Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #48

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #46

From: Cynthia
Subject: Re:#46 (Planet Virgo)

From: Cynthia
Subject: Whale Blubber (from the Whale Herself)

Exegesis Digest Fri, 11 Jun 1999

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:02:20 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #46

It would seem that really substantial posts are now becoming a part of the norm on this list. I, for one, am truly edified. I see fine minds well trained in relevant areas bringing their competencies to bear on what we might loosely call The Problem of Astrology. Yes, I've used that before, but it's appropriate here as well. I really hope this can continue!

 > >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.

The problem with this particular business of Uranus/MC=cataclysms is that it is, by itself, an observation of the astrological tradition. To apply this out of the context of the rest of the astrological methodology gets exactly what we might expect, I think: almost random chance but an intriguing variety of non-significant examples amongst the data.

It has been well observed that transits of that sort are only likely to be powerful (have an observable effect) when they have a meaningful relationship to the astrological statement of the presumably affected entity. For people, we would call the technical aspects of that statement the astrological dynamics based upon the appropriate horoscope, and those would be the necessary data to determine the probability of the transit(s) power.

Effectively, this could likely mean that in order to judge the power of a transit of that nature for any given entity, whatever its nature, it would be necessary to have (we might guess) the birth chart. Obviously, this is not within the realm of feasibility, and so I suspect that an investigation of the sort of phenomena discussed here will necessarily lack critical relevant data, and will thus be meaningless.

 > >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.

Very descriptive. And, to the outside observer, it would seem this is actually what is going on. In reality, this *is* what goes on in altogether too many cases, and the results are the text from which readings are given from the pulpit of the Temples of Scientism.

 > >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.

Indeed, this is true. And it is vitally important for the lay person (non-scientist) to recognize that these judgements *are* made subjectively. It is, in fact, almost specifically a description of a part of the Scientific Process that is both powerful and necessary. Tragically, it has been denied by the T of S priests to the extent that Science itself has difficulty dealing with it. It, as a part of the Scientific Process, does not easily yield to the descriptive language of the Scientific Method, and thus becomes problematic; it becomes doubly so because it is a process claimed as explicitly unScientific by the critics of the T of S: subjective reality, as it is seen as the primary Reality (Realism vs Idealism... Philosophy 101 remedial) by those who for whatever reason eschew science (hence Science: the Process, Methodology, etc).

At this point, I'm defining some usages. Science (lower case "s") is a methodology of enormous power and versatility. Science (upper case "S") is the ongoing culturally accepted and supported practice(s) of science. Scientism is a belief system that has achieved the status of a religion, which holds that Science, as it is practiced in the eyes of the lay public, is in itself a methodology which {fill in your own favorite devotional worshipful mantra, whether you practice it or not}.

Statements I consider as matters of fact: Science (lower case "s") is a methodology well crafted for the human mind; the caveat is that it must be used correctly, which is currently problematic. Science (upper case "S"), not being in itself a methodology, cannot be expected to provide useful definitions and descriptions appropriate to the practice of science outside the current Scientific milieu. In this discussion, we are indeed well advised to pay very close attention to these matters, else we will find ourselves in one of the mires and tar pits that consume such enterprises as this discussion.

 > >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.

And here is where I begin to diverge from Dennis' views of science (Science). The subjective contemplation of data for the purpose of seeking a pattern or some (other) significance therein, by the scientist operating well with the relevant competency is almost totally unlike that process when undertaken by an individual who does *not* possess that competency. The person operating with the competency understands the reality underlying the rules and is presumed capable of interpreting them accordingly, applying them both creatively and rigorously to see, for example, what insights may lie therein. The lay person simply cannot duplicate that process, and so is likely to deny that it (can) exist. It is this lack of understanding that *is* the problem that creates the mobs outside the T of S.

For the individual operating inside the relevant competency, the "true-believer / industrial robot" syndrome does not exist; it is only an apparency to the outside observer. There are, of course, some number of matters of fact that support that apparency, not the least of which is the misunderstood unwillingness of the competent investigator to describe either the process or the findings in lay-understandable terminology... " >>>all they can talk is gobbledegook and they obviously are {provide your own favorite conclusion}!!!! <

To make a very blunt point: the priests of the Temples of Scientism are those who are trained and recognized Scientists who have made the unfortunate mistake of operating outside their sphere of competency, making pronouncements on subjects for which they are inadequately qualified, regardless of their status as a Scientist. As the fact of their status is incontrovertible, it is assumed they are acting with professional ethics when in fact they are not, and the public is the worse for it.

And another blunt point: a collective "belief system" in Science (not science) is the result of an active proselytism by those aforesaid priest of the T of S. While there is very good reason for the success of that activity, it continues to be a very deadly practice; the results of that practice have largely informed our modern society. Post-modern deconstructionism is one attempt to remedy this situation, of course, and it is appropriate. But I fear it is not enough. And there is *much* more that I have to say on this subject, but enough for now.

The [mode] for this post concerns the corruption of science (not Science), I guess.

 > >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.

Well, this is, I think, *much* more relevant to the congregation of the T of S and it's critics as well. To the extent that the T of S has fed back into Science, and it has obviously done so, we have both negative and positive results. Science has had to recognize the effect of society's expectations on it, and it has become quite (sometimes acutely) conscious of where and how that effect has been negative for both Science and society. In this case, it is fairly well understood, I think, that the philosophy of science has had to more closely grapple with the context within which that methodology is used. The result is a recognition that the practice of science should be, in itself, more closely defined; it is a methodology of investigation, and is not intended to interpret the results of its findings. Thus it is obvious that science (and thus Science) is well advised to stay out of the business of defining or describing truth in any of its forms.

 > >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.

Dennis has presented his views in an exemplary manner, and I wish to make that observance because......

 > >Gee, and I managed to cover that subject without mentioning the word
 > >paradigm once! Bill will be pleased ;)

indeed he did not, and I am pleased! Thank you, < grin >

Incidentally, I think I'm disposed to regard the concept of "proof" as yet another example of unfortunate misusage of terminology; this difference between the word "proof" or "prove" and (that *other* word < shudder!!! > ) is that it has consequence while the (other) just wrinkles my hide. Proof (and prove) is a very good English word that has a well understood variety of usages, some current and some rare, some specific and some general in nature. The problem is that we are dealing with Science as the modern basis for useful knowledge, viewpoint, and all that. Almost all other disciplines find themselves either constrained to define themselves in relationship to Science, or to declare themselves completely independent thereof. And, for Science, proof has a much narrower usage.

It is Mathematics and Logic which form the abstract underpinnings of the materia sciencia (scientia?), and so it is the use of the term proof in those contexts that are almost literally relevant to Science. In that context, it is an argument consisting of a series of steps or statements which are both self consistent and fully relevant to the matter at hand, that demonstrates conclusively the validity of a theorem. For our purposes, a theorem might be seen as a statement of something we would hold to be true, given the assumption of a certain set of self-evident matters of fact. We engage in this sort of thinking constantly, using as a basis of self-evident matters of fact our own time-tested experience, and building upon them our opinions, the explanation of which might well vaguely resemble the statement and demonstration of a theorem.

When we start to think critically, which is what we find ourselves doing here, we find ourselves backing far away from the notions of theorems, as truths based on self-evident matters of fact, being the appropriate description of what is of value; it's then that we start recognizing the notion of hypotheses that need working on to discover how they may be tested. And then someone like me points out that we're doing science (*not* Science!!), and many people suffer some sort of interior earthquake. But let's continue.

The biggest difference between what we do and what is done in M&L is the state of rigor, which is a function of how necessary it is to be accurate and precise; we don't hold a lot of rigor because we can fudge and work around things; we are adaptable: a set of procedures to achieve an extremely closely defined result is most definitely not.

The relevance to our discussion here is obvious. We are not dealing with rocket science here, folks, we're just trying to get a handle on what we know (or don't know), how to use (or not use) that knowledge, and where we need to look (and probably head towards) to gain some insight into the Matter of Astrology. On the other hand, when we decide to do some deliberate science, we are careful to make all the decisions about the contemplated process so that we can learn something useful as a result. And that very well may mean closing the definitions down a great deal.

This, then, constrains us to resist the use of the term proof, which rightly confers the notion of exclusivity, and look more closely at what we are doing. Proof is not what we are seeking here, I think. What we need to do is seek a term that is useful but implies versatility of application. One such, not commonly used in the lay milieu is: demonstration of principle. It is not exclusive and does not inhabit a final position in the process. It is extensive in nature, in that it implies a variety of processes rather than one.

I know that I'm laying out some relatively dense material here, but what I'm saying is that we need to recognize that if these concerns are not addressed, we will risk following the well trod path to failure to achieve anything for our efforts here.

 > >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.]

As I am not learned in these matters, it occurs to me to wonder how a binary could constitute anything meaningful, unless it was part of a class, etc. By itself, wouldn't it be reasonable to require at least three domains of effect, so that one could somehow inform the other two? As I understand it, synchronicity, as a concept of meaningful relationship or connection, stands alone, needing no support. If this is true, how can we identify any dual, in and of itself, as synchronistic. It would need some external confirming and/or defining attribute, such as the existence of a third domain. I stand to be instructed in these matters.

 > >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?

I have answered that above. And it now occurs to me that my answer speaks to the question I had about synchronicity. There has to be a context to create significance, I would think. Clearly, the astrological tradition since the Greeks has held that the stream of transits does not necessarily hold its own context, hence the notion of the horoscope as a more specific descriptor.

 > >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!!! You've got it, I believe. Chaos theory.... hmmmmm. Probably beyond our current ability to apply it usefully here, though it may well be relevant. I suppose I think of these things in terms of the definitions of complexity, but that's another subject.

As far as the use of archetypes is concerned, your observation is, I guess, that they constitute a nifty way of getting at the apparency of cylicity when the results thereof are never (entirely) cyclic in nature. Rodney Collins, in that hoary old book "The Theory of Celestial Influence", pointed out what we all know, but sometimes have a difficult time in addressing: process isn't linear or cyclical, it's helical. The cycle never returns to its point of origin and sometimes it's a little difficult to tell where the new cycle begins in any given process of interest, but it is the perception of the nature of cyclicity in the helical structure that gives us the edge: we can construct abstract descriptions that cover the observed relevant manifestations, whereby we can more easily recognize matters at their beginning instead of in hindsight after they're gone. I won't go into a [mode] over the use of the word archetype, except to declare that it actually means the first example of a (class) of entities. The first example isn't necessarily what we want to be looking at, I think, hence the notion of an abstraction, which contains the essences necessary (appropriate?) to all manifestations thereof.

So what we seem to be doing is watching the complex of intersecting helices (helixes?) and trying to determine their relationship. Mostly I think that they are n dimensional, with some amount of embedment locally. Ahhh... and frogs are green! But only sometimes.... < grin >

 > >>. . . 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?"

God in a lab coat, smoking a pipe, having forgotten to comb his hair and change his socks for yet another billennium.....

[snip inevitable but sometimes necessary wrangling over misunderstandings]

[snip stuff I addressed in last post]

 > >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.

Yeah, I agree it does. What does that say about our understanding of how to use symbolism? Would it be useful to discuss the use of symbols and/or symbolism here, as a subthread?

 > >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.

I guess I was caught a little off topic there. No, I'm only pointing up that there is a way of being that we remember in our time, but probably greatly misunderstand, unfortunately. I suppose my observations weren't really relevant; they certainly didn't refer to something I've established the basis for in earlier posts.

I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed up to each person to (re)invent themselves within their own interior, and to some extent the process involves developing some sort of personal model and then attempting to hew to the line it sets forth. The model would be different for everyone, but perhaps its nature would be discernable from an inspection of the Sixth House, if that's relevant. But there are some truisms that seem to work for some number of people. One of those is: "Assume a virtue if you have it not."

The big problem is that most people don't understand why they should be doing such an activity, and those that do are either appropriately aware in some manner or have lived long enough to understand that some things are transitory and some things are not, that some things speak of the self, and much does not, etc. etc. etc. And so we get the great cycles of Saturn during which we get to look at the various levels of this sort of thing, etc. etc. etc. (And *nobody* could say that with the panache of Yul Brynner! < grin > )

I guess we are lucky to be astrologers, eh? No, I'm not in the business of dispensing role models for other people, although I used to be in the business of helping people invent their own (as practicing astrologer).

 > >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.

This is a very important bit of business. How *does* one assemble one's astrological technology? This is a problem we have all faced, and so it's one that we really need to talk about whenever we get a chance; I think we can assume that there are some in the lurking audience who are nearer their astrological beginnings than others. < grin >

For me, I found it a real problem, because I watched at one time or other just about every astrological technique extant used quite effectively. So choice in terms of what worked or didn't work seemed inappropriate ("inappropriate": something like Bill and Monica... I could do it but it probably would get me in trouble < grin > ) Accordingly, I tried out a number of different systems, and found that I could get some (more or less useful) results with almost all of them: my experiments were without any sort of judgment at all, after all, I'd seen them work in the hands of others.

At one point, I deliberately used a few clients, all of whom became personal friends, to see what would happen if I tried all the systems and used them to put together a session. It was *immediately* obvious that I had much more information that could ever be useful in even a series of sessions. And that became the determining factor: what systems would yield the most value for the client?

Notice that I am referring to systems. I used them as they were presented, most of them after some amount of reading to verify that I wasn't getting some off-the-wall version that someone had put together for themselves. What I found was that most of these systems had some sort of internal cohesiveness that made them valid, and it seemed clear that to take them apart was to decimate the system's power.

Eventually, I put together a repertoire of systems that seemed to compliment each other, and one of the ways I could tell if I had a valid chart was if they all said pretty much the same thing. It only remained after that to see if it did indeed fit the client.

 > >"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

Soapboxmode oratory. But probably useful to have said it. I made these remarks to underscore a point: we are not well served by playing fast and loose with astrology. There is an underlying "truth" or "reality" or it would not work. It's in our interest to accept that as a given and then try to understand why it does so. The assumption that it is the astrologer that is the only reality is to say that astrology doesn't really exist at all, and that we use its language, is only a tradition, exercised for whatever reason. The obvious conclusion is that we could change the terms around, change (haphazardly?) everything in the tradition, even the name, and it would still be the person who was the only reality, now operating under a different banner.

Nope. We consult the position of the stars (planets, Sun, Moon) and then we render our judgment. That's why we call it astrology. We *must* assume that there exists an independent and objective mechanism that produces the effect, that is unless we are willing to assert that the celestial sphere is one massive, ancient and totally predicable illusion. It's entirely reasonable to assume that we are within the effect of the mechanism, and so can become part of the mechanism itself.. at least for purposes of our use.

 > >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

In light of the following, I assume this is a rhetorical piece of irony. < grin > One author does not a language create....

 > >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.

Well, your experience is pretty typical, I suspect. I had the good fortune to have Rudhyar available and Jones on regular occasions. I had to ferret out the others for myself, as I was in a fairly biased area. (Rudhyar! Rudhyar! Jones! (booo hisss) hehhehheh) and that was how I got on to all these other different systems.

Rudhyar did not do what he did with astrology for the sake of astrology, he did it to further his own visions of a coming new age. He was very conscious that there was a new era coming at us fairly rapidly and he had some rather extensive considerations in this regard. Remember that Rudhyar and Jones were both Blavatskyites (Theosophists) in LA in the earlier part of this century.. that's where they met, you know. They both found astrology as a vehicle for their visions which were rather different. If one starts with Rudhyar, one easily gets the idea that astrology is a spiritual/psychological reality, and given the pronouncments by the priest of the T of S, it's very easy to ignore the physics aspect.

There is a profound difference between the "astrological effect", astrology, and our experience of both. The common view, seemingly further served by modern psychology, is that these are all one and the same. The whole point of this discussion, as far as I'm concerned, is to investigate the "astrological effect" so that we can see the manner in which astrology reflects it. This is the most common-sense way to go about cleaning up astrology, I think. I would suggest to one and all that they reflect on their own introduction to astrology and see in what manner their view of astrology itself is intertwined with some form of modern thought, all of which is based on the assumption that astrology cannot and therefore does not exist... well, at least it doesn't exist as *they* said it did. *They* being everybody before Rudhyar or at least Jung.

Wonder what the Greeks would think of that, or were they too stupid to recognize when something really didn't work.

 > >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!

It now looks to me like the astrological mechanism is bound by the speed of light. If so, the actual position of a celestial body at any given point in time is irrelevant, and would not account for the apparent delay of the Gauquelin peaks. I think we can assert, unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, that the apparent positions of the celestial bodies correspond with observed phenomenon, such that there is a correlation between the celestial and terrestrial sphere.

I would suggest, however, that we are almost certainly lacking relevant data in this business, and so the probability of our being able to make meaningful statements about the physics of this phenomena is *very* low. We can certainly toss it around and have fun with it, though.

[snip rest of argument]

 > >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.

Dennis joins our praise of Andre's post!

 > >"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".

There is a lot of resistance to any idea that mankind is not absolutely free from any sort of compulsion whatsover. That level of freedom from compulsion, from within or without, is what constitutes absolute freewill. I'd really be interested in having that definition falsified, or even reconstructed in a substantially different way.

I don't know about anyone else, but it appears to me that humanity is a good ways from being free from compulsion, especially *inner* compulsion. If that compulsion exists, what is the nature of it? What is the cause of it? Is it relevant to ask of the cause? Perhaps we can suspect that we somehow lack the ability to compensate for forces at play on us from either the interior or exterior realities. If this is so, then I would ask: do we really have free will?

It seems to me that the shades of definition discussed here reflect these concerns. Would it be useful to look at the reality of human "freewill" in and of itself, and then look at how it should be defined astrologically in terms of what insights we might gain in such a discussion?

 > >http://www.olypen.com/wtallman/Astrology/primalnumbers.htm courtesy of Bill
 > >Tallman's technical expertise.

That expertise was almost totally unused in setting up a website. Anyone who wants a website can get one for free. Anyone who needs one and would like a little guidance, talk to me.

 > >During the last Mercury retro phase I did prep for participation in this [snip]
 > >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",

You know, Dennis, unless you need the money from the publication of that book, it's quite probably it will get a lot more exposure on the web than in print. I still think you need to get a website of your own. Do it, and I' ll link mine to it, so that anyone who hits mine can click right to yours.

 > >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

There aren't really a lot of astrologers who are interested in that sort of knowledge, I suspect. People who would read Sheldrake are likely to have different ideas about how things work than those who would practice the sort of astrology we have now.

 > >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.

Yup, I fear you are all too right. The problem is that we don't have any sort of handle on astrology ourselves, much less a robust handle. What they are doing may be just as valid for them as what we are doing is for us. Until we can get some understanding of what is going on here, we haven't got a platform upon which to perform judgment.

 > >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

There are lots of people who have discovered that if you think too much about something that seems to work, you risk destroying it. For them, what they do works for them, even though it doesn't for us.

 > >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

This is actually a fair statement of the human condition, I think. We need not assign it only to the astrological community. There are few of us who take the time to think about these things... or perhaps it is that there are a few of us who are *driven* to think about these things.

 > >program is flawed. Captivated by the magic, they believe that if they chant
 > >the mantra with sufficient conviction reality will proceed to conform to

Spit out of the very arena where the Temples of Scientism hold forth, they live their lives according to what works for them. There is at least one person on this list, who is very intelligent and literate, and who holds his own with noooo problem at all, who maintains a position very much like these people.

 > >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

Yeah, the Hollywood astrologers, and they are already multiplying, each generation spawning millions more... like cockroaches, they will survive the millennium bug and everything else.... because there's a market for it, whether we will or no. 8-(

 > >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

Unfortunately, this works altogether too well!!! What they fail to provide is the operating instructions, which should start out with something like the following: Success is getting what you want. Happiness is liking what you get.

 > >colleagues will do their best to pretend it hasn't happened, lest it
 > >endanger the viability of their chosen belief system.

Like the lawyers, and the cops, and the doctors, and the ministers, and the academes, and I'm running out of inclination to think about it. Provide your own continuing list. It's a statement of the condition of western civilization, where the experiment in individual responsibility is running into not totally unforseen problems...... < grin >

 > >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

Also a statement of the increased expectation of personal security, not to mention the increased ability to survive the rigors of daily life! Remember that we're talking about survival here, and survival concerns exist on many levels. For the fatcats who jumped out of windows in the crash of '29, survival was primarily on the economic level. For those who commit suicide in our times, survival on an emotional level is the prime concern, etc., etc.


 > >Dennis
 > >
 > >"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

Let's see, GBS wrote "A Critique of Impure Reason" ?

Nahhhh... but trying to end on a humorous note.

Good post, Dennis!!!



Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 18:04:15 -0400
From: Cynthia
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re:#46 (Planet Virgo)

 > >>"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 Hi Dennis, um, Progress, I love men; All men are unreasonable; Therefore, I love all unreasonable men! Gosh, that was fun! Did I do that correctly (I haven't played with that schema in a couple of decades!). Apparently, Dennis, you and I have so little to say to one another that I may just put a paper bag over your head and ask you to think of England. When I joined this list, the moderator warned me not to attack other astrologers, so after this little missive, any future postings of mine may be quashed, but I must ask why you continually lace your commentary with such caustic denigrations of--well, just about everyone whose system does not correspond to yours--and here are a few examples:
 > >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. and
 > >One need not lurk long
 > >>in such ecosystems as alt.astrology.moderated to discover how out-to-lunch
 > >>most participants are.
 > >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! and so...
 > >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. It just seems to me that there's a mirror on that wall where your ducks are all lined up, and you're so busy taking aim, that you haven't noticed your own reflection. For example, on the one hand, in a more civilised address to me, you wrote:
 > >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. Hey, I understand your pain. If I had your prodigious and progressive intellect, the pedestrian minds of others would seem like one big brick wall, and I would ultimately, finally assess their inability to follow and comprehend my theories and those of my preferred theorists as stubbornness. Stupidity, my mother always said, is the unwillingness to learn. Yet you yourself offered another reason that fellow astrologers exude an air of indifference:
 > >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. So you are permitted to invoke this as a reason for your choices, but others, even those without your intellectual resources, mayn't do the same. I don't understand. You seem to take off one hat "the traditional science" one, and exchange it for the renegade, at will. You permit yourself to make incredibly questionable statements like:
 > >Obviously traditional astrology did not work, so I
 > >>did not use it. and, horror of horrors, use a personal *subjective* support to qualify 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. I cannot comment on your response to Dale because my server doesn't allow access to the Exegesis archives. I have been a member of the list long enough to have grasped some of the points you were debating, well, more like blithely dismissing. And then, by personal fiat as it were, you wrote to Bill:
 > >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. In what way could it be quality material if it was not substantive...was it nicely written? As the French say here in Quebec: "dat's what I tink...dat's it, dat's all!" (By the way, leave the schoolboy French with the schoolboy. I am not an American and as some Americans do, use French to impress others. I am a fluently bilingual Canadian, spend most of my waking hours speaking French, and sometimes it creeps into my text--hey, but if it helps us communicate better, I'll stop if you will!) (grin) As for poor Liz Greene, whom you designate "victim of her insularity, out of her depth", "one of your favourite sources prior to that"--prior to what: did you have a near-death experience or did you fall on your head, forever altering your excellent mind? As for your offer: "Whet your appetite?"--no thanks, apparently as a base, congenitally defective astrologer, I am already "out-to-lunch!" Warm Regards, Cynthia -- "...nothing more than a couple of mules dressed up in horse harness!" (Mammy, in Gone With the Wind)


Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:23:07 -0400
From: Cynthia
To: Exegesis
Subject: Whale Blubber (from the Whale Herself)

Hi Everyone, Stalwart earth signs, don't bother reading this unless you believe the personal is political or wish to escape the surly bonds of earth. Bill wrote:
 > >>I find myself fascinated by situations like, for instance, Jung faced = when
 > >>he had to make it very clear that he was talking about stuff for which= the
 > >>terminology did not yet exist; watching the process was a unique windo= w into
 > >>his training and therefore his interior conceptual furniture. In his = case,
 > >>it was up to him to invent the terminology and then define and explain= it.
 > >>Here, we are constrained to use that which is most readily accessible,= else
 > >>others are left wondering what they missed.... and when that happens= , that
 > >>is almost always where they stay, left behind while the juggernaut of
 > >>discussion rolls onward. and Dennis wrote:...
 > >I think the honours for
 > >erudition here must be shared between yourself and the Metalog robot! and
 > >I think I followed your recent contributions, Cynthia, though with some
 > >difficulty.

Bill and Dennis, I am very aware that my background segregates me from th= e rest of you, and perhaps, from anyone who has not studied literary semiot= ics and psycholinguistics. This experience, which is to say your comment/reaction, is far from foreign to me. This is and has been a rathe= r lonely place to be, for me as an astrologer. But I must say that I wrote = my "anima prodigious" or whatever one wishes to call it when semiotics had o= nly just crossed the Atlantic (primarily from France and Germany). (At the time, the adminstration of my Faculty couldn't find enough professors sufficiently knowledgeable in semiotics before whom I could orally defend= my thesis, so they had to invite professors from other universities to atten= d and help judge the defence!) The terminology, as Bill said of Jung's, did not yet exist as a "jarg= on" at all, and my work was in part an attempt to create a language of semiotics; in part, to offer an introduction to the values upon which semiotics was based, and further, an attempt to extend the positivist American philosophies such that they could embrace, rather than abjure, t= he arguments of the Franco-European semioticians. As a pioneer work, my tripartite attempt was merely the weathervane of exactly where American psycho-linguistics was headed, and so was successful. They say timing is all. For me, however, it was an elucidation that situated Astrology, that weird, deathless, antique artifact smack dab within the multiplicitous si= te of PARADIGM-IN-TRANSITION. As an astrologer of nearly three decades (sometimes practising, sometimes not), and a horary specialist to boot (of eight years), I have experienced nothing but an incredible sense of epistemological deja vu wh= en I practise Astrology, hence my slouching towards the "ludic enterprise" (which I sense that none of you are familiar with, nor perhaps particular= ly wish to be since you cannot yet see its use to Astrology) as a parallel t= o astrological philosophy. I will nevetheless for the purposes of this lis= t, which I enjoy so much, make an earnest attempt to avoid translating many = of you into the semiotic language I am so used to, and, for the time being, couch my posts as much as I can according to the discourse that appears t= o dominate it, this list. (I cannot, however, continually and endlessly footnote and qualify "science" whenever I refer to it, as "scientism": = I love SCIENCE; I deplore its imperialism, i.e., "scientism"). However, resistance, in general, I find, is futile. Like Roger, I don't adhere to the "ghost in the machine"-type mechani= sm (nor does Dale, I see), but clearly, there is something clogging progress towards a reciprocal base from which we might all speak, and speak intelligibly to each other. Andr=E9 mentioned:
 > >Whether or not
 > >there is a singular, pervasive reality of the kind potulated by
 > >positivism, there is no-one who occupies the privileged position of
 > >being able to know it anyway. Now I could breezily quote Kristeva here who said the same thing as Andr=E9= , and--apologies to the future father of my (brain-)children--said it with much more revolutionary, even bloodthirsty, persuasive force than he did. Julia Kristeva was no gentleman. But if I lose half of you--Dennis did sa= y my alleged erudition put me on a par with the Metalog "robot"--then: a qu= oi ca sert (what's the point)? All that said and all said without any rancour at all, yet unapologetically (I have my high heels on!), I have much to say and admir= e about Dale's post, and will continue when my eyes are not being propped o= pen with toothpicks. I love every word I read on this list, which may be *my= * delusion. Some of you may have colour-coded preferences (like the =3Dsign= s that Dennis mentioned...God knows why they are there! Or like Dennis' decided preferences for
 > >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.) Yikes! In French, "egrec",the letter "y" in English, literally means "from t= he Greek" which may be a subtle reminder/alert as to where we all acquire ou= r scientist, separatist, binary notions. For me, "y" just means "WHY?"--wh= y does Astrology work? (Sorry if the "=3D"signs appear yet again!) Good Night, All; no personal stuff next time, I swear! This baby whale is going to bed! Warm Regards, Cynthia -- "...and, oh Rhett, make it a big diamond! I want everyone who's been mea= n to me to be pea-green with envy!" (Scarlett, in Gone with the Wind)


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 48

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

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