|Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #46
Exegesis Digest Tue, 08 Jun 1999
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:29:18 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: catching up
In Ex4/43 Dale Huckeby gives an account of the previous dialogue between he and I in response to my reference to it in Ex4/38. I salute whatever Dale has in Virgo; the account is nicely comprehensive and seems correct. I feel no need to check for any selective editing, since what concerns me are the substantive issues rather than the history. I do apologise for any wrong impressions that I may have been inadvertently responsible for creating. This situation is a good illustration of how subjective factors in the psyche influence memory, and I will need to come back to this point later when I reply to Bill Tallman on the issue of subjective/objective reality.
In retrospect, it seems that I interpreted Dale's response as a non-response. The point, to me, hinged on pattern recognition. The Hiroshima chart on its own correlated well with the impact and meaning of the event, thus appearing to validate astrology, particularly in respect of the precise Midheaven conjunction. Being scientifically-trained, I naturally wondered if it was an example of a general principle manifesting in the event. Normal science investigates such an hypothesis by examining the entire class of such events, to gauge the extent to which that principle appears to characterise the class. To take the extreme case, if all world-changing events had Uranus culminating exactly, it would be easy to formulate the appropriate hypothesis in precise terms, collect all the precise data for each event, and thus demonstrate the fully-reliable correlation. Dale has made this point in his own words.
Nature, and real-world observations, usually fail to provide the scientific researcher with such a perfect database. Statistics, as an intellectual discipline, then gets wheeled in to provide the results of the assessment with a plausible veneer of authenticity. Numbers are quoted to convey the extent to which a correlation can be assumed to exist. Through the fog of questionable data, a murky shape can be seen. Like in the X-Files, the truth is out there, and it can be detected via a pattern in the data. Numbers are used to measure the dimensions of the pattern and how sure the scientist can be that it is actually real.
So, if you get my drift, it all hinges on the point at which the observer decides that a pattern has been recognised. Too bad for the scientist, because that judgement is made subjectively.
Scientists use conventions to deal with this problem, and statistics is the main one, providing rules for interpretation. Just as in traditional astrology, these rules induce the true-believer / industrial-robot syndrome in the mind of the practitioner. Reality is defined for them according to conventional rules.
Now the extent to which any collective belief system, arising from such consensual practice, actually models reality accurately is limited both by the arbitrary/subjective data-categorising and pattern recognition judgements of the practitioner and the validity of the conventional rules of interpretation. These real-life limitations result in the practice of science providing a relatively objective view of reality: the truth is out there, but scientific assessments give you an approximation of it. You can never be sure how reliable such approximations are.
Circling back now to the point, I wondered how many world-changing events with Uranus exact on the MC would have to be provided before dispassionate observers would agree that a pattern was evident. I still haven't gotten a straight answer on this. I have appreciated the various responses and commentaries Dale has produced, and have enjoyed their quality, but our views on the subject matter have yet to converge. Perhaps I did indeed miss his point, but I continue to feel that he has likewise missed mine. He seems to believe that I am approaching the issue from an old-science perspective, but the concept of proof is effectively redundant in any area of fringe science. The best we can do is adopt a more comprehensive and sophisticated description of our collective reality on a consensual basis that provides us with relative objectivity, and that others can readily agree does actually model nature rather well.
Gee, and I managed to cover that subject without mentioning the word paradigm once! Bill will be pleased ;)
I ought to note that Dale & I use the word correlation differently. According to Chambers, we are both correct. Correlate is defined in terms of binary relation, whereas correlation is defined in terms of multiple phenomena. Our use is the territory of synchronicity. Usually we note the coincidence of two things. Event, and planetary configuration. Event, and psychological state. Duality; the effect of the operation of the number 2 archetype in your mind. However a more sophisticated view can be formed by using the number 3, correlating event with horoscope and psychological state simultaneously. [This too raises the question of whether a synchronicity can have more than 3 domains of effect. I would welcome demonstration of such, if anyone in this group can provide it.]
So if we want to make a scientific appraisal of phenomena, we must first agree on the characteristics that categorise the phenomena, so we classify events by correlating common phenomenal features. One set of correlations creates a class of world-changing events, another creates a sub-category of those with Uranus exactly culminating (which is itself a correlation). I have only found 3 of the latter, but since we have yet to identify the former we remain merely as speculators discussing a possible scientific appraisal. Then, as Dale rightly points out, we need a rationale to distinguish the two classes of phenomena. Why do some world-changing events have Uranus exactly culminating, and not others?
This is just a particular example of a more general question. I have spent half a Saturn cycle specialising in event charts and political astrology, and have found that events do not tend to readily fall into classes characterised by particular configurations. The inner sceptic expected to be able to draw the conclusion that astrology was bullshit, but remains bemused by the remarkable number of reliable correlations between theory and real life. The best it can do is to contrast these with all those cases that do not in fact demonstrate such remarkable correlations. Here, as elsewhere, we can credit that archetypal Arian, Dane Rudhyar, as being first to air the explanation. Events are unique in qualitative terms, and the horoscope gives us the picture of that unique quality in considerable detail. In those details lurks the devil. I suspect that the perceptual problem arises from the fact that events are produced by processes, and the timing reflects prior events, so the astrological archetypes are located in the circle in an `optimal fit in relation to the whole' scenario. The holistic context is not merely all the other planets, lights and axes in mutual correlation in that moment, but also all of them in mutual relation to all prior relevant beginnings. The prospects of dissecting such complexity must be minimal, and chaos theory seems relevant here.
> >. . . 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?"
Thus the creator, to the scientists. Reproducing now Dale's commentary:
"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?"
On point 1, I don't recall saying that it was. I said a sceptic might be impressed with such a precise correlation. On point 2, the royal "we" presumes common knowledge that I do not believe exists. I recall my point as being that astrologers were too lazy or incompetent to even go so far as to cite such remarkably precise correlations that appear to be effective demonstrations that astrology is not bullshit. If one of them can be shown to have done it before me during the last half-century (re Hiroshima), then I guess I'll be forced to apologise for over-stating my case. Point 3 looks like a straw man, Dale. I don't see any basis for assuming that many configurations would have made sense. I do agree with your alternative rationale re Pluto, and likewise Saturn, to the extent to which cultural traditions may provide a credible basis for such logic. To answer your question, I insist on Uranus/MC for those reasons I originally gave. Myths and name meanings carry considerable cultural weight, are vehicles for a substantial body of consensual meanings over vast time periods, and to some extent are vehicles for both natural archetypes and also social archetypes that seem to operate in the collective unconscious.
"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
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."
Heh heh, going a wee bit over the top here, aren't we? Which paradigm do you believe is current??
Actually, though, to begin with I was generalising my point. Citing what seemed a productive line of investigation, I wondered why no such efforts were being made, on any similar line of enquiry either. Create a class of events, find the common astrological factors. Simple. But nobody does it. Why not?
So I gather that you are taking the time-honoured stance of scientists in regard to synchronicity in general, in respect to world-changing event with Uranus exactly culminating in particular, dismissing the correlations as `just a coincidence'?
And, in regard to that final point of yours, I do not insist "on a significant connection between Uranus/MC and world-changing events". I believe there is sufficient basis to postulate such a connection. As to why such event do not happen in the diurnal cycle on cue, I have addressed that earlier. Clearly the overall context determines whether they do or not.
"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."
I pretty much agree with all this. Symbolism does indeed lead most astrologers down the garden path most of the time. One need not lurk long in such ecosystems as alt.astrology.moderated to discover how out-to-lunch most participants are.
In Ex4/41 Bill Tallman wrote "Could you explain holomovement, with special reference to the manner in which it elucidates the astrological mechanism?" I have actually done so, in my book, but it required several chapters. Would it help to consider that it seems to equate to the Tao? "Perhaps you could share with us an outline of your view of how the co-ordinating effect of archetypal numbers in nature provides that mechanism of linkage." Same answer. I can scan in the 1990 core thesis article sent to Correlation, finally published in Considerations in '92, where diagrams illustrate the key points. This presumes that the website facility Bill has developed will have the capacity for such volume, and that the scanner software will transfer the diagrams in a readable format.
I appreciated your commentary on my following paragraphs and sentiments on metaphysics, etc., Bill: "Now, of what relevance has all this to our discussion of astrology? Just this: we don't have in our times any accessible models of how to achieve a state of coherence with ourselves, our environment, our universe. And if we can't do that, then the probability that we can benefit from our sensibility of the astrological effect is greatly diminished, I think. So, I've provided a model, out of date in our time, but still recognized and knowable." OK, I likewise developed such a model, internally, and to a considerable degree elaborated it in my book. Where's yours? I've read your prior Exegesis contributions in the archive, so if you are referring to something there, can you give me specific directions so I can revisit it? Rudhyar's works contain a most elegant model, a skeleton of rational substance within the philosophical verbiage. Outside astrology Fritjof Capra has gone some way to this end, and perhaps others. The Green Man is very relevant here, a traditional social archetype that most astrologers have yet to discover. Perhaps it was the Pluto in Virgo transit that dredged it up from the depths.
> >Yes. Astrology is a belief system ripe for deconstruction, to use Cynthia's
> >terminology. I understand this to mean taking apart, but to enable
> >reconstruction, not destruction. When I learnt it, during the last
> >Jupiter/Saturn conjunction, I consciously saw astrology as a junk-heap
> >within which could be found gold nuggets that weren't apparent to sceptics.
> >I took only the nuggets, leaving rulerships and the other antiquated
> >artificial constructions where they belonged. I didn't realise at first
> >that most astrologers saw the subject as an operating
> >program with which they had to indoctrinate themselves.
Bill: "As far as I understand it, your view of deconstruction is correct. It obviously needs doing, but to then leave it scattered about and useless is destructive, actually. As far as selecting the "nuggets", I would be really interested to know how you went about doing this. I submit that this process does no one justice, least of all astrology, unless it is very well proven and understood, and is robust beyond the requirements of the task."
Not sure what you are getting at here, Bill. I was just conscious and explicit in doing exactly what most people seem to do in practice: take from the beliefs of others that which rings true, and apply in your own life that which seems to work. Naturally, like all other astrologers, this makes me subject to the "it works for me" syndrome. I can only plead that the inner sceptic uses residual scientific training and common sense in assessing how contrived, artificial and unreal each element of traditional astrology was. Since Rudhyar had already performed an extensive reconstruction, I simply used that as the ideal basis for improvement. Obviously he was too traditional, and he had made only an interim attempt to integrate the scientific perspective. Despite these inadequacies the guy was a genius and he made a monumental contribution.
"The state of modern astrology as an orphan without a language is our fault, and only we can fix it. I am tempted at times to offer the challenge: if you don't believe it really works, then don't use it!!!" Hopefully you can see from my explanation above that I did indeed, way back then, intuitively do as you here suggest. Obviously traditional astrology did not work, so I did not use it. Erecting my chart in '78 from instructions in the book "Teach Yourself Astrology", I then found that the author provided no interpretation. Well, there were minuscule paragraphs of meaningless garbage provided. When I complained to the first astrologer I met, I was referred to Stephen Arroyo's first book, but I never got around to it and it was the second one who put me on to Rudhyar and I found that a modern credible interpretive language had indeed been evolved. So I don't know why you believe modern astrology has no language. All the astrological literature that I have assimilated since falls into two categories for me: those that attempt to present astrology in 20th century terms, and those that report or recycle the writings of previous astrologers. There is some quality material in each category, but not much of substance. My bias on language is to reject jargon, which is normally used to bamboozle readers and/or create in-crowds. Multi-disciplinary terms are the only way to go, since the incoming century will find a global village of cross-pollinating cultures. Memes that are relatively universal will spread fastest.
Dale wrote: The 76 or 80 minute time lag for
> >Saturn, as an argument about apparent versus real positions, is a
> >non-starter. The idea apparently is that if I see Saturn rising it's
> >not really there, because what I'm seeing is where Saturn was about
> >76 minutes ago (using Andre's figures), when the light that I'm seeing
> >_as_ Saturn left on its journey to Earth. But in the meantime the
> >Earth has rotated about 20 degrees, so despite what I appear to see
> >Saturn is actually 20 degrees above the horizon.
> >Or is it? Here's a way to picture what happens. Draw circle A
> >near the top of a piece of paper, and let it be Saturn. Draw circle B
> >directly below it and let it be Earth. Draw a line connecting the
> >circles. Let it be the pathway of light leaving Saturn and arriving at
> >the Earth 76 minutes later. Now imagine B is rotating and that a
> >point on the right side, about 20 degrees from the top, will arrive at
> >the top just as the light from Saturn gets there. To the observer just
> >arrived at that position, Saturn will appear to be directly overhead,
> >whereas it's actually . . . directly overhead. The image just arriving
> >is in an almost direct line with the one just leaving Saturn. Almost
> >because in the meantime Saturn has moved about six seconds of arc, and
> >as far as I can see that's the _only_ difference between its apparent
> >and actual positions. The change in position vis a vis the horizon due
> >to the earth's rotation doesn't involve a timelag because the movement
> >that causes it occurs at the Earth's surface, not millions of miles
> >away. If that still seems counterintuitive, consider this. If Saturn
> >and the Moon can be seen conjoined on the horizon, is Saturn really
> >almost 20 degrees further from the Asc (or Dsc) than the Moon, or is
> >there a flaw in the logic that implies that it should be?
Bill responded: "I guess we'll all have to think this through, Dale. I think Dennis is right, however. The problem is deciding just what that means. What is at issue here is whether the part that a planet has in the astrological effect operates on a superluminal level. Andre suggest that gravity might be involved; is the effect of gravity superluminal?"
I had declared my support for Prof. Roberts on this issue. It isn't easy, being one of relativity. All motion is relative to a frame of reference when reported by human observers. People normally reference to an apparently static frame, and for astrologers this has always been primarily the horizon and secondarily the zodiac. In the above case, it is the motion of Saturn in the diurnal cycle relative to a static horizon that is being discussed. In the case of the Gauquelin peaks, they indicate observed positions of Saturn whereas the planet is nearly 20 degrees further ahead by then in actual location, which is not observable and therefore hypothetical. This seems to be an unusual instance of Dale rejecting the scientific view, and as a renegade from traditional science for a Saturn cycle I celebrate such dissidence!
Certainly we ought to beware scientific adventurism, as it has long been an escape from reality. If a flat earth to the horizon is universal to human experience, which it is, only a fool would allow ideology to prevent him/her from acknowledging the profound structural effect this generic experience has on our collective knowledge of the local cosmos! But I digress!
Seems to me Dale's argument above is a red herring, but contemplating it awhile leaves me wondering. No idea where 6" of arc comes from. "The image just arriving is in an almost direct line with the one just leaving Saturn." How do you know, Dale? On the face of it, this statement denies that Saturn appears to move diurnally as the result of earth's rotation. "If Saturn and the Moon can be seen conjoined on the horizon, is Saturn really almost 20 degrees further from the Asc (or Dsc) than the Moon, or is there a flaw in the logic that implies that it should be?" I see no flaw, and believe Saturn has indeed risen by almost 20 degrees, despite being seen conjunct the Moon on the horizon." In actual fact, of course, one can never see such a conjunction due to atmospheric haze.
In Ex4/42 Andre wrote: "Dale - yes, I think you are right. I tried to elucidate the meaning of those statements in my last post, but of course the gremlin got it and nibbled it into incomprehensibility. It was probably incomprehensible anyway ;-). The key point though was whether the postulated astrological 'mechanism' propagates instantaneously or at the speed or light, and Gauquelin's research *does* support the latter idea, or in other words just exactly what you wrote." Regrettably, Andre, all those numbers were indeed lost on me. Now, what??? The gist of Dale's piece seems to me precisely the opposite; that he believes the mechanism is superluminal. Roberts interpreted the Gauqelin peaks as proving apparent correlations, and I agree, thus the "real" planetary positions are not correlated. I am obliged to be the devil's advocate to say this, wearing the scientist's hat to get away with describing hypothetical positions as "real". Such are the metaphysical contortions required if you want to make sense of relativity!
Incidentally, just to contort a tad further at the risk of totally confusing everyone, I ought to mention that I suspect superluminal signalling is indeed involved, but at the level of the archetypes of nature as they emerge from the holomovement (not the planets).
Great to read such a substantial exposition on aspects of scientific philosophy from your perspective in that digest, Andre. No planets in Gemini here; I prefer communicating with people who stay on topic long enough to access the depths of issues, even the core essentials. Hopefully I'll bounce off a couple of those points you made next time. Now as for those latter few paragraphs addressed to me, let me say in summary that I broadly agree. It isn't too far from my own view of how the effect happens.
"After a few years of doing astrology, I became interested in a naturalistic basis to planetary meaning. This differs slightly from the 'as above, so below' or the universe as an inter-connected whole idea, as I thought that the meanings we gave the planets might in fact reflect our psychological experience and interpretation of their appearance. (One could then build a constructionist and cultural explanation of astrological influence, rather than a causal one in the usual sense)." I include all of this in my world-view. If you consider any of these aspects mutually-exclusive, then I don't believe one needs to. I agree that much of the planetary, sign and even house meanings are cultural projections. I have always viewed these elements of traditional astrology as only slightly less suspect than the obviously contrived stuff like rulerships, exaltations, dignities, you name it...
"The most interesting implication - and this is one that Dale has explored and commented on much more extensively - is that it certainly does remove the idea of planets "causing" or "fating" our behaviour, at least in the way these terms are understood in 'ordinary' discourse." I certainly agree that this traditional description is wrong in the premise, and have made this point in this list in my own words. "To say that the planets *structure* our experience (perceptions, reactions, evaluations) and *hence indirectly* determine our actions and choices *is* causal, but it involves a much more indirect, complex, and subtle model of that causation that permits much greater variability and richness of behaviour." Well, I would simply replace "planets" with "planetary archetypes".
In the same digest Cynthia wrote "Dennis is reserving judgement until I admit that I'm a physicist manqu=E9!" Quelle horreur! Ce n'est ce pas ma faux pas. Excuse the rusty schoolboy French, but I think the honours for erudition here must be shared between yourself and the Metalog robot!
"I want to know how it works and W=HY it works!" Likewise, but have you figured out where those equals signs are coming from? In Ex4/43 you wrote "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!): >" Actually, Cynthia, I'm fairly sure I haven't quoted from it at all. If you are thinking of the Jung & von Franz quotes, they are now available in a legible form (unadulterated by the Metalog robot) at http://www.olypen.com/wtallman/Astrology/primalnumbers.htm courtesy of Bill Tallman's technical expertise.
During the last Mercury retro phase I did prep for participation in this list: I read the Exegesis archive, plus the book the quotes came from. I tried to get "The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche", but there are no copies available in this country. That book contained a half written by Jung and a half written by Nobel prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Jung's was his first piece on synchronicity and the archetypes in the psyche, later republished on its own. Pauli's was apparently a discussion of the archetypes of nature. Too bad it remains inaccessible. I have elsewhere obtained a commentary on Pauli and the archetypes (possibly on Pauli's half of that book) by Werner Heisenberg, likewise a Nobel prize-winning physicist. I recycled in my own book the sections of this that included direct quotes from Pauli. My book also has a substantial chapter entitled "Kepler and the Archetypes", full of quotes. It is significant that the person who first discovered the laws of planetary motion was a professional astrologer and wrote about the archetypes of nature. Despite my sporadic efforts, resistance to a pan-disciplinary perspective on the archetypes remains congenital in the astrocommunity. They are even ignoring Rupert Sheldrake's prior efforts along the same lines, even though his status as a pioneer of the new paradigm could be helpful in easing the path to rehabilitation for astrologers. Of course, they do not merely resist natural archetypes, but anything remotely resembling progress. I suspect that the lunatic fringe actually functions as a refuge for many astrologers, enabling them to indulge their fantasies without the limitations of accountability that respectability would require.
I think I followed your recent contributions, Cynthia, though with some difficulty. Your student absorbs the 2nd language via tacit recognition and acceptance of contextual substructure, and this is indeed analogous to learning the language of astrology. Most people therefore can't be bothered with the whys and wherefores. The result, as I have complained, is a population in the astrocommunity operating like industrial robots, performing in ritual accordance with the instructions of their operating program. Not troubled by, and reluctant to accept, the possibility that the program is flawed. Captivated by the magic, they believe that if they chant the mantra with sufficient conviction reality will proceed to conform to their desires. Computer charts have replaced pentagrams, but they perform the same function as that prior device. Humanistic astrology meets market forces, two decades downstream. The former presumed users with a will to self-improvement, the latter presumes users with a will to self-gratification, but they share the strategy of users with starry-eyed expectations of results from incantations. You can be what you want to be via the power of positive thinking. Don't worry, if you fail your colleagues will do their best to pretend it hasn't happened, lest it endanger the viability of their chosen belief system.
Cynthia recycled this from Liz Greene, as will I: "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 reflection of some profound change, not only in the attitudes of astrology...but also in the manner in which fate enacts itself." [p. 151, "The Astrology of Fate", Weiser edition] This is indeed a substantial point. Not only does the interpretive language evolve with culture and passing time, so do the typical ways that the archetypes manifest. I have the '85 Unwin/Mandala paperback version of that tragically flawed thesis. Victim of her insularity, out of her depth. Worth reading nonetheless, I thought. Lest you get the wrong idea, she was one of my favourite sources prior to that. As regards Firmicus Maternus, what a marvellous entertainer! I have photocopies to hand, and have often anticipated a lengthy compilation under some such title as "Horoscope Significators of Violent Death". Whet your appetite?
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." ... George Bernard Shaw
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 46
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.