. (p. 75, "response...sur Polylogue," my paraphrasing)
Is what you are saying here that between the construct that is astrology, the effect that it has been developed to understand, and our experience of both the effect and the intellectual construct there is significance that has its own independent existence? The essence of the whole is more than the sum of the parts? And that essence has certain properties that allow it to be portable from one culture to another, from one temporal frame to another?
Cynthia, I am not going to suggest that you dumb your contributions down, because in doing so one is never certain what may be lost. But you are going to get a lot of questions from me if the material keeps being as you are presenting it here. If that is a backhanded compliment, then please contemplate the compliment and not the backhand.... < grin >
> My point is, perhaps astrology is this third thing, existing above, beyond
> and beside its attributes, not mystical, not ineffable, merely
> not-yet-defined within the locus of our scientia.
> But perhaps my point is made more clearly by...:
> the "reptilian brain" which spake thusly:
> "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."
> and so, from the limbic brain:
> "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."
This is a quote from my post, I'm pretty sure.
I think you've put your finger on something here. I think I would guess that the experience of the astrological effect is nonconceptual, and so would not involve language. The question is where does language arise in the development of the brain. The data implies that it does so with the development of the cerebrum, but that is far from conclusive, I think. What does seem true is that the astrological effect affects us as a process, because it involves change, which requires process to take effect.
For the science end of this: No change takes place outside the temporal dimension, or in zero time. I think this was being regarded at one point as a candidate for a universal law, but how seriously I don't know.
I suspect that it is the limbic system that is affected by the astrological effect. But there is another aspect of this. Training takes place downward as information flows upward, so that a change in consciousness of the self or environment can propogate down to become a factor relevant to the r-complex.. most often in terms of fight or flight, I suspect. I have no idea what the r-complex does or can make of the astrological effect.
> (Gee, and I haven't even gotten to Andre's wonderful sociological
> analysis--which fascinated me, by the way!)
His turn next?
> A last word about horary. What is correct "temporally" about horary
> practice, which, after all, deserves a fair place in the annals of
> Astrology: absolutely nothing, at least by the standard of the
> temporal...which is exactly Cornelius' point about horary "not fitting the
> Ptolemaic paradigm predicated on accurate timing", and which brings me back
> to the privileging of the temporal and its concomitant argument of the time
> it takes a planet speeding along in its orbit to have an effect on
> pusillanimous moi.
Horary does not privelege the temporal. It priveleges the spacial. It's all about where the planets are at a given instance relative to the terrestrial frame of reference. You have pointed out an argument for apparent position versus real position in the matter of retrogradation. I haven't the foggiest notion how one could justify the efficacy of horary astrology when the temporal or cyclical construct is brought forward. My notion of how it could be justified in any way is only slightly less foggy, but the evidence rather convincingly suggests that horary does work. The question here is how, not why, I think.
> Okay, I'm outta here. I hope my tone has been taken as meant, which is
> to say, fun and engaging, and not at all offensive. I think Exegesis is a
> wonder; I love you all already, and I'm glad I found you.
Lest I start sounding like the official representative of Exegesis, let me just say that I personally am glad you came to hang out here. I hope everyone else does too!
I was just reviewing this post, because it seemed really long, and I find that I've not snipped any part of Cynthia's post. I guess it was entirely relevant to my responses. Interesting!
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 23:28:45 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: Exegesis strategy
In Ex4/36 Bill Tallman wrote: "My thought was that in Angular Houses, we would find the individual involved in the development of the qualities of a champion, in Succedent Houses we would find the process of maturing and assimilating those qualities, and in the Cadent Houses we would find the results: the winning of championships. The idea here is that the chart should not show that developmental process, but show that the ability to be a champion was already a part of the individual, such that the result (cadence) was the ability to win. Is this convoluted, or does this make sense?"
It is quite a reasonable line of logic indeed. However, the mystery to me lies in what distinguishes first-rate champions from 2nd-rate. They were all champions in his data pool, but the effect showed only for some. I would have thought a study of how the excelling planet was configured with the rest of the chart was the logical next step. Too much work for Gauqelin, understandably, but why did no astrologer access his database in order to do this? Did he jealously protect it? Or was the aversion to intellectual rigour sufficiently strong amongst astrologers to rule out any thought of learning how the astrological archetypes actually do work in the chart of champions?
"If it does not depend on a initial reading of the celestial sphere (erecting a horoscope), whatever else it may be, it is *not* astrology. Astrology is the study of the stars, not the psyche, not the nature of the moment, not the state of the world, etc. It might, and has, effectively addressed all those things and more, but it is *not* a study of any of them."
Let's widen that a little. The correspondence of social trends with the movement of the outer planets through the zodiac does not require horoscopes, but is part of mundane astrology. The stars represent the galactic field, of which the zodiac is the most concentrated cross-section, by virtue of modulations by the cycles of the solar system. But it is the relevance and relativity of these frames of reference to human experience that we study with reference to natural time cycles. The nature of the moment is the archetypal microcosm of the macrocosm I have just described. Astrologers use the lens (horoscope, moment,microcosm) to study the context (cosmos, environment, macrocosm).
"I've heard people describe the horoscope as a mandala upon which they psychically meditated, and were able to "read" for a client therefrom with little direct input from the tradition of astrology. The question here is: is this an astrological practice, or is it a psychic practice? The answer is probably: somewhere in between. I use this example because it describes fairly clearly the dilemma I perceive. The issue is very simple: if we don't get it from a study of the celestial sphere, for that is what astrology is, then we aren't practising astrology."
I agree with all this. Rudhyar's mandala approach followed Jung precisely, facilitating divination that allows the diviner to draw solely upon intuition or psychic ability. The downside of this practice is projection and fantasy, thus my personal bias to anchor interpretation upon keywords derived from the archetypes. This is also following Rudhyar, refining a more precise interpretive language. Because I have also followed him in developing the theoretical base of astrology, I hew towards those archetypes discernible in nature and look askance at Rudhyar's attempts to follow Jung in the use of those `social' archetypes that are not identifiable in nature. Even if the latter have a fair degree of currency and universality, they are secondary.
Bill wrote "the essential assumption of astrology as a construct is the that the effect it addresses has objective existence. Whatever else we do here, at least in this thread, until convincingly demonstrated otherwise, I suggest we retain this assumption."
Well, having produced a book that derives a comprehensive contemporary theory of astrology from the operation of the natural world, I am the last person to assume that astrology is merely a contagious fantasy. The fact that the ancients likewise derived it from empirical observation of their changing environment suggests that both subjective and objective components must be acknowledged. It would be ludicrous to deny or repress either. However it must be kept in mind that synchronicity (simultaneity) (coincidence) has always been the experiential basis for the belief system.
"The initial thrust of the thread was an investigation of astrology as an objective effect, and that will continue to have merit. The problem with this approach is that there doesn't appear to be a lot of useful or meaningful data available, or if there is we don't see how to use it."
Essentially a wild goose chase, in my opinion, unless the relativity of meaning is understood by participants. This requires a paradigm shift, but in the current transition phase participants will confuse each other until all have made the shift.
"The other approach appears to have much more data available; in fact, it seems to me that the data available from the subjective approach (our experience of the astrological effect), in the absence of any convincing data from the other (scientific) approach provides support for the conclusion that there *is* no objective existence of the astrological effect."
Meaning objectifies to a relative extent in human society. This is normally called the politics of consensus. We collaborate in the construction of social reality. Paradigms constellate, then set the brain in concrete, and we do as we believe we must. Those of us that jellify the concrete and reprogram have the option to use our right brain more consciously. We can cognite our personal reality in the wider context of our collective social reality. Applying this approach to list purposes, we can collaborate on identifying the more consensual elements of astrological philosophy, theory, and practice. I took this approach in 1987, leading a group of astrologers in what transpired as a 4-year group process, to identify the fundamental principles and hypotheses of astrology. The process of formal consensus was quite a discipline, along the lines of the wrangling described by James Michener in "The Source", but it eventually did prove effective and productive. The final document appears as a chapter in my book. But such relatively objective descriptions of collective reality may be just as delusional as personal reality unless they are based on nature. The best way to get your theory soundly anchored in nature is to use observation of natural processes as the empirical basis for conceptual construction. This is where astrologers have always gone wrong. They use tradition instead.
To close, I have no objection to the approach suggested by Bill, but suspect that it requires a degree of rigour that may prove too difficult. Establishment science itself is on the rocks, degenerating into technology and abandoning the search for wisdom. I get the feeling that lateral thinking is going to be more effective. The right brain seems to integrate understanding from elements that the left brain can't connect. If discussion dances all around a multi-disciplinary arena, we might get a better result for the group, even if the process does not seem logical at any particular stage. Group process seems to occur most readily in consciousness-raising mode. Transcending this mode in order to produce substantial outputs requires transformation into a team. Maybe we could look forward to this some way down the road. Consensual subscription to a group purpose is the essential first step, which fortunately we have already taken by electing to participate on the terms Francis has outlined for the list. Currently the focus is on strategy.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues here, despite current technical problems.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 38
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.