Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #47

From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: as above, so below

From: Candy Hillenbrand
Subject: The Problem of Astrology

Exegesis Digest Thu, 10 Jun 1999

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 06:22:27 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
To: Exegesis
Subject: as above, so below

In the newsgroup alt.astrology.moderated a couple of months ago the suggestion was made that `as above, so below' was new-age dogma, whereas I understood it was the traditional basic premise of astrology. It occurred to me later that I had probably addressed the issue in my 1992 book, "The Astrologer and the Paradigm Shift", and a check revealed that this was so.

I quoted Robert Powell on "the hermetic teaching of correspondences: `That which is above is like to that which is below, and that which is below is like to that which is above, to accomplish the miracles of the (one) thing.'" Powell cites this in his book "Hermetic Astrology" (Vol. 1, 1987), and gives his source as TABULA SMARAGDINA, 2 (trsl. R Steele & D Singer), "The Emerald Table of Hermes Trismegistus", Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 21, 1928.

I also included this paragraph from the 1962 AFA booklet "The Basic Principles of Astrology", in my possession: "The basic theory of astrology is that the movements of the sun, moon, and planets are correlated with events on earth... the astrologer, noting the correspondence between the heavens and the earth, states: "As above, so below". Johannes Kepler put it this way: "Nothing exists or happens in the visible heavens the significance of which is not extended further, by way of some occult principle, to the earth and the faculties of the natural things.""

Powell's bracketed interpolation, above, is profoundly significant: (one). Compare this quote I also recycled, from Rob Hand's article "Emergence of an Astrological Discipline": "As above, so below, because it is all essentially one thing."

Decades earlier Manly P Hall wrote the following in "The Philosophy of Astrology", which I also included: "Since man was viewed as a mirror of the cosmic order... Each human being was a microcosm - a miniature universe - reflecting the macrocosm, the universe as a whole."

This use of the mirror reflecting is the metaphor I assumed John Dee* had in mind when he wrote "natural powers flow out of things, both by means of light and without light, not to sight only but sometimes to other senses; and they take form particularly in our sensorial mind as if in a kind of mirror". (Propaedumata Aphoristica, xiv.)

Likewise I recycled this quote from Karen Hamaker-Zondag's "Astropsychology": "According to the ancient principle, `that which is above is as that which is below', and also according to the principle of synchronicity, man symbolically reflects the heavenly bodies in our solar system."

The point of these quotes was to document the extent of consensus. If astrologers in different cultures and different periods of history subscribe to the same metaphysical premise, we ought to be able to assume that the premise encapsulates a profound intuition of cosmic wisdom.

So I posted the above compilation and conclusion to a.a.m to correct the misapprehension. It is a measure of the calibre of the participants of that newsgroup that they proved incapable of producing even a single response. So the following material would have been completely lost on them and I couldn't be bothered following through...

The guts of the above compilation consists of the juxtaposition of typical manifestations of the two primary number archetypes, 1 & 2. This is evidenced by keywords in the quotes: (holism) one, universe, whole, cosmic order; (dualism) above/below, heaven/earth, correlated, correspondence, mirror, reflects, macrocosm/microcosm. The Tao (1) subdivides into yin/yang (2). The holomovement (1) produces synchronicity (2).

There is an ancient symbol that depicts this. It is a circle with a dot at its centre. Astrologers use it to represent the sun, scientists use it to represent the hydrogen atom. In China, it was the original symbol for heaven, except the dot was large in relation, presumably because it represented earth. However the later, but still traditional, common Chinese coins had a square hole instead, that did indeed represent the earth's four corners whilst the outer rim is known to represent heaven. These are still favourite devices for consulting the oracle, I Ching. In developing a more contemporary theory of holism, to modernise astrology, I used the original version as a generic symbol of all holistic relationships. The dot is the part, the circle is the whole. Exercise: use your right brain to spot the two primary number archetypes in that symbol. Hint: there are two singular items, and a binary relation connecting them. Synchronicity emerges from the holomovement in that binary relation.

Now Kepler calls the astrological mechanism "some occult principle" (above) that connects happenings in the heavens to the earth and the faculties of natural things, without explicitly mentioning the simultaneity of the relation in this particular quote. I have explained it in metaphysical terms, using the two most influential number archetypes. Anyone finding it difficult to cognite this explanation may find it helps to consider the following analogy: a pebble drops into a still pond, circles expand as waves from the point of impact. Any two wee boats equidistant from that point will bob simultaneously when the same wave reaches them. Synchronous effects, unitary origin...

* John Dee (1527-1608, England) Appointed Court Intelligencer (as the astrologer-royal was then known) by King Edward VI, Dee was required to provide the government suitable times for all public events. Although commonly known as Dr Dee, he was qualified only with a BA from Cambridge University. However when he subsequently lectured in Europe he gained such a reputation for brilliance that he was offered a professorship at the University of Paris, which he turned down, and was visited by Emperor Charles V. Dee wrote "One Hundred and Twenty Astrological Aphorisms". He was appointed Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral in 1595, and later Principal of Manchester University.

When Princess Elizabeth of England asked Dee to cast her chart, he also showed her that of her half-sister, Mary, saying she would die childless. Dee was later arrested and charged with threatening Queen Mary's life with magic, but was acquitted in 1555. He was appointed astrologer to Queen Elizabeth as soon as she acceded to the throne, commanded to elect the day for her coronation, and he chose 14 January 1559.

Dee signed his letters to the Queen with the code number 007, which writer Ian Fleming subsequently recycled for his famous secret agent James Bond. Later in life his reputation suffered from his deepening involvement with magic, but a bright moment came when he was living abroad and Elizabeth I urgently requested his advice by letter when informed that the Armada was sailing. After examining the astrological situation, Dee advised her to wait until it was inside the English Channel before attacking. The English captains followed this advice, so presumably the Queen had so commanded them, and the Armada was destroyed.

Sources: "Astrology: Its History and Influence in the Western World", Ellen McCaffery, 1942, p 279-81. "They Saw Tomorrow: Seers and Sorcerers from Delphi to Today", CN Gattey, 1977, p57.

Dennis Frank


Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 21:27:06 +0900
From: Candy Hillenbrand
To: Exegesis
Subject: The Problem of Astrology

Hello everyone,

I joined Exegesis a couple of weeks ago and have found the discussions here fascinating, if not totally overwhelming.

I've read so much that I would like to reply to, question, clarify, add to, in so many of your posts - Bill, Andre, Cynthia, Dale, Rog, Dennis - but have floundered when it came to starting. The depth and breadth of the material which you have all touched on is so profound, and quite startling in its implications.

I realise I have come in on the middle of your discussion and have no doubt missed much. I also confess to having skimmed some of the material. So apologies if I go over old stuff and/or display my ignorance. There is also much in some of your terminology and language that I have struggled to understand, so I feel a bit like a child here, still learning to read and write, groping to find my feet. Anyway, I would like to join in with some of my own general observations and in particular to reply to Bill's latest post.

It seems that you have all been discussing "what is astrology?" and "what is it that we do?" I understand Bill, that you have put forward the theory that there is an "astrological mechanism" and that the *key* to this in man/woman may lie in the limbic system of the brain? Is that right?

At this point, I think I should come out of the closet and confess right away to being a hardline new-paradigm seeker. Oh dear, I can see you puking now Bill. hehe. What do I mean by this? I don't really know. I've been studying and practising astrology for 17 years, grounded in Dane Rudhyar, and increasingly over the years, I have become more and more uncomfortable with what it is I see that we do and say about what we do. This discomfort has increased exponentially since joining cyber astro discussion groups, and encountering a sense of the general fatalistic astrological mindset or world view, which I believe is held by the vocal minority and presumably by extension, the silent majority. What I see truly *alarms* me, so much so that I frequently consider abandoning astrology altogether.

It is not just what I see of astrologers that alarms me; it is also the public perception of non-astrologers towards our so-called Divine science/art. And it is not that the latter perception is inaccurate. The public are not a mass of stupid flatland morons, contrary to the claims of some vociferous astrologers. They perceive the flaws in our persona, they sense the fearful fated deterministic paradigm which lies behind all we do. No wonder we are marginalised, ridiculed and associated with the lunatic witchcraft fringe.

I believe that it is the *determinism* and hence *fatalism* inherent in the prevailing astrological world view that is at the root of the 'problem'. I guess Bill, that this is where I have problems with the idea that there may be an astrological *mechanism*, presumably discoverable by scientific means, which somehow registers in the human brain. I must admit, however, that it was precisely this belief which first led me to study astrology. My youthful scepticism and agnosticism was first challenged by experiences in my early 20s of "feeling influenced" by the Moon. The primal female experience huh? < g >

I am really pleased that you have brought up the subject of fate and freewill in your post. As soon as I saw it, I jumped with glee, for I too believe that this issue lies at the root of the "problem of astrology". Your post helped me to clarify that it has been my own desire to come up with an astrological approach which embraces freedom, choice, will, and so forth, which has fuelled my quest for a non-deterministic paradigm or model of astrology.

As an aside, I am interested in both Andre's and Dale's suggestion that they are developing an idea which could embrace *both* a mechanism and *non-determinism*. Or have I got that wrong?

Anyway, onto Bill's post...

 > >When I made the suggestion about the investigation of astrology, I did not
 > >intend to suggest that a strict objective use of the tradition is the only
 > >appropriate methodology. I have, in fact, suggested elsewhere that the
 > >psychic use of the horoscope as a mandala may well be just as valid, but I
 > >here submit that it is so only when it is seen in the same context as we
 > >here view the whole of astrology.

Bill, I've seen you say this in a number of places and each time have wanted to jump in. I have to say that it is my understanding that Rudhyar's use of the term "mandala" in relation to the chart, was not to use it so much in a 'psychic' sense at all, but rather to see the chart as *akin* to a mandala, in that it symbolises our wholeness, just as a mandala does. In Jungian terms, as I understand it and I am no expert, the mandala is a symbol of the 'individuated' [read 'integrated', in theosophical terminology] self, just as the birthchart is a symbol of the [whole or actualized] self.

I too use this technique of seeing the chart as one's own personal mandala. I certainly do not use 'psychic' techniques with a chart. I am not psychic, and have no desire to be. Do you see what I mean? It's more a *way* of viewing the chart, an *attitude*, a *perspective*, than something one *does*. And from that attitude, one sees the chart as symbolic of the best or most fulfilled or most integrated that one can become. It shifts the focus from negative problems to positive potentials. Which is not to say that the former should be ignored either.

 > >Here again is an excellent example of different disciplines trying to come
 > >to some common agreement about the use of a methodology. This is a very
 > >real problem. Both Dennis and Dale have put substantial amounts of effort
 > >into an investigation of astrology, but they are both constrained by their
 > >backgrounds and experience in their disciplines, not to mention the
 > >inevitable inherent difference in individual point of view. Both of these
 > >gentlemen are intelligent and obviously quite capable, so what's the
 > >problem?

My feeling is that Dale and Dennis, from the limited amount I've seen, don't seem to be talking *directly* to each other. Perhaps through dialogue some clarification of differences and points of consensus can be found. Dialogue includes answering each other's questions and seeking clarification when one dooesn't understand the other, as well as stating one's own position. This necessitates that the one *wants* to listen to the other.

 > >Would Cynthia say the problem is a difference in language? Might it be that
 > >there is, whether extant or not, no perceivable (and I'm gonna turn green
 > >when I use this word... ugh!!) "metaparadigm" within which these differences
 > >can be connected? Would it be useful to search for one, assuming that one
 > >existed? If none was found, would it be useful to expend the effort to
 > >develop one?

Bill, what the hell is a metaparadigm???? < g > How is that different to a paradigm? Is it a subparadigm. I'm *very* interested, philosophically speaking, in postmodern theory, deconstructionism, constructivism, and the like, but I'm afraid I'm not yet up with all the lingo! Or did you make it up?

 > >The word "paradigm" is a semitechnical term developed for use in the
 > >exposition of the mechanics of the Latin language. It literally means; "to
 > >say through", and refers to the practice of reciting the conjugative and
 > >declensional suffixes of Latin verbs and nouns; a practice traditional to
 > >the learning of the language presumably since time immemorial. I find the
 > >use of the word in its current context distasteful and elitist, for it
 > >presumes to announce that the user is casually and intimately familiar with
 > >Latin, a condition that now appropriately equated with academic learnedness
 > >in some one of the hoary old disciplines where truth is eternal and requires
 > >the use of a dead and unchanging language to dependably convey it.

What a wonderfully passionate diatribe Bill!! < g >

 > >The invention of the word "metaparadigm" which literally means "to say
 > >beyond through" is even worse than the musical term "hemisemidemiquaver",
 > >which is legitimate musical usage even if it sounds ridiculously redundant.
 > >The quaver is a quarter note, which gets the beat in the common 4/4 time
 > >signature, and so the (see above) is merely a 1/32 note... the kind that
 > >Paco de Lucia plays for two and a half hours in his concerts... < grin > .
 > >Real musicians say "thirty-second notes" because that's what they mean, not
 > >(see above). Would it be too much to ask that there be a much plainer and
 > >more descriptive term than (that other word) developed so that guys like me
 > >know what they're talking about?

Any suggestions?

 > >In principle, it seems evident that if one cannot demonstrate the basis for
 > >the validity of a practice, one ought not use that practice.

You've just deconstructed astrology. I love it!

 > >I agree about the dangers of the use of symbolism. Symbols as a study is a
 > >profoundly important discipline, but the use of any symbol set outside the
 > >closely defined parameters of its validity is meaningless. This is not to
 > >say that much may be discovered by tentative applications outside those
 > >parameters, but I mean *tentative*, not determinative.

Hmmm yes, this is one of the major problems with the 'symbolic' form of astrology which I see about. Endowing a symbol with some sort of latent, archetypal, essential, call it what you will meaning, is no less deterministic than imagining an energy field emanating from the planets and zapping one in the brain! And who and what *determines* the meaning which we attribute to a symbol? I have done a lot of thinking, and some writing on this, with reference to the assigning of meaning to Chiron and the asteroid Ceres in particular. And am still trying to sort it all out...

 > >All throughout history, the recognition of this has produced countercultures
 > >that believe themselves in possession of some truth that exempts them from
 > >this condition. In fact, virtually all of these are the result of some one
 > >person's recognition that no one, including the self, understands what is
 > >going on; the subsequent counterculture is then founded on the answers for
 > >the self that person develops, which are only applicable to that person.
 > >When generalized, illusion creeps in and understanding slowly disappears.
 > >Eventually, enough true understanding has fled that the counterculture is
 > >appropriate to define or be assimilated by the mainstream culture.
 > >
 > >And, yes, this is very relevant to astrology.

This is very interesting Bill. I quite like the idea of looking at astrology as a counterculture. I have come across so many astrologers who believe that within this field they have accessed the ultimate *truth*, and that truth, of course, is "written in the stars", so hence it must be inviolable. Perhaps this may also fit in with your notion somewhat, Cynthia, of the marginalization of astrology. Could we be marginalized perhaps, not simply because we lack a meaningful language, but because we [the collective we], think we have all the juice on the *Truth*? I would say that, to use Bill's words, illusion has certainly crept in and understanding all but disappeared.

 > >The idea I was pointing at was that *if* the "astrological mechanism" is a
 > >matter of pure significance, then it may well propagate faster than light.

This is an interesting notion, and I understand that Dale is responsible for developing it more fully, yes?

So what does this *mean* in terms of human experience? Is it this *physical* factor of the faster- than-light-speed of the astro-mechanism which is supporting the theory made by others that an acausal or chaotic factor can be brought into the equation? Is this where the suggested interface rests within Dale's and Andre's idea of a mechanism theory which embraces chaos and freewill??? I know I haven't quite got all this yet, so please forgive my naive and poorly put questions?

 > >I might take this opportunity to point out here that I am perfectly willing
 > >to accept that the "astrological mechanism" might be of a nature that we
 > >cannot recognize as physical/objective/etc. I can conceive of the
 > >possibility that the "astrological mechanism" lies within that realm that
 > >Aldous Huxley's dad once referred to when he said: Not only is the universe
 > >stranger than we know, it is stranger than we *can* know (paraphrase, of
 > >course... or was that J.B.S Haldane who said it... can't recall).
 > >Unfortunately, contemplation of this possibility puts one dangerously close
 > >to the notion that "there are some things that mankind was never meant to

Hmmm. When I first began to ponder these things, I always stopped at this point, because I could go no further, and would content myself with the idea that some things are simply unknowable and that is how it should be, and that one needs to let go of wanting to know everything and *embrace* the Mystery of life. That idea is still very attractive to me. I think it helps one to flow more with life, to be spontaneous, to live in the now, and all that.

 > >I cannot begin to match Cynthia's passionate paean to Andre's post, but I
 > >can, and have already indicated that I do, share her opinion of that post.
 > >I recommend that it be reread with care by everyone on this list. It is a
 > >masterpiece of exposition. Again, Andre, five gold stars!!! Andre?
 > >Andre? No, no, that doesn't go to Quebec...

hehe. I'd like to echo Cynthia's and Bill's enthusiasm about your post Andre. It was *brilliant*. And yes, I'd love your mind too, but not your babies. I have enough of my own!! Anyway, I very much appreciated the clear way in which you outlined all the major schools of thought in the discussion and you also helped me to understand where everyone else was coming from. Rog, I have often struggled to understand your posts, while being at the same time fascinated by your style and use of the English language, but when Andre described you as a 'constructivist' a light went on.

Personally Rog, I love your statement: "astrology is truly all in our head, heart, and hands...a very human creation." I never realised quite how radical your approach is until recently.

 > >A Saturn Return has some definable orb of influence and so is going to be in
 > >perceivable effect for some space of time. The focus on time of exact
 > >transit is obviously not relevant in the case of a Saturn Return. I don't
 > >know, and have actually never met, any astrologers who would put a precise
 > >time on a Saturn Return!!! The very thought of that is laughable, sorry...
 > >Are there really astrologers out there who would do something like that?

You know, it's not as laughable as it first sounds. One can find meaning within the *exact* return of say Saturn, simply by considering the return chart. I had a one-hit Saturn return. I didn't experience anything which I can remotely relate to the "similarity of experience" idea to which Dale has referred. My experience didn't fit the 'typical'. My Saturn return has only had meaning for me well after the event in the context of the chart for the moment of the exact hit. This is a very profound chart for me. It explains to me symbolically, and very generally speaking, about the *purpose* of this entire cycle. The seed was only sown at the Saturn return, and I was scarsely aware of it. Now, at 42, I can see the Saturn return chart more clearly. This highlights, I hope, the problems I have with seeking strict causal links between one thing [Saturn return] and another [the human experience at that time]. I guess that's what you were getting at Bill, and yet, there is also meaning, I submit, in that exact moment. And isn't that what astrology is all about? Seeking meaning in moments? Of course, Rudhyar showed us that the meaning of any particular moment can only be really understood with reference to the cycle of which it is a part. All of which takes us back to divination. Hmmm.

 > >This is all a matter of degree of "influence" if you will.

Dunno that I believe in "influence". I have yet to be convinced.

 > >Motivational
 > >pattern is a more than acceptable description of the phenomenon. I would
 > >further note that all we can do is describe, we cannot define; we will never
 > >be able to define until (unless) we discover the "astrological mechanism"
 > >whatever it turns out to be.

Do you believe that it *will* be discovered?

 > >Here, I would like to make a statement that I've already made elsewhere
 > >about the nature of free will.

Oh goodie, one of my favourite subjects. Fate and freewill...

 > >Free will is an optimum state of freedom
 > >from compulsion. To achieve that state requires a great deal more effort
 > >and accomplishment than virtually anyone in our milieu is willing to
 > >recognize.

I agree with your first sentence, although I also think it is more than that. If freewill is simply freedom from compulsion, or freedom from bondage to the past, when put like this, it sounds like an impossible task to exercise it. This suggests to me that we need to do constant battle against inertial forces in order to be free from the strictures of 'fate'. I think this may be true so far as it goes, but it provides us with no clue as to *how* to go about exerting whatever freewill we do have.

 > >Free will is probably synonymous with spiritual mastery, and the
 > >closer one is to one, perhaps the closer one is to the other. So I would
 > >suggest that there are gradations of free will, and I suggest that this be
 > >objectively recognized and factored into the discussion here. We tend to
 > >speak of free will as something we either do or do not have, and this is, I
 > >submit, one of the more unproductive, if not outright dangerous, assumptions
 > >extant.

I have an instant reaction to the idea that freewill is "synonymous with spiritual mastery". Rudhyar too defines freewill in similar terms to what you have said above, as "the will not to confrom to the past". But he also said that freewill was available to *everyone* and he made it sound simple and accessible when he wrote that "no man is absolutely free...but every man can, at crucial times of decision, transform to some extent his natural conditions by some creative response which was non-determined and essentially unpredictable until it was made". [The Lunation Cycle pp 124-5]

This is so simple yet so profound. He doesn't deny the existence of 'fate'; but he opens the door for all to have access to freewill. I like that inclusivity. Why should freewill only belong in the laps of the gods or the spiritually mastered? It makes sense that it would be something simple and available to everyone. We mere mortals just have to know what it is we have to do. And how amazing that the key should lie in the capacity for *choice* which we exercise through the power of *decision*. So simple.

 > >Therefore, I suggest that a means of qualifying the state or nature of free
 > >will in any given situation is profoundly important to a development of a
 > >useful astrology.

Most definitely.

 > >>In fact, free will
 > >>is emphasized in this perspective, because the hard-angle transits
 > >>correspond to the periods when we're most likely to want to make
 > >>changes, the times we're most likely to use our free will to decide
 > >>what to do. In between transits we feel less of a need to change
 > >>(in terms of that part of the psyche) and simply continue along
 > >>the line laid down during the last hard-angle transit.
 > >
 > >This has given me some pause. It seems to me that there is a discrepancy
 > >between our definitions of free will, although I'm not sure how that could
 > >be at first glance. < sits thinking >
 > >Well, yeah, I guess there could be after all. Hmmmm......

It's really interesting to watch you thinking here!! ......

 > >Okay, if that is the case, then a discussion of free will is a very
 > >important priority here. I say this because the fate versus free will
 > >argument is at the root of the problem of astrology... Make that the
 > >Problem of Astrology; it needs to be identified and defined to some degree,
 > >especially for the purposes of this discussion.

.....And to see you drawing the conclusion that you and Dale hold quite different definitions of freewill. I'd like to understand more about how you define freewill, and fate for that matter, Bill.

 > >>If this possibility has been difficult for astrologers to imagine,
 > >>I think it's at least partly because most of us expect astrology
 > >>to do so much more than can be accounted for by this scheme. They
 > >>want to know why the taxi they were riding in crashed, why their
 > >>favorite uncle died, why the firm they work for went out of business,
 > >>why the bomb went off when it did, and much, much more that I think
 > >>has nothing to do with knowledge of any kind of natural order and
 > >>everything to do with having a bag of magic tricks that gives us the
 > >>illusion of knowing anything we want to know, whether or not it's
 > >>knowable.

An insert to Dale -- this was music to my ears -- I could have written it myself!

 > >Again, Dale, about as concise a statement of that part of the Problem of
 > >Astrology as could be made. What people expect from their astrologer is
 > >fully dependent on what the astrologer advertises is available. This is
 > >pretty much a truism, but deeply important nevertheless.

I think 'people' have all sorts of expectations, and many of those can have nothing whatsoever to do with what or how the astrologer advertises. There is a collective mindset about astrology on the part of the general public; and astrologers themselves have their own worldview and seem to adhere, broadly speaking, to what I would call Astrologism [the religion of astrology]. All of this influences what a client seeks from the astrologer. Astrology, for many reasons, is imbued with mystery, fortune-telling, magic, divination, and all sorts of associated things. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that this is very much the case. I have to say that for this very reason I am often ashamed to call myself an astrologer. But this situation, I believe, is not the fault of the public, it is our doing and our responsibility.

 > >One can ask the question: How do people think they can understand these
 > >things? Obviously they want to do so. Do they really think that an
 > >objective fully satisfying explanation is dependably available at their
 > >friendly local Astrologer, who stocks a wide variety of answers and
 > >guarantees a person custom fit for everyone?

Not quite sure I've got the question. What are "these things"? I think some certainly think the latter.

 > >Does anyone on this list know
 > >of any astrologer who has this sort of practice?

Yep lots. At least if I've understood your question...

 > >Where do they get the idea
 > >that this is even available? Or is this sort of thing even a consideration,
 > >a concern?

Bill, can you explain these questions more fully?

 > >The conventional wisdom is that one goes to their priest or pastor, or one
 > >goes to their shrink, or to their local neighborhood bar where the font of
 > >wisdom holds forth behind the bar, rag in hand and favorite beverage at the
 > >ready. Is there any other common archetypal source of answer that anyone
 > >can think of? I will assume that there is not, for the purpose of this
 > >argument.
 > >
 > >In each of these three cases, some part of the answer is that these things
 > >are imponderables, that to whatever extent is possible, they should be
 > >accepted as a part of life and then one should go one. But ahhhh... yes,
 > >there is another archetype and it's typical that a male wouldn't think of it
 > >right off.
 > >
 > >Women share a mutual support relationship in these things, because for them,
 > >it is the current state of their emotional mechanism that is important, and
 > >the answers can await another better time. The question is this: is
 > >astrology a part of this kind of relationship? Can any of the ladies out
 > >there on this list answer this?

Again, I don't quite get what you are saying or asking. I don't think all women automatically suspend thinking [seeking answers] in favour of feeling first, or is that not what you were suggesting?

Is astrology part of what kind of relationship? "Mutual support relationship"?? Oh, do you mean women supporting each other? And how does that relate to astrology and the earlier stuff to do with client expectations and astrologers' advertising? Sorry to be so thick here Bill.

 > >For the moment, though, let's assume we've covered the bases here. It
 > >doesn't look to me that there is *any* source of this sort of knowledge out
 > >there. Why, then, do they expect it from an astrologer?

Because it is associated with the stars, the heavens, the planets, the wondrous cosmos "out there", in short, with the gods. Because astrology, I believe, is akin to a *religion*. When people go to see an astrologer I think they are often expecting big things, revelations, predictions, the word of God -- quite unlike the expectations of visiting the local shrink or priest. There is not much potential for anything earth-shattering to be revealed in an exchange with the latter two.

 > >And of course, the
 > >answer is very simple: it isn't astrology they're look for, it's the
 > >psychic reader who will elucidate the entire relevant map of kharma of all
 > >concerned, so that all the questions are either answered, or definitively
 > >placed out of bounds (for this lifetime at least).


 > >That is our problem. There is no other source of this sort of information,
 > >as far as most people are concerned. There are qualifications in these
 > >regards, but they lie outside the bounds of this discussion. This is, I
 > >submit, what we have to address before we can turn that sort of expectation
 > >around.

A very interesting point you have brought up Bill. But there's no way around it, I believe. We are doomed to be stuck in this 'psychic' space [no pun intended] while we continue with this old-age astrology that is so prevalent. There is no way we can cast out the dreaded psychic until we free ourselves from the constraining paradigms of the past [are you puking yet?]. Astrology needs a revolution and until that time, the psychic remains. Which brings me to what I understand is your thesis, Dennis -- that Jung's "synchronicity principle" offers the key to a more holistic paradigm. I'm still thinking about that one but it doesn't quite hit the spot, somehow.

 > >The problem is: it is *not* that simple, as we will quickly discover as we
 > >begin to discuss this. At this point, I guess I can only wish us well, and
 > >exhort one and all to keep plugging away at this.

These are such interesting discussions, and I look forward to hearing more.

Candy Hillenbrand



End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 47

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.