Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #54

From: Andre Donnell
Subject: A sleeper awakes, and writes a half-asleep post

From: Cynthia
Subject: The World is our Oyster

From: Cynthia
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #52

Exegesis Digest Thu, 24 Jun 1999

Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:46:21 +1200
From: Andre Donnell
To: Exegesis
Subject: A sleeper awakes, and writes a half-asleep post

Hi all,

I have been instructed by the mother of our two cyber-children (Dee and Semiona, whose impish comments may well feature in future) to write, so write I shall!

*** (A little about) determinism, reductionism, chaos/complexity ***

Bill wrote:

 > >The term chaos is now semitechnical and describes a state of apparent
 > >randomity where the laws are nonNewtonian in nature...just what they ar= e is,

Bill was a bit cryptic here, and I felt I'd like to expand Bill's statement slightly, and indicate one or two implications. There are many good books on Chaos (e.g. James Gleick's 'Chaos'; James Cohen & Ian Stewart 'The collapse of chaos'; Nina Hall (ed.) 'The newscientist guide to chaos'; Stuart Kaufmann, 'At home in the universe').

As Bill said, chaos concerns states of 'apparent randomity', or to put this another way, states in which things appear to be very complicated or complex. Typical scientific examples are snowflakes, leaves, and trees; but *potential* examples abound in everyday life - for example the diversity of human (or any other) individuals.

In an earlier scientific picture, scientific laws were (or were selected to be) essentially simple. Part of this was the outcome of the reductionist programme I described in my last post: literal or imaginary experiments were conducted in which reality was simplified to the greatest extent possible, free of any and all extraneous (complicating) factors. Newton's laws of motion were a good example of this: the motion of a single particle (such as a billiard ball) in an idealised empty space could be specified completely, and even in situations which involved the motions of a number of particles (such as the Solar System) the model could produce very good results.

In principle, the notion was extended to the idea that if we knew the positions and motions (speed and direction) of every particle in the universe, we could predict any future and any past 'state of the universe', just by using these same simple laws of motion. Thus arose the idea of complete predictability, or if you like "fate" in another form (albeit a form that excluded God).

However, that was in principle. In practice, there are just too many particles in the universe for this ideal state of knowledge to ever be attained (except, perhaps, by "God"). And this means that - even though the *laws* might be simple - most of the things we experience appear in complex and divergent forms, because of the many different forces that are acting on them.

Or so it seemed, until the 'science' of chaos arose. Chaos concerns the numbers or results generated from often simple, but *non-linear* equations. A "linear" equation relates the two sides in a directly proportional way: e.g. v=3Dgt is an expression for an object in free-fal= l which says that the longer it has been falling (time t), the higher its speed (v), where 'g' is a single number that shows the ratio between v and t. Plotted on a two-dimensional graph, this produces a straight line. Non-linear equations don't have this simple relationship: the two sides are not directly proportional, or the proportions vary in different parts of the range. This is what Bill was getting at when he wrote "nonNewtonian".

To get to the point, the numbers produced by certain of these equations, in certain parts of their range, have every appearance of being random.=20 They are not random of course - if we run the equation again, with the same 'input' numbers, we get the same 'produced numbers'. This means (as one would expect) they are "deterministic" - i.e., same input, same output. But nevertheless, what is remarkable is these simple, deterministic equations produce (apparently) random results. To put this another, but completely equivalent way, these results correspond to extremely complicated, erratic behaviour and forms.

This may not seem terribly exciting (for space and time reasons I exclude talk of some of the exciting things that result: fractals, periodicities, attractors etc. - which incidentally reveal a new kind of order in the apparent randomness), but it is in fact a remarkable finding. As it happens, many of these simple sets of equations, in modeling very complicated (although often beautiful) shapes and behaviours, look very much like things that crop up in our everyday experience: the way smoke dissipates, the ways that trees branch, and so on. The implication is that much of what looks complicated to us, and which we had supposed to be the product of many, many different forces, may in fact be the product of simple systems of *very few* factors, linked in certain ways.

One of the chief challenges to the so-called Newtonian picture of the universe to emerge from chaos mathematics was another property of these chaotic systems: so called "sensitivity to initial conditions". What this means is simply that a very small, even undetectable difference in the initial state of such a system - in certain parts of the range - will produce a dramatic divergence in the way the system evolves over time. This is the origin of the famous 'butterfly flaps its wings and alters the weather completely' scenario. In all parts of our experience where such systems pertain (and these *might* include the outcome of a life, the beating of a heart, the mental health of an individual), the results turn out to be completely unpredictable. This is not because of any uncertainty about the mathematics (at least in the *idealised* mathematical systems that we manufacture), but because of our inability to ever measure the states of such systems to sufficient accuracy. (In fact, not just "our" inability. So sensitive are such systems, the information capacity of the entire universe does not suffice in certain cases to measure two neighbouring states with sufficient accuracy to decide which 'trajectory' or "life story" would result). BTW, the sort of prediction I'm talking about here is of the 'state' the system "eventually" (which means within the sorts of lifetimes of interest to us as decidedly *human* observers) evolves into: these states may include 'steady' (reliable, predictable, highly orderly, "a settled life"= ), periodic (alternating between two, possibly well separated, values, "a person who constantly vacillates"), chaotic (random, complete disorder). An infinitesimal difference may be all that decides between these various states.

Scientifically, this has been both an exciting and a disturbing finding.=20 Science had concentrated on orderly systems. This had supported a certain kind of mathematics. Dramatic successes (e.g. technology) reinforced the apparent value of the (reductionist) approach. But now scientific eyes are open to the complexity of life. But how much of that complexity is chaotic (i.e., actually the result of simple, deterministic but chaotic systems), and therefore beyond prediction?=20 What indeed is our ability to determine where chaos lies and where it does not?

Within the domain of most astrologers' concern - that of human life - there is much that appears random and unpredictable. Chaos *may* (dependent on the nature of the human-life/astrology "system", and whether it is chaotic or partly chaotic in nature) have many things to teach us: among them the futility of long-range prediction. As traditionally presented, it seems we treat astrology as an entirely deterministic and linear system. To treat it as chaotic would certainly provide a theoretical justification for those astrologers who - bemused by the unexpected developments in some clients' lives - speak of an extra factor not present in the chart: e.g. "free will", or "level of spiritual awareness". Yet chaos, or the possible non-linear nature of human life, suggests also that the "right intervention" (read 'advice') in some client's life may not at all be what seems sane or rational.

Another implication is to caution us about a habit we often seem to employ - as Dale recently warned, the attempt to try to explain *everything* that happens to a person as an outcome of some astrological cause. There are a number of reasons for this, and Dale described one of them. A *chaos* reason is that if human life is a chaotic system, then there will always be the possibility of dramatic, shattering developments in a person's life that are the expression of that person's (unpredictable because unmeasureable but nevertheless predetermined) chaotic trajectory - and *nothing at all* to do with the positions of any planets at the time. Moreover, if the human/astrology system is chaotic, then transits that occurred at *any time* in the person's life may have sudden, resounding echoes years or decades later...

Yet another implication is that we need to decide just where and how to focus our attention. If we are 'Newtonian', then like the early physics we look for simple, orderly patterns of repetition in clients' and subjects' lives, and develop and test simple, orderly laws. But if we think human life *is* chaotic, then we must be much more searching and radical in our approach, as we must include that which seems unorderly and random about our lives. And then we must open our own eyes much, much wider; for the chances are that the complexities we will then have to study will have origins in non-astrological as well as astrological systems.

*** Theory building ***

I have written before, recently, about the need for us to embark on a programme of building (and then testing) theory, if we are to accellerate our progress in astrology. Previously, I expressed this mostly in terms of statistics and the search for 'truth', and also pictured it in terms of stumbling in the dark (non-theory) versus formulating and testing premises which then lead on to or eliminate everything deductively related to those premises.

I mention this again now because the discussion of complexity above - if it applies - seems to make the matter even more pressing. If we are to address complexity, I don't think we can even *begin* to do it without some sort of coherent (theoretical) strategy. That astrology *already* h= as so many rules and qualifying if's and but's - and no theory - is ominous. As I will show below, the discovery of new planets and the inclusion of new asteroids is worsening the situation exponentially: there are just too many possibilities.

*** Just what are Dale and I talking about ***

Candy wrote:

 > >>Is this where the suggested
 > >>interface rests within Dale's and Andre's idea of a mechanism theory w= hich
 > >>embraces chaos and freewill???

Well Candy (btw, what a pleasure to have you here on Exegesis and writing! A very warm welcome!!) - I wrote the above about chaos in partial answer to this, and you see I mentioned freewill in that context *but* I've just never been enthused with the whole freewill/determinism question! I guess if I believed that astrology has any power to "predict" any person's future (even past) at all, then I would feel the question needs to be addressed.

But I don't think we have that power (for reasons given above, for reasons of Dale's, because of the *common* failure of prediction to work out in practice, and for other reasons I may produce if asked nicely < g > ). In short, I think it is a conceit, and I don't think astrologers have *anything* significant or meaningful to say on the matter. (That, of course, could be just my blind spot talking. So I follow dissenting views with interest).

You are, of course, aso addressing another aspect of the problem entirely: that of (a) the perception of astrology by the public in relation to fate; (b) the perception of astrology by astrologers in relation to fate. I agree this is a very real, and I think a much bigger problem. =20

Indeed, Cynthia wrote (4,49) "Fate and free will may well be constructions manufactured in the same way and for the same purpose as institutionalized religion, but as I've said in a previous post, they persist as meta-subjective components within the register of the symbolic and the imaginal which perforce require our respect and attention at this crucial time of transitional change, a renewal, I should say, of our (renewed) respect and attention". Dee shoulders me roughly aside at this point, grabs the keyboard, and... "Of course, fate and free will *are* constructions, powerful discursive devices of persuasion and control. They are abstractions, and as such almost impossible to dislodge". Quite, and so as Cynthia points out, they persist within, even at times dominate our discourse of culture, and so command our attention.

As far as what Dale and I are talking about (and btw the credit for the idea is Dale's as he predated me!), I don't think either of us incorporates any notion of chaos in what we are talking about. Speaking only for myself, some key implications are:

a) astrology is *not* 'fatalistic' in the way that most astrological discourse presents it to be, which is as if the planets apply some kind of "force" which 'compels', or even for that matter, 'inclines' us to do something related to the nature of the planet(s) involved. The usual notion seems quite physics-like - planet *acts* on human/other organism/volcano etc. which is then caused to do such and such, or planet acts on *environment* to make such and such happen to person.

b) rather, I think both Dale and I are suggesting that (one aspect of) o= ur *perception* is being altered. Specifically, the way we structure private time. Whilst there appears to be an *obvious* relationship between astrology and time, I believe that locating planetary cycles as 'clocks' within the cognition/perception of the person (and any other organism with a lifetime or life cycles that meaningfully approximate planetary cycles) actually has profound and radical implications about how we structure reality itself, into "chunks" of time. I don't think this is causal as we *usually* think of it (the discrete event that sticks out in the foreground, as "The bump on his head was ample evidence of the power with which she had thrown the ball to him"); it *is* causal in terms of *background* factors - the structure or schema we wrap around reality and the events we perceive or pay attention to.=20 In my case, I think of transits as literally opening the mind or 'consciousness' (and body) to things of *corresponding* natural periods, and closing it to other (non-corresponding) things. In effect, we are restructured. So the 'influence' may be *profound*, yet not *compulsive*.

c) I think events and astrological influences are completely unrelated. [Obviously, the two may be *indirectly* related, simply because many/most events that we experience are *social* - products of social action. For this, statistical models may be quite fruitful]. Of course given (b), and as Dale has explained many times, under given transits we will tend to *notice* certain types of events. As Dale has said, that doesn't mean those events aren't present at other times! It's just that when we notice them, *then* we often say they have "happened" to us. The relationship between events and consciousness may be subtle and often indirect: suppose Saturn transits Mars, and I start spending a lot of time climbing ladders, and on one of these occasions (still during the transit) I fall off the ladder. Was the "significant event" that I fell off the ladder (perhaps even breaking a bone - classic Saturn/Mars imagery)? This is certainly what we tend to remember, and report! Or was the significant event simply that I began a lot of new activity (whic= h happened to carry an element of risk and hence the fall)? This, we tend to *not* report - it is a "background" factor. This is a biasing influence in astrological observation!!! It shows we need to have a clearer idea of what we mean by an "event" anyway...

Two or three years ago, Saturn transited (Conj) my Mars, and at that time I largely overcame a fear of heights and became confident climbing and standing on ladders. Recently, it transited (Conj) Venus. This corresponded almost exactly to sudden severe toothache, and my first dental work in 28 years! *Assuming* these two experiences were indeed related to the Saturn transit, they form an interesting contrast. The first was something I "decided" (I infer nothing about the fate/free will debate here!) to do; the latter seemed to be something my "body" decided to do! I see both of these as compatible with (b).

*** How many types of people?! (Mathematics and astrology) ***

Finally, I just want to say a little about how fruitful simple mathematics can be when considering the astrological framework. It is an old hobby-horse of mine, which I have flogged in the past to various receptions, but which I think increasingly valuable. (No harm was done to the horse).

The question is a simple one: how many unique personality-types does astrology distinguish? The Myers-Brigg, for example, gets along quite well on 16. The MMPI-II (in its basic form) can distinguish about 3^10 (3 to the power of 10, or 3 multiplied by itself ten times), or about 59,000 types potentially. (Incidentally, personality profilers face similar "synthesising" challenges to astrologers).

So what about astrology?

Let's try a very simple form to begin with: let's agree that the planets (ten of them) each have distinct meanings, and so do the signs=20 (twelve of these). Let's forget about aspects. If two people have the same planets in the same signs, then we'll say they have the 'same personality'. This agreed, the number of different possible types is simply S^P or 12^10, where S is the number of signs and P the number of planets. (If this seems confusing, consider if we had only *one* planet. In that case, there would be just S or 12 different types of person, depending on the Sign involved. This in fact is the case with Sun-sign astrology. Add the Moon, then we get Aries Sun with Aries Moon, Taurus Moon, ..., Pisces Moon (that's 12); then Taurus Sun with Aries Moon, Taurus Moon,..., Pisces Moon (12 again), and so on. That comes to 144, or 12^2).

So from this very simple definition, we arrive at 6 x 10^10, or 6 with ten zeroes following, or 60,000,000,000.


I won't go into the derivation, but let's now allow aspects. In this case, the formula is [360 / (Orb/2) ]^P =3D [720/Orb]^P. (Actually, I have made certain simplifying assumptions, but the numbers are so large this does not matter, as you will see. Note also that the formula implicitly includes anything *derived* from the positions of the planets, such as configurations, Marc Jones' Bucket, Bowl, etc.).

I use uniform orbs of ten degrees, so the result is [720/10]^P =3D 72^P =3D 72^10 =3D nearly 4 x 10^18, or about 4,000,000,000,000,000,000.

There is a modern tendency toward smaller orbs, sometimes (and mistakenly) premised on the *apparently* small 1.5 degree orb used with midpoints. However, smaller orbs produce even bigger numbers. Halve the orb, and the result above becomes 2^10 bigger, or about a thousand times more.

So astrology produces, on the face of it, enormous variability! It does this based on the assumption that if two people vary in the position of just one and only one planet by just 5 degrees (or one sign, depending which version you prefer), then they are not (astrologically) identical people (although they will - according to astrology - be remarkably similar). This is because, even if the Sign is the same, a planet that has moved by that much will be engaged in a different aspect network, different midpoints etc.

Compare these numbers to genetic variability: we carry only 10^6 or 1,000,000 genes! So it seems astrology handsomely outdistances genetics.

We also carry about 10^15 neural connections. This seems to be getting into the ballpark. although with orb 10 we are about 1000 times too high (which we could fix with about a 20 degree orb).

Note also how our problems have expanded (put another way, our 'phase space' has increased) because of the new planets and (now) asteroids.=20 Had I included Chiron - to make 11 planets - the total space of astrological types increases about 100-fold. (Thus, in my view the idea of including thousands of asteroids is simply not to be contemplated, unless we are prepared to develop some type of new, probably statistical astrology).

["I am ill at these numbers", Hamlet].

A number of questions arise:

(1) Do we actually believe this? Are there really this number of unique 'types'? According to the strictest interpretation of our astrological principles, it would seem we do have to accept this.

(2) Alright - if there *are* this many types, how *profound* is the difference? That is, it may be that the 'astrological effect' is slight: that we are more alike (through biology and culture) than we are different. In that case I guess we could use a number: say that astrology is 1% of the story - or 10% - or ?

(3) Of course, (2) may be a nonsense. Indeed, we are profoundly alike at many/most levels. But perhaps at some 'higher' level, we are *indeed* as different as astrology suggests. It is then not a matter of quantity, but of quality - some final embellishment that changes everything.

(4) Alright, if we *do* differ significantly, then what does this imply about our ability to derive useful knowledge about our clients? Indeed, about ourselves? To derive knowledge, we must remember that we are necessarily *interpreters* or *constructors*. Each of us occupies just a single cell within this huge matrix of individual variation. Certainly, there are large numbers of 'types' with which we largely overlap, but most of them are unlikely to be contemporaries, alive within the same century. Given that we necessarily interpret and construct reality from such different premises, what does this imply about the ability of astrologers to agree about astrological knowledge?

Furthermore, any given century will activate only a small part of this great matrix of types. (The total space of possible types is distributed over a period I would guess of many tens or hundreds of thousands of years). Each new century features a different pattern.

Here seems ample reason to interpret (though we cannot) each phase of human history in terms of different cultures and different paradigms - more different, indeed, than any of us could imagine!

(5) Indeed, what can be my/your ability to understand my/your client, who is commonly profoundly different from me/you?

(6) What, indeed, can be the ability of any language that we have currently available to us to convey any essence of the individual meaning of any particular type whatever, even supposing we could trancend our *own* type? Language it seems must be *social*; it must work in terms of what is common (or what is *constructed* as common, even if it is not) between people. Yet this is precisely the opposite of what is required in order to convey precisely that which is *not* common. To the extent that astrology uses language, it is a social knowledge. And to precisely that extent, it defeats the very thing it attempts to convey.

(7) Or we may find these implications unlikely, and prefer to revise the premises, although the variability indicated is certainly compatible with post-modernist and constructivist positions (that every individually has their own reality). But we can vastly simplify the scheme (reduce the number of types, make the matrix smaller) by saying that the Signs and Planets are *not* completely independent (unrelated) to each other; that they overlap to some degree. Indeed, this appears to be the case (e.g. Aries, Leo, Saggitarius), although it is possible to be suspicious of such overlap too (the *social* dimension of the knowledge we have necessarily forced on astrology [4,6]).

Regards to all, Andr=E9

Any resemblance between the preceding post and the nature of reality is purely accidental, and no solutions to epistemological, ontological, or other dilemmas are intended nor should be inferred.

PS: Just as I send this, 4-52 has arrived: Candy - you have expanded *brilliantly* on the fate/freewill thesis in 'More on the problem of astrology'. Bravo!


Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:49:46 -0400
From: Cynthia
To: Exegesis
Subject: The World is our Oyster

Hi Dale, I have so many questions for you, I don't know where to begin. When I first read this paragraph...
 > >Motivation is the
 > >psychological equivalent of force in physics. It's what gets things
 > >done. Both motivation and automatic behavior get things done that
 > >need to get done for the organism to exist and move through life, but
 > >the former allows for a vastly more complex repertoire of behaviors
 > >and the necessity of choice. It doesn't determine a specific outcome
 > >but requires that the organism create a response to satisfy a felt
 > >need, with the need, not the response, being predetermined ..I understood it to be merely pavlovian. But the proviso, "with the need, not the response, being predetermined", of course, sets up an argument indirectly, I suppose, against predetermination in Astrology. Moreover, I would suggest that "motivation is only one psychological equivalent of force in physics". The school of behaviour modification begins with the overt dysfunctional symptom to be changed and works its way backwards with the ultimate aim of altering motivation; that's the way I understand it. But perhaps, how motivation and automatic response differ in methodology is not relevant here, except as you noted in terms of complexity and choice. Certainly, I can't comment on what physics chooses to take as equivalents for what it designates as force, from other disciplines, since I know nothing about it, physics I mean. You also wrote:
 > >If the question is, what causes them to come
 > >into being in the first place, the mechanism is biological evolution.
 > >If the question is, why do the events or motives comprising a given
 > >correspondence pattern keep occurring on schedule, the mechanism is
 > >the inherited genetic program and associated neurobiological processes
 > >that trigger activities or needs. If the question is, by what means
 > >does the organismic clock use a planet to reset itself or otherwise
 > >stay "on time", the mechanism is the material interaction between the
 > >two, including the biochemical means by which the organism is able
 > >to use that interaction for its own "purposes" If the point of italicising purposes here is to imply its cognate, needs, then could I also supply "question" in its place, questions being part of the neurobiological process of complex homo sapiens, or perhaps one of the results of that process, and if I am permitted to do that, could I then generate a plausible argument for horary astrology? One must assume, of course, that horary is related to astrology. I've met many astrologers who adamantly exclude it from good ol' genethliacal practice. Whether you personally agree with this or not, Dale, objectively speaking, could horary predicate its existence with your commentary as a starting-point? I dearly would like to know, for as I've said, I am seeking a less nebulous reason to justify my work. My success at it fails as an underlying logos, so to speak. Horary begins, after all, at the moment a felt need to know something, to have a question answered, becomes purposeful such that it fulfills part of the program of the organism, and further, it is timed according to specific and recognized planetary "pulls", none of which is programmatic, since each question is unique to the moment and the individual...
 > >With organic correspondences, in contrast, material effects don't
 > >determine the specific nature of the regularity. As the Moon passes
 > >overhead the tide comes in and the oyster's shell opens, but gravity
 > >doesn't physically open the oyster's shell the way it raises the
 > >waters. Instead, the oyster _uses_ the Moon's pull as a signal to
 > >tell it when to open itself. That's the implication of Frank A.
 > >Brown, Jr.'s Evanston, Illinois experiment, in which oysters opened
 > >at what would have been high tide if there'd been a seashore there.
 > >Life has been able to use the planets as templates for the evolution
 > >of functional systems whose timing corresponds to planetary periods
 > >but whose content, the recurrent function or behavior, is determined
 > >by evolution, not by the planets' symbolic meanings _or_ material
 > >effects. ..and indeed, to whatever period or stage of life the individual is passing through in his own personal (biological/bio-programmatic) evolution. Moreover, the traditional strictures of horary practice conform to well, for example, the oyster's shell only opening when it picks up the signal from the Moon; as when the signal is absent, the strictures are in place to prevent proceeding. What do you think? Is this too laughable an application of what you wrote, or is it a feasible area for further study? Regards, Cynthia -- Per Ardua ad Astra (Canadian Air Force Motto)


Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 19:37:23 -0400
From: Cynthia
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #52

Hi Everyone, I'll be out of town from June 24th to the 27th (my birthday), so I'd like to offer some comments regarding #52, especially since my Saturday post did not appear in it (which may be a good thing, after all). Candy, I was particularly impressed by your posts; you made many points which resonated deep within me and which I'd like to enlarge upon. Though I was raised a Catholic, Astrology is my religion. I say this because you seem to have the impression that because I was (intellectually) trained in semiotics which never *overtly* addresses issues of belief or morality that I am relieved of making moral choices about how I practise Astrology, or indeed, taking any moral stance at all. (And if I have misunderstood you, I apologize; it's so hard to express oneself to virtual strangers on the Net.) On the contrary, if you have read the careful wording of my recent posts, you will perceive that I myself am in transition, on sabbatical from consulting partly because I needed to examine the ostensible contradiction between horary (which is a divinatory practice) and the usual natal astrology (which should never be divinatory, or fatalistic as you say and as I agree). I do believe that Western culture has also been in transition, however, probably since Pluto was in Virgo, but that's another post. Like others who subscribe to traditional religions, I embrace Astrology as a religion presupposing a higher being, force, or entity which is sentient (though perhaps not as we are sentient), who/which possesses a will (of sorts), and who is able to communicate, depending on my ability, very well or very little, through the energies of the planets and this, through our juxtaposition across vast distances of space and time. But this is my personal leap of faith; it does not satisfy that part of me that seeks something more concrete. Regarding my conditional statements of fate and free will made in response to Dennis' remarks, you wrote:
 > >>Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at fate and freewill -- as
 > >>constructions. Well, taking that notion on board would put paid to a lot of
 > >>religious tenets and much of astrology as well! ..but of course, I made no such assertions (I wouldn't dare). I wrote that they "may well be constructions" implying that they are regarded as such, by many modernists, scientists, and certainly I will admit by semioticians. But I exhibited no personal advocacy either way, except to add that, regardless, they must be treated with respect and attention, by way of cauterizing the great gaping wound modernists, etc., leave when they dismiss such subjects summarily. "Meta-" anything simply means above and beyond (and I don't know who coined "meta-paradigm" but in truth, one can't go beyond a paradigm!). Fate and free will, like the judeo-christian God, are meta-subjective because they are not available to the senses, and are forged somewhere in consciousness, collective consciousness in effect, and so are beyond the "subjective". That's all meta-subjective means, and I apologize for my language again, though I must tell you, I am very happy to explain anything I have been unclear about. (Just think of me as linguistically challenged--my husband certainly does! His response to almost everything I utter is: "ditto"! < grin > ) Please feel free to ask me anything as I will make free with you and the other listers regarding jargon, etc. In short, your post brought me to the point of addressing horary which I perhaps have been delaying too long in broaching to this list (hoping that, maybe there were some horarists out there lurking?). Only Bill has raised a point about it so far (which I will address in due course). Though I must say, among such colossal issues as fate, free will, limbic brains, and such, it's hard to impale the rather small steak of horary and chew away with impunity! You'll probably read this at the same time as my previous post "Re-petitio principii" (a repetition of principles--oh God! I am handicapped), so don't hold it against me, Candy. I'm doing the best I can, and considering that I don't know where I'm going with a semiosis of Astrology, that's quite an effort. I internalized semiotics a long time ago and it's difficult to communicate it to others. As for the time zone difference, I wish you and other listers to sleep well *when* you do sleep, for God knows, I don't sleep much nor often. Warm Regards, Cynthia

--Per Ardua ad Astra (Through Adversity to the Stars) (Canadian Air Force Motto)


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 54

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

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