Exegesis V4 Issue #43

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #43

From: "Cynthia D'Errico Clostre"
Subject: The Ludic Enterprise vs The Tower of Babel

From: "Cynthia D'Errico Clostre"
Subject: A Quick Tour of the Tower of Babel

From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: Hiroshima, Uranus/MC & Symbolism

Exegesis Digest Thu, 03 Jun 1999

Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 01:58:16 -0400
From: "Cynthia D'Errico Clostre"
To: exegesis
Subject: The Ludic Enterprise vs The Tower of Babel

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3010960696_3324401_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi Everyone, I am rather late responding to the fulsome commentary made on my penultimate post by Dennis and Bill, but I'll address as much as I can without lapsing into mere reaction. Both of you wrote much that explained to me your respective points of departure, so to speak, and I realized that I don't disagree with much of anything that was stated. I also learned a great deal which required serious re-arrangement of my mental furniture. But I also learned a lot about whale blubber when I read the encyclopaedic "Moby Dick"! < grin > I don't think I would want to be capable of encumbering my beloved Astrology with such voluminous data culled from so many other disciplines as I see done here on this list. It's all so interesting in its own right, nonetheless. I particularly enjoy the quotations from your book, Dennis, which I may not even need to purchase if you continue to quote and we both continue on this list! (Just a joke. Please don't stop quoting from it!): Bill wrote: < ...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." > I couldn't agree more, Bill. This is extremely upsetting to me, especially when in my own readings some insight creeps in that does not seem to reside in the chart until I consciously ferret it out. And, by God, I won't stop till I find it. Strange as it may seem, I refuse to accept that I cannot compartmentalize the ratiocinative (which I, and I believe you, argue is what is "connected to the tradition of astrology") from the "other", subjective elements that comprise my consciousness. Yet I fully appreciate that this is the trap set for the demystification of the anti-rational: its utter co-optation by either the scientism that abhors and fears it, or by that lay spiritualism which is so ready to ambush anything science cannot define and appropriate for and to itself. On the other hand, astrological practice is a discipline that is congenial to the intrusion of those "in-" words: insight and intuition, and, as in any other discipline, it is arguably what we mean when we say about an Astrology student, "she has a knack for reading a chart." (And it is often noticed well before the rookie has even learned those nasty rulerships which you mentioned, Dennis, you discarded and studiously avoid.) Similarly, we would say an exceptional carpenter has an inborn talent for working with wood. < Are you saying that a binary is by its very nature a subset of a larger set? > Well, no. There is no hierarchical base to quantify from, or should I say, towards. It is more like the screen on a computer, each window opened being a layer added onto another layer, technically speaking. Multitasking on a computer is close to what I'm trying to describe, for in multitasking, many operations are conducted at once, some related, some not, some to the same end as others, some with different ends, virtually simultaneously and equally valuable or covalent. In linguistics, this is polylogous discourse, multi-phonic, no one voice having privilege over another. (Dennis, if I am lapsing into astrobabble, stop reading now: ) When I quoted Kristeva: < Beyond the...inscribing gesture...is an affective force which...cannot be signified, for it cannot break through the threshold of signification and cannot find any sign...to designate it. > ..I was, obviously badly, using semiotics to describe Astrology's marginalised status, as well as those aspects of practice that are themselves marginalia and are a bad fit with the scientific paradigm. But, actually, I really liked what you wrote, Bill, even though it wasn't at all what I was trying to say; in fact, I wish I'd written what you wrote, though in another part of my argument, or perhaps as an eloquent addendum! < smile > You asked if I was trying to say 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?... > Dennis, if you're still reading this, I apologize if I offended you by accusing you of "ubiquitous oculocentrism", --that "outlandish thing", as you referred to it! < smile > You're quite right; I completely misunderstood your point about "moments of time accessible for study via the lens of the horoscope...." Please just attribute my comment to my ignorance of astrophysics/physics/primal number archetypes. I'm still digesting your comments in "Astrobabble"; they seem to be stuck in my small colon somewhere (I have a Virgo AS)! Also, I have yet to finish reading your response to Bill which contained some exceedingly cool points by both of you. (I sincerely don't think I am the one who needs to "dumb down" her contributions, Bill, by the way!) Well, I'll be approaching my point sometime soon, so I hope you can all be patient with me. I know there is nothing original here, but I do like to respond to people who take the time to comment on what I've posted. I will try to be less reactive next time. I am on the runway, I think, because I do wish next to mention astrology as a ludic enterprise,..yes, yet another foray into linguistics by way of explication. I did mention I was rusty, didn't I? I am very fervently working out what my point is, whittling away, trying to give it intelligible form and structure each time I read and write to Exegesis. It seems to require what French-speaking psychologists have called, "l'abaissement du niveau mentale,' a lowering of the mental threshold, as we seem to delve into such darkly profound areas of human sapientia, much of which is in the throes of transition. No birth without blood. (And ain't it just great!) See you next time, Cynthia

-- ..nothing more than mules dressed up in horse harness! (Mammy, in Gone With The Wind)

--MS_Mac_OE_3010960696_3324401_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

< HTML > < HEAD > < TITLE > The Ludic Enterprise vs The Tower of Babel < /TITLE > < /HEAD > < BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#FFFFFF" > Hi Everyone, I am rather late responding to the fulsome commenta= ry made on my penultimate post by Dennis and Bill, but I'll address as much = as I can without lapsing into mere reaction. Both of you wrote much th= at explained to me your respective points of departure, so to speak, and I r= ealized that I don't disagree with much of anything that was stated. I= also learned a great deal which required serious re-arrangement of my menta= l furniture. But I also learned a lot about whale blubber when I= read the encyclopaedic "Moby Dick"! <grin> I don't th= ink I would want to be capable of encumbering my beloved Astrology with such= voluminous data culled from so many other disciplines as I see done here on= this list. It's all so interesting in its own right, nonetheless. &nb= sp;I particularly enjoy the quotations from your book, Dennis, which I may n= ot even need to purchase if you continue to quote and we both continue on th= is list! (Just a joke. Please don't stop quoting from it!):> = Bill wrote: <...I submit that any real investigation of astrol= ogy has to recognize that tools can be used ritualistically without their ha= ving any real power in the process. One can go through all the motions= , and then when the consultation begins, disregard the horoscope as an astro= logical tool and do something not connected to the tradition of astrology.&q= uot;> I couldn't agree more, Bill. This is extremely upsetting to me, espec= ially when in my own readings some insight creeps in that does not seem to r= eside in the chart until I consciously ferret it out. And, by God, I w= on't stop till I find it. Strange as it may seem, I refuse to accept t= hat I cannot compartmentalize the ratiocinative (which I, and I believe you,= argue is what is "connected to the tradition of astrology") from = the "other", subjective elements that comprise my consciousness. &= nbsp;Yet I fully appreciate that this is the trap set for the demystificatio= n of the anti-rational: its utter co-optation by either the scientism that a= bhors and fears it, or by that lay spiritualism which is so ready to ambush = anything science cannot define and appropriate for and to itself. &nbs= p; On the other hand, astrological practice is a disci= pline that is congenial to the intrusion of those "in-" words: &nb= sp;insight and intuition, and, as in any other discipline, it is arguably wh= at we mean when we say about an Astrology student, "she has a knack for= reading a chart." (And it is often noticed well before the= rookie has even learned those nasty rulerships which you mentioned, Dennis,= you discarded and studiously avoid.) Similarly, we would say an excep= tional carpenter has an inborn talent for working with wood. <Are you saying that a binary is by its very natur= e a subset of a larger set?> Well, no. There is no hierarchical base to quantify from= , or should I say, towards. It is more like the screen on a computer, = each window opened being a layer added onto another layer, technically speak= ing. Multitasking on a computer is close to what I'm trying to describ= e, for in multitasking, many operations are conducted at once, some related,= some not, some to the same end as others, some with different ends, virtual= ly simultaneously and equally valuable or covalent. In linguistics, th= is is polylogous discourse, multi-phonic, no one voice having privilege over= another. (Dennis, if I am lapsing into astrobabble, stop readin= g now:>) When I quoted Kristeva: <Beyond the...inscribing gesture...is an affective= force which...cannot be signified, for it cannot break through the threshol= d of signification and cannot find any sign...to designate it.> ...I was, obviously badly, using semiotics to describe Astrology's m= arginalised status, as well as those aspects of practice that are themselves= marginalia and are a bad fit with the scientific paradigm. But, actua= lly, I really liked what you wrote, Bill, even though it wasn't at all what = I was trying to say; in fact, I wish I'd written what you wrote, though in a= nother part of my argument, or perhaps as an eloquent addendum! <smile>= ; You asked if I was trying to say that: <...between the construct that is astrology, the e= ffect that it has been developed to understand,and our experience of both th= e effect and the intellectual construct there is significance that has its o= wn independent existence?...> Dennis, if you're still reading this, I apologize if I offended you by accu= sing you of "ubiquitous oculocentrism", --that "outlandish th= ing", as you referred to it! <smile> You're quite right; I = completely misunderstood your point about "moments of time accessible f= or study via the lens of the horoscope...." Please just attribute= my comment to my ignorance of astrophysics/physics/primal number archetypes= I'm still digesting your comments in "Astrobabble"; they s= eem to be stuck in my small colon somewhere (I have a Virgo AS)! Also,= I have yet to finish reading your response to Bill which contained some exc= eedingly cool points by both of you. (I sincerely don't think I am the one w= ho needs to "dumb down" her contributions, Bill, by the way!) Well, I'll be approaching my point sometime soon, s= o I hope you can all be patient with me. I know there is nothing origi= nal here, but I do like to respond to people who take the time to comment on= what I've posted. I will try to be less reactive next time. I am on the runway, I think, because I do wis= h next to mention astrology as a ludic enterprise,..yes, yet another foray i= nto linguistics by way of explication. I did mention I was rusty, didn= 't I? I am very fervently working out what my point is, whittling away, tryi= ng to give it intelligible form and structure each time I read and write to = Exegesis. It seems to require what French-speaking psychologists have = called, "l'abaissement du niveau mentale,' a lowering of the mental thr= eshold, as we seem to delve into such darkly profound areas of human sapient= ia, much of which is in the throes of transition. No birth without blo= od. (And ain't it just great!) See you next time, Cynthia -- ..nothing more than mules dressed up in horse harness! (Mammy, in Gone Wit= h The Wind) < /BODY > < /HTML >

Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 16:56:54 -0400
From: "Cynthia D'Errico Clostre"
To: exegesis
Subject: A Quick Tour of the Tower of Babel

> THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--MS_Mac_OE_3011014614_745462_MIME_Part Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Everyone, I have a few minutes so I thought I'd share some more thoughts with you all. As a second-language teacher, I found that idiomatic and metonymic expressions were the most difficult to explain to students learning English= . For example: "the idea went over like a lead balloon" is an English expression which requires more than a knowledge of the language in order that its meaning be correctly processed. "The White House", or here in Canada, "24 Sussex Drive" are metonymic for the highest levels of government, and an expression like, "a bad hair day" is both idiomatic and metonymic. Without elaborating too much, let me say that a second-language speaker must be able to analyse, discard and accept several possible meanings and contexts for the first statement, while at the same time, understanding tha= t not a word of the expression is susceptible of change, editing, or variatio= n of any kind. He could not for example say, "the idea is over like a lead balloon", or even, "the idea went up like a lead balloon", and expect to be understood by the native English speaker acting as interlocutor. Even a change in syntax, i.e., "Like a lead balloon, the idea went over," would render the statement unrecognizable as an idiom. His ability to assimilate and later use this requires thought and other sentient processes that far exceed wherever the originary locus of language may be found to lie in the human brain. What prompts me to use this example from language teaching is something you wrote, Bill, recently: < "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 a process, because it involves change, which requires process to take effect." (ED. V4#38) > If I were to first describe what my perspicacious student has learned, scavenge a few insights from semiotics (the morphology of language practice= , i.e., the word as sign, ideological construct), and then apply it to the discourse of Astrology, what might I discover about Astrology and its mechanisms? Firstly, he, my student, encounters a meaningful phoneme/morpheme, and a particularly complex one. His knowledge of English is sufficiently advanced that he grasps its meaning and potential use in context. It is precisely because he grasps all this that he knows that he is immediately restricted, on at least two fronts: within the register of the syntax that is inviolable --constructed as it was in some unnamed perio= d of the history of the language--and also, by convention of use, or traditional usage, if you prefer. Do these architectonics, rife with restriction, tradition, and (astronomical) syntax, seem familiar to anyone? Or should I really stop drinking those tropical fruit juices? I like this parallel; I think that if I follow it through, it might be useful to our common enquiry. I think, further, that it speaks to somethin= g Dennis mentioned in #38: < "Seems to me increasing complexity of natural systems produces increasing degree of autonomy, and thus free-will." > which is only the apparent inverse of what Liz Greene (an erudite Jungian) wrote in, "The Astrology of Fate":
> "While the sun in square to Saturn might have meant violent death in
> Firmicus' time...it does not appear to manifest in such a manner
> today....This curious but highly significant shift is, I feel, a reflecti= on
> of some profound change, not only in the attitudes of astrology...but als= o
> in the manner in which fate enacts itself." (p. 151, Weiser edition) The second-language speaker can become an adept in his chosen second language only if he accepts the discourse which frames it, the register in which it operates, and only if he surrenders to the mechanisms which underlie it; and, these last, he need not identify nor understand in order to use the language. (We here on this list, however, are invited to identif= y and define those mechanisms.) With whatever else comes up, I would like to work through my semiotic parallel, using fate, free will--whatever they are--as the meta-subjective components, the physical universe, and hunt up that intervening mechanism o= r set of mechanisms which may indeed be, as Andr=E9 put it, < (the) hitherto unrecognised gap in the physics account which astrology fills. > #38 Warm Regards, Cynthia -- 'The wish is father to the thought.' (Elizabeth Bennett, in Pride and Prejudice)

--MS_Mac_OE_3011014614_745462_MIME_Part Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

< HTML > < HEAD > < TITLE > A Quick Tour of the Tower of Babel < /TITLE > < /HEAD > < BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#FFFFFF" > Hi Everyone, I have a few minutes so I thought I'd share some mo= re thoughts with you all. As a second-language teacher, I found that i= diomatic and metonymic expressions were the most difficult to explain to stu= dents learning English. For example: "the idea went over like a l= ead balloon" is an English expression which requires more than a knowle= dge of the language in order that its meaning be correctly processed. = "The White House", or here in Canada, "24 Sussex Drive" = are metonymic for the highest levels of government, and an expression like, = "a bad hair day" is both idiomatic and metonymic. Without elaborating too much, let me say that a sec= ond-language speaker must be able to analyse, discard and accept several pos= sible meanings and contexts for the first statement, while at the same time,= understanding that not a word of the expression is susceptible of change, e= diting, or variation of any kind. He could not for example say, "= the idea is over like a lead balloon", or even, "the idea went up = like a lead balloon", and expect to be understood by the native English= speaker acting as interlocutor. Even a change in syntax, i.e., "= Like a lead balloon, the idea went over," would render the statement un= recognizable as an idiom. His ability to assimilate and later use this= requires thought and other sentient processes that far exceed wherever the = originary locus of language may be found to lie in the human brain. What prompts me to use this example from language t= eaching is something you wrote, Bill, recently: <"The question is where does language arise i= n 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. &= nbsp;What does seem true is that the astrological effect affects us a proces= s, because it involves change, which requires process to take effect." = (ED. V4#38)> If I were to first describe what my perspicacious student has learne= d, scavenge a few insights from semiotics (the morphology of language practi= ce, i.e., the word as sign, ideological construct), and then apply it to the= discourse of Astrology, what might I discover about Astrology and its= mechanisms? Firstly, he, my student, encounters a meaningful phoneme/= morpheme, and a particularly complex one. His knowledge of English is = sufficiently advanced that he grasps its meaning and potential use in contex= t. It is precisely because he grasps all this that he knows that he is= immediately restricted, on at least two fronts: within the register o= f the syntax that is inviolable --constructed as it was in some unnamed peri= od of the history of the language--and also, by convention of use, or tradit= ional usage, if you prefer. Do these architectonics, rife with restriction, tra= dition, and (astronomical) syntax, seem familiar to anyone? Or should = I really stop drinking those tropical fruit juices? I like this parallel; I think that if I follow it through, it might be usef= ul to our common enquiry. I think, further, that it speaks to somethin= g Dennis mentioned in #38: <"Seems to me increasing complexity of natura= l systems produces increasing degree of autonomy, and thus free-will."&= gt; which is only the apparent inverse of what Liz Greene (an erudite Ju= ngian) wrote in, "The Astrology of Fate": > "While the sun in square to Saturn might ha= ve meant violent death in > Firmicus' time...it does not appear to manifest in such a manner > today....This curious but highly significant shift is, I feel, a refle= ction > of some profound change, not only in the attitudes of astrology...but = also > in the manner in which fate enacts itself." (p. 151, Weiser editi= on) The second-language speaker can become an adept in his chosen second= language only if he accepts the discourse which frames it, the register in = which it operates, and only if he surrenders to the mechanisms which underli= e it; and, these last, he need not identify nor understand in order to use t= he language. (We here on this list, however, are invited to identify and def= ine those mechanisms.) With whatever else comes up, I would like to work t= hrough my semiotic parallel, using fate, free will--whatever they are--as th= e meta-subjective components, the physical universe, and hunt up that interv= ening mechanism or set of mechanisms which may indeed be, as Andr=E9 put it, < = BR > <(the) hitherto unrecognised gap in the physics ac= count which astrology fills.> #38 Warm Regards, Cynthia -- 'The wish is father to the thought.' (Elizabeth Bennett, in Pride and Preju= dice) < /BODY > < /HTML >

Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 06:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
To: Exegesis
Subject: Hiroshima, Uranus/MC & Symbolism

In Exegesis 4/38 Dennis Frank says:
> 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. . . .

Huh? You got a response in mid-February and responded in turn. However, the issue is an important one, as it bears on the question of mechanism, so I'll recapitulate. Here's what you originally said in aam on 3 Jan:

> The scientific skeptic would test astrological theory by looking
> in the chart for something suggesting mass death delivered from above
> in a flash. To the Japanese, it must have seemed as if a foreign god
> had blasted them from the heavens. The Midheaven is the most elevated
> part of the chart, traditionally correlated with the powers that be
> in the social hierarchy, and sky-god Uranus delivers the lightning
> flash, so the fact that Uranus is exactly on the Midheaven in this
> chart might even impress the sceptic."

And your summary in Exegesis [4/34]:
> I commented that even a sceptic might be impressed at this, given
> the 0.3% probability of the exact correlation being due to chance.
> Dale responded to the effect that the sceptic would challenge me
> to produce another world-changing event with Uranus exactly on
> the Midheaven.

No mention of the 0.3% probability in your original post, nor did I challenge you to produce another event. Rather, I argued that your imaginary skeptic would be "impressed only if you could show that Uranus on the MC consistently coincides with 'the same thing' by some meaning of that term, and to do that you need more than one event." Since you misconstrued my point, when you submitted your WWI example and asked what it would take to change my mind I offered a more elaborate version of the same argument. In fact, my post contained _two_ responses, since you asked essentially the same question in two different parts of the post to which I was responding. For your edification, here's the relevant part of my post of 14 Feb:

> . . . Did you notice that I did provide the group with the other
> world-changing event with Uranus exact on the MC? If the answer is
> yes, and the correlations still don't seem significant to you, could
> you explain why?

Yes, I noticed, and no, the correlations aren't significant, in my opinion, because you haven't shown that any exist. Evidently we're using the term differently. To me if there is a correlation it means the correlated items have been shown to _regularly_ coincide with each other. You can't show that with one or two hand-picked examples. Your sense of correlation speaks more to the apparent aptness of your Uranus/MC-related description of the event, and to your sense of how unlikely it is that such an apt configuration could have coincided with it by chance alone. You even quantify the degree to which the correlation is impressive, as "1/360, 0.3% probability it was due to chance," thus implying that it was the _only_ apt configuration. After all, if many configurations were equally apt their individual rarity would be beside the point. . . .

But what if, say, Pluto instead of Uranus had been on the MC? Would that have been a problem? Wouldn't you have said something like, "To the Japanese, it must have seemed like a visitation from hell," or some such phrasing that would tie seamlessly into Pluto symbolism? Or what about Pluto on the Asc, Dsc, IC (!), or 8th house cusp? What about Saturn? Besides its connotations of death, you could have brought into play the idea of reaping what you sow, which ties in nicely to the sickle, don't you think? There are lots of things that can be made to fit, many of them apparently impressively so, and the words we _choose_ to use in referring to the event and the configuration is what makes them seem such a unique fit.

> If I were able to identify a third world-changing event with
> Uranus exactly on the Midheaven would you change your mind?
> I'm trying to understand why these remarkable correlations are
> not comprehensible to you.

You want to know what would change my mind? If you can define "world-changing event" such that others can use your definition and agree when they've seen one, and then show that everytime one of these events occurs Uranus is on the MC and everytime Uranus is on the MC one of these events occurs, you'll have made your case. Otherwise, you're basically saying that _sometimes_ when a world-changing event occurs Uranus happens to be on the MC, and _sometimes_ when Uranus is on the MC a world-changing event happens to occur. But the other side of this equation is that most world-changing events _don't_ coincide with Uranus on the MC, and most of the 365 times a year Uranus _is_ on the MC don't coincide with a major event.

> . . . Yes, the mystery is indeed why not simple, predictable
> correlations on a regular basis. All I can do is to play God for
> a moment and say, "Hey, what are you trying to do, insult my
> artistry? You really think I'd be satisfied with something
> that basic? None of your clockwork-universe toys for me, buddy.
> Hasn't happening on chaos theory got you any the wiser yet?"

But Dennis, you didn't respond to my argument. You side-stepped it by playing God, by invoking chaos theory without showing how it applies, and by expressing your distaste for "clockwork-universe toys". Since you haven't so far offered a substantive response, perhaps it would help if I asked some specific questions: 1) Given that you didn't predict and didn't demonstrate the in-principle predictability of the Hiroshima blast, how is your interpretation evidence for astrology? 2) Given your assertion [aam, 3 Jan] that "the reality check is to gauge the extent this picture does explain the collective significance of the event", what does your interpretation tell us that we didn't already know? 3) Given that many configurations would have made sense, why do you insist that it's significant that Uranus/MC also seems to make sense?

Continuing along in your present [4/38] post, you quote part of Andre's [4/35] discussion of how to determine whether or not a given meaning for Uranus conjunct MC (or any other configuration) is or is not valid, in which he says, albeit in much more detail and with mathematical formalisms, pretty much what I said in the paragraph in which I tell you what it would take to change my mind. You offer that it's "Pretty much what I suggested to Dale", but it's an odd suggestion to make if, as you seem to be saying in the rest of the paragraph, it's an approach that you don't think can work:

> 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.

The fact that nobody has tried probably means nobody is willing to do your work for you. Believe it or not, most people aren't that motivated to spend their time digging for evidence to support somebody else's claim. In my case it also means that I don't think there's anything there to find. I don't waste time looking for elephants with wings for the same reason that I don't waste time looking for the kinds of connections you believe in. I don't think they exist. (But I _can_ explain the kinds of connections _I_ believe exist.) Since world-changing events self-evidently don't recur regularly at 24-hour intervals at any given locality, never mind all of them, insisting on a significant connection between Uranus/MC and world-changing events is either stubbornness on your part or an inability to transcend the current paradigm.

All this is relevant to William's quest for a mechanism because symbolism enables us to "verify" things that aren't true, thus creating a spurious range of applications that astrologers assume a metatheory of astrology must account for. The bottom line is, if we can't demonstrate the existence of _regular_ correspondences between celestial and terrestrial factors we have no basis for prediction, and thus no way to differentiate sense from nonsense. Trying to explain facts that don't exist means looking for a mechanism that doesn't exist. Not only is it a futile endeavor, it obscures the possible existence of a real mechanism capable of explaining facts that actually do exist. (If you want to know what kinds of facts I think _do_ exist, see my response to Rog.) I think the blind spot induced by symbolism is partly the reason you failed to remember, and evidently to comprehend, some of my arguments, and why William has been unable to see, in a couple of Andre's and my responses, a proffered mechanism.