|Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #50
Exegesis Digest Wed, 16 Jun 1999
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 01:40:31 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #48
Bill Tallman pontificated:
[snip lotsa stuff]
Who *is* this guy!!! ROFL!!!
But then. Cynthia said:
> >>>"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
You can have (ask) anything that you want (excepting Alice...) at Alice's (the Exegesis) Restaurant (sha boom), as long as you are *civil*. I've got some time and energy invested here, so I really want this list to remain civil even when we have personal issues with one another. If you think you speak for some number of list members, speak up. If there gets to be some dialogue about it that does not address the discussion, *please* take it to the privacy of personal email.
[snip rest of post]
So, Cynthia, if Fran doesn't kick you off it's probably because we all get a little hot once in a while. In fact, I'm just waiting for the point where someone comes outa the woodwork (lurker's closet) and lays into me for waaaaayyyyy over the top posts clogging up their mailboxes with >>>utter rubbish!!!! < Sodden thought: I suppose it takes unreasonable women to appreciate unreasonable men, eh?
But then she said:
> >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 [snip Jungian fantasies]
> >>>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!
> >>I think I followed your recent contributions, Cynthia, though with some
Don't know about Dennis, but I was looking at something that is of real consequence in almost any discussion where there is a gap in the level of language being used. I realize I was asking something that's probably not possible, but it may well be that those here who want to participate need to get a little more literate in some of this stuff. Books are always available, especially now with Amazon.com et al.
My point, here, is that any given person who runs across a term (a concept?) they don't understand will automatically have their attention diverted to wrestling with that problem even though they go blithly on reading, having every reason to believe that they are comprehending what's there. Don't think so. It's a problem for me and I'm not exactly stupid, I would say..... well, not *exactly*... < grin >
> >Bill and Dennis, I am very aware that my background segregates me from the
> >rest of you, and perhaps, from anyone who has not studied literary semiotics
> >and psycholinguistics. This experience, which is to say your
> >comment/reaction, is far from foreign to me. This is and has been a rather
> >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 only
> >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 attend
> >and help judge the defence!)
I knew it!!!!! Folks, we got the genuine article here! This lady has exactly the skill set to address with extraordinary competency the very issue we raised here. That the issue of communicating across barriers of understanding is not by any means limited to the problem of astrology is demonstrated, amongst other ways, by the rise in these disciplines, or so I think. So we are fortunate enough to have on the list one of the few individuals around who is qualified by training and by demonstrated expertise to address this *very* important part of the problem of astrology. I'm tempted to wonder if this indicates an especially good omen for our work here!
I'd really like to hear your take on Chomskly and Bandler, at some point. < grin >
> >The terminology, as Bill said of Jung's, did not yet exist as a "jargon"
> >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, the
> >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 sit[[[[[snip uated Astrology, that
> >weird, deathless, antique artifact smack dab within the multiplicitous site
> >of PARADIGM-IN-TRANSITION.
Umm. "[[[[(?)[snip"? Is this a meaningful symbol"? < grin >
So, you1) helped start the process of creating a useful language for semiotics. 2) offer something akin to Semiotics 101 (?) or maybe 201.. 301.. hopefully it's not entirely a postgrad subject. 3) tried to see if you could help guide the Material Girl americans into something like recognizing that there "are" meaningful things going on in there, behind the eyes and between the ears. Well, that's probably not a very nice way of putting things. < grin >
And Astrology, as a construct developed to reflect and gain some useful insights into an almost entirely unknowable effect, was forced to develop a language (symbolic?) that could only be based on the foundation of human conceptual understanding... prelinguistic, at least as we know it, suddenly became the obvious vehicle, nearly custom made for research in semiotics. Do I have that right?
For the dictionarily disadvantaged, Oxford's Shorter sez: (Semiotics is) The branch of knowledge that deals with the production of meanings by (the use of) sign-systems in various fields, especially in language (and)/or literature. It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is *exactly* the nature of a very badly needed discipline of competency in the investigation of astrology.
> >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 when
> >I practise Astrology, hence my slouching towards the "ludic enterprise"
> >(which I sense that none of you are familiar with, nor perhaps particularly
> >wish to be since you cannot yet see its use to Astrology) as a parallel to
> >astrological philosophy. I will nevetheless for the purposes of this list,
Ahhh.. "ludic" is one of the roots of ludicrous? So are we to suppose that a "ludic enterprise" is one of a (spontaneous) enjoyment of the absurd? How about certain forms of irony?
> >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 to
> >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.
I, for one, will really appreciate those attempts. Think of it as an exercise in developing a pedagogy of introductory (or remedial) Semiotics (it deserves capitalization by now). The really important thing is that it should not just be a few of us that "get it". When you are talking about the technical aspects of symbol usage and development, you are talking about things of real and profound importance to the astrological community. I must suppose, from what I've heard over the years, that the astrological community may well have actually been waiting for someone with your expertise to help them make clear and reasonable sense of what has been, for them, an extremely difficult business of trying to communicate what they already perceive via "inner knowledge". I'm not talking "revealed knowledge" here, I'm talking hard won understanding that has no common set of parochial aphorisms with which to communicate it.
> >Like Roger, I don't adhere to the "ghost in the machine"-type mechanism
> >(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. Andre mentioned:
> >>Whether or not
> >>there is a singular, pervasive reality of the kind postulated by
> >>positivism, there is no-one who occupies the privileged position of
> >>being able to know it anyway.
American positivism... hmmmm the Scientist will always find out and the ToS will have it as a sermon some day, so we don't hafta think about it: they'll tell us when they find out. That we won't understand a word they're saying means nothing; we'll know that *they* know and we'll file that away under "problem solved" and never have to think about it again. Is that anywhere in the ball park? If so, there certainly *is* a priveleged position! The problem is, no one is ever there! It's a throne deeply worshiped that sits behind a veil, thick with the accumulation of dust and the detritus of failed attempts to occupy it.
As far as the "ghost in the machine" is concerned, I don't think I do either, as I understand the notion. but I have the suspicion that the "deux ex machina" is a popularization of a backlash against scientism more than anything else. If so, it's too bad, because now any sort of deliberate thinking that allows for any and all possibilities is liable to be tarred with that brush if it even moves funny; that is, if it postulates the potential of a future knowledge that is anything short of a total mystery.
> >Now I could breezily quote Kristeva here who said the same thing as Andre,
> >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 say
> >my alleged erudition put me on a par with the Metalog "robot"--then: a quoi
> >ca sert (what's the point)?
Have at it, Cynthia. The only two things that will cause you to fall here is incivility or pretense, I suspect. One might eventually get you thrown off the list, although it's hard to see that happening.. and the other will eventually get your posts disregarded as being inconsequential. And I cannot see that happening at all. It's up to us to struggle to reach for what you have to offer just as much as it is up to you to do your best to accommodate that struggle. You don't have to reach that extra inch for anybody who is just floating by taking pot shots, though, as far as I'm concerned.
> >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 admire
> >about Dale's post, and will continue when my eyes are not being propped open
> >with toothpicks. I love every word I read on this list, which may be *my*
Bless you in your madness!
> >delusion. Some of you may have colour-coded preferences (like the 3Dsigns
> >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.)
> >In French, "egrec",the letter "y" in English, literally means "from the
> >Greek" which may be a subtle reminder/alert as to where we all acquire our
> >scientist, separatist, binary notions. For me, "y" just means "WHY?"--why
> >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,
Say "Goodnight", Cynthia.... "Goodnight Cynthia..."
> >"...and, oh Rhett, make it a big diamond! I want everyone who's been mean
> >to me to be pea-green with envy!" (Scarlett, in Gone with the Wind)
Well, I guess at least one person is having fun....
PS.. as I was sending this out, the emailer (Outlook Express) told me that there was a character set(s) here that were not part of the standard. I'm sending it out Unicode, and it will be interesting to see exactly what it didn't like. Unicode, so it says, will retain all the character sets.... sorry if this turns out to be hash.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 50
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.