|Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #67
Exegesis Digest Wed, 18 Aug 1999
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 16:33:19 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #66
> >Finally, I just happened on a reference to the human biological clock in a
> >library book that goes some way to answering Bill Tallman's request for
> >verification. "Human beings deprived of clocks, sunlight, and all other
> >indications of time, says sleep-psychologist Richard Coleman, would shift to
> >a twenty-five hour day." Source: "Mathsemantics", Edward MacNeal, 1994,
> >p197. The author proceeds to quote Coleman: "Since our natural day length
> >gravitates to 25 hours, it is much easier to stay up later than to go to bed
> >earlier. In general, our 25-hour clock can be reset about 2 hours each day,
> >allowing humans to live comfortably on a 23 to 27 hour day."
Thank you, sir.
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 11:38:32 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: superluminal coordination
Percy Seymour is a physicist turned astronomer. He specialised in the structure of our galaxy's magnetic field. In his 1992 book "The Paranormal" he builds on the concepts of Bohm and Sheldrake. The following excerpts are intended to illustrate the relevance of these to any multi-disciplinary paradigm designed to explain the astrological mechanism in contemporary terms.
First, let's see how Bell's theorem proves that the cosmos is characterised by universal interconnections, which development raises holism from a nice nebulous idea to the most effective general philosophy of nature.
"John Bell, who died in 1990, was one of the leading theoretical physicists whose work has highlighted the problems of quantum reality. He was able to show mathematically that if quantum theory is valid, then, under certain circumstances, it is possible for two subatomic particles to keep in touch with each other, even when separated by large distances, in a way that seems to imply a form of communication that is faster than light."
"Einstein's theory of special relativity says that no information can be transmitted at speeds exceeding that of light. There thus seems to be a direct contradiction between the two cornerstones of modern theoretical physics. His results are embodied in a proof which has become known as Bell's theorem, and the observational consequences of this theory have been experimentally verified. Henry Stapp, an American physicist, wrote that 'Bell's theorem is the most profound discovery of science.'"
"The physicist Professor David Bohm was aware of this aspect of quantum mechanics some time before Bell proved his theorem. Bohm tried to formulate a theory to explain it in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate Order": "We have reversed the usual classical notion that the independent 'elementary' parts of the universe are the fundamental reality, and that the various systems are merely contingent forms and arrangements of these parts. Rather we say that inseparable quantum interconnectedness of the whole universe is fundamental reality, and that relatively independently behaving parts are merely particular and contingent forms within the whole.""
So these cosmic interconnections between quanta incorporate faster-than-light signalling, a finding too revolutionary in its implications to be readily assimilated.
"Nick Herbert in his book "Quantum Reality" says: "Religions assure us that we are all brothers and sisters, children of the same deity; biologists say that we are all entwined with all forms of life-forms on this planet: our fortunes rise and fall with theirs. Now physicists have discovered that the very atoms of our bodies are woven out of a common superluminal fabric. Some physicists are not even aware of Bell's theorem, and many who do know of its existence would rather not face the fact that it presents a crisis to received ideas of physical reality. A similar situation exists in modern biology."" (1)
Einstein's law of energy/matter transformation incorporated a cosmic speed limit, apparently now no longer universal...
"the theories of relativity place a speed limit on the transfer of information, energy and matter, whereas the quantum theory strongly suggests that this speed limit can be transgressed under certain circumstances. The current state of play in this respect is well stated by John Bell, in the following extracts taken from an introductory lecture he gave at a Naples/Amalfi meeting on 7 May 1984, entitled 'Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics'. He started his lecture with a quotation from Arthur Koestler's "The Sleepwalkers": "... the history of cosmic theories may without exaggeration be called a history of collective obsessions and controlled schizophrenias; and the manner in which some of the most important discoveries were arrived at reminds one of a sleepwalker's performance ...""
"'For many decades now our fundamental theories have rested on the two great pillars to which this meeting is dedicated; quantum theory and relativity,' Bell said and, after a very brief summary of some recent progress, he continued: 'In the manner in which this progress is made, will we see again any elements of Koestler's picture? Certainly we will see nothing like the obsessive commitment of the old heroes to their hypotheses. Our theorists take up and put down hypotheses with light hearts, playfully. There is no religious intensity in it. And certainly no fear of becoming involved in litigation with the religious authorities. As for technical mistakes, our theorists do not make them. And they see at once what is important and what is detail. So it is another feature of contemporary progress which reminds me of the title of Koestler's book. This progress is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded ... sleepwalking? The progress so made is immensely impressive. If it is made by sleepwalkers, is it wise to shout 'wake up'? I am not sure that it is. So I speak now in a very low voice.'"
"He ended his talk with the following words: 'For me then this is the real problem with quantum theory: the apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and fundamental relativity. This is to say, we have an apparent incompatibility, at the deepest level, between the two fundamental pillars of contemporary theory ... and of our meeting. I am glad therefore that in some sessions we will stand back from the impressive technical details of current progress to review this strange situation. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.'" (2)
Sheldrake's theory of morphogenetic fields suggests a natural 2-way feedback process between the realm of potential and the physical universe. I believe the most significant components of any such field are informational and pattern-forming (best described as archetypes). "The essence of his theory is inherent in all natural phenomena. He proposes that all natural systems inherit a collective memory of their own kind and each system is shaped by 'morphic fields' containing a collective memory. For example, rabbits are not rabbit-shaped only because their DNA encodes their proteins, but also because there is a rabbit 'morphic field' that informs their growth and instinctive behaviour. Very important to Sheldrake's hypothesis is the concept of morphic resonance."
"In response to the question, 'how could such a memory possibly work?', Sheldrake supplies the following answer: The hypothesis of formative causation postulates that it depends on a kind of resonance, called morphic resonance. Morphic resonance takes place on the basis of similarity. The more similar an organism is to previous organisms, the greater their influence on it by morphic resonance. And the more such organisms there have been, the more powerful their cumulative influence ... Morphic resonance differs from the kinds of resonance already known to science, such as acoustic resonance (as in the sympathetic vibration of stretched strings), electromagnetic resonance (as in the tuning of a radio set to a transmission at a particular frequency) ... Unlike these kinds of resonance, morphic resonance does not involve a transfer of energy from one system to another, but rather a non-energetic transfer of information. However, morphic resonance does resemble the known kinds of resonance in that it takes place on the basis of rhythmic patterns of activity."
"According to the hypothesis of formative causation, morphic resonance occurs between such rhythmic structures of activity on the basis of similarity, and through resonance past patterns of activity influence the fields of subsequent similar systems. Morphic resonance involves a kind of action at a distance in both space and time. The hypothesis assumes that the influence does not decline with distance in space and time. This last requirement echoes exactly what Bell's theorem tells us about quantum mechanics."
Now remember that "a kind of action at a distance in both space and time" is anathema to normal science unless there is a causal mechanism. Seymour's next two paragraphs describe the discovery that quantum particles breach this conventional aesthetic requirement. Then he addresses the (unpalatable) deduction that superluminal (faster-than-light) signalling occurs between quanta.
"Bell's theorem basically shows us that if quantum mechanics is valid (and all physical experiments have so far failed to reveal that this might not be so), then measurements made on two particles will always be correlated, no matter how far apart they are. This can be illustrated by using two subatomic particles. We have already mentioned that these particles spin on their own axes, rather as tops or planets do. Physicists call this property of particles their 'spin'. Suppose we have a two-particle system in which one particle is spinning in the opposite direction to the other, when they are very close together - this is normally referred to as the one particle having spin up and the other particle spin DOWN. If we measure the spins of the particles after they have been separated by a large distance, then we find that the spins of the particles are still one up and one DOWN."
"Such particles, because of their spin, behave as if they were little magnets, so we say they have magnetic moments. It is possible to change their orientations by passing them through magnetic fields. Quantum mechanics tells us that if we change the orientation of one particle, so that instead of spinning up about a vertical axis, it is now spinning LEFT about a horizon axis, then we will find that the other particle is also spinning about a horizontal axis, but in the opposite direction, which we will call RIGHT. These results of quantum mechanics have been confirmed by two experiments - the first one performed in I972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freeman in America and the second by A. Aspect, P. Grangier and C. Roger at CERN, in Geneva, in 1981. Thus, remarkable though it may seems there is some form of instantaneous communication between the two particles, such that changing the spin of the one instantaneously changes the spin of the other."
"In "The Dancing Wu Li Masters", Gary Zukav quotes the following statement made by the physicist Henry Stapp: "Quantum phenomena provide prima facie evidence that information gets around in ways that do not conform to classical ideas. Thus the idea that information is transferred superluminally is, a priori, not unreasonable ... Everything we know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental processes of nature lie outside space-time but generate events that can be located in space-time. The theorem of this paper [Bell's paper] supports this view of nature by showing that superluminal transfer of information is necessary, barring certain alternatives ... that seem less reasonable. Indeed, the philosophical position of Bohr seems to lead to the rejection of the other possibilities and hence, by inference, to the conclusion that superluminal transfer of information is necessary.""
Stapp's reference to Bohr's view here is code for the Copenhagen interpretation, which became the majority consensus, and from which Einstein became a lonely, old-fashioned dissenter. It prompted his famous assertion that "God does not play dice", the irrelevance of which is measured by the fact that God had been dead for several centuries for most mainstream scientists.
"The physicist David Bohm has proposed that an 'implicate order' exists, and he uses this order to explain the strange behaviour of the quantum world. Sheldrake's book "The Presence of the Past" contains the following quote from Bohm, in which the possible relationship between the implicate order and morphic resonance is explored: "The implicate order can be thought of as a ground beyond time, a totality, out of which each moment is projected into the explicate order [which Bohm sees as the order of ordinary experience]. For every moment that is projected into the explicate order there would be another movement in which that moment would be injected or 'introjected' back into the implicate order. If you have a large number of repetitions of this process, you'll start to build up a fairly constant component to this series of projection and injection. That is, a fixed disposition would become established. The point is that, via this process, past forms would tend to be repeated or replicated in the present, and that is similar to what Sheldrake calls a morphogenetic field and morphic resonance.""
OK, so in any moment we have simultaneously the current status quo being fed back into the realm of potential, and fresh input emerging into manifestation, shaped by collective memory patterns and archetypes. What is new is the unique combination at that time in that place, what is old is the regularly reinforced patterns of traditional biology and culture.
This goes some way towards explaining the synchronicity (as above, so below) that the horoscope depicts, except for the dimension of up-scaling in the holarchy of nature that is required. Seymour has addressed this point, if obliquely.
"Before discussing the relationship of the plasma space theory and the world-line web to Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields and Bohm's implicate order, it is first necessary to discuss the theory of cosmic transference."
"For any two subatomic particles to interact with each other, they either have to come into direct physical contact with each other at the same point of space at the same time, or they must get close enough to each other for their 'fields' to interact. In both cases the world lines of the particles will first converge and then, after the interaction, there will be one of several possibilities. First, if they repel each other in any way, their world lines will diverge. Second, if they attract each other, they could merge, and in this case their two world lines will become one after they have merged. Third, they may be moving so fast that the force of attraction is insufficiently strong to cause them to merge, in which case the world lines will diverge again. Fourth, the collision, or other interaction, might cause the particles to change into other particles, and in this case more than two particles will emerge from the encounter."
"In the plasma space theory electrons and protons are shuttles which, with their trailing electrified plasma space bundles, have woven the past, are now weaving the present and will continue to weave the future. The part of the web which has already been woven is the memory bank of all past interactions, and the threads with which the present is being woven are all entwined in the past. This means that every thread of the present is instantaneously linked to all the threads with which it has interacted in the past, which covers the whole history of the universe. In the plasma space theory two interacting particles will both carry memory traces of the interaction. The strengths of the memories will depend on the type of interaction and its duration. Systems of particles can also interact with each other, and in the case of two particles, or two systems of particles, the longer and the closer the interaction, the greater will be the strength of the memories. It is possible for the particles, or the systems of particles, to communicate with each other after the interaction, via this common memory. Intersections between world lines and branch points in space-time are important to the theory. The ability of two particles to 'communicate' via the world-line memory is clearer if their world lines have crossed, or if they share a branch point in space-time, and if there are no, or very few, crossings with other particles or systems between this common point in their world lines." (3)
This cosmic web scenario seems more reasonable if it can be shown that macroscopic systems are sensitive to and influenced by, quanta. It has already been demonstrated by experiment that the human brain can detect a single quantum of energy.
"All thought processes are accompanied by chemical and electrical changes in the brain, and so they involve temporal changes in the positions and patterns of subatomic particles. Since the world-line web threads its way through all the matter in the universe, it will pick up the vibrations resulting from these changes. It is thus likely that the evolving thought patterns of one person can be picked up by another person, in much the same way as a radio receiver can, because of resonance, be tuned to a specific radio station, but in this case the medium will be the world-line web, and not electromagnetic vibrations that occur in the spaces between the web. However, the effect will be stronger if the world lines of the two people concerned have crossed or, still better, run very closely together in the past. Thus telepathic communication is likely, as we have already seen, to be stronger with identical twins, but it is also likely to be strong in families, and theoretically possible between any two people, provided they become resonantly 'tuned' to each other." (4)
Intuition seems to be the capacity via which mind (and presumably brain) accesses aspects of our cosmic environment that the 5 senses cannot. Psychic ability is not necessarily limited to intuition, I suspect, but if we use the old term 6th sense to include both, that's really what I mean. People with a natural sense of timing probably use it instinctively. If you go with the flow you seem to get more receptive to subtle environmental cues. The cosmos is within as well as without, and the horoscope freezes the pattern common to both macrocosm and microcosm in the moment of synchronicity. The symbols we insert into the diagram identify the main structural components of that pattern that impinge on our perception, although we also insert some that are non-perceptual, and some readers may even entertain themselves with the insertion of imaginary factors.
We thus attempt to decode the moment, to access deeper meanings than those that our 6th sense conveys. To the extent to which these are consensual, they have become relatively objective and will therefore carry more social weight. If these are derived from the archetypes of nature, they will seem a reservoir that conveys eternal wisdom to anyone capable of tuning in. The real reservoir is the realm of potential, and the morphogenetic fields, archetypes and holomovement are just aspects of the transmission process. But remember old habits die hard, and the recycling of wrong ideas, thought patterns, collective beliefs and hallucinations is as much explained by these theories as the generation of an evolving consensus and any progress of civilisation.
(1) Seymour intro p xvi (2) Seymour p62 (3) Seymour p118-122 (4) Seymour p141
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 14:25:21 GMT
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #66
Hi Dennis and all
> >Bill Sheeran responded thus to my statement of belief (Ex4/64):
> >>I believe there exist archetypes of nature that generate and shape natural
> >>forms and processes.
> >Do archetypes generate manifest forms, or are they revealed in the
> >manifest forms? Is there a difference between archetypes and archetypal forms? I think this is an important point when considering astrological symbols. Do they generate the natural forms and processes, or are these revealed by the symbols? Can astrological symbols be considered to represent archetypes? A wall is an archetypal Saturnian form. The archetype might perhaps be described as a non-manifest principle of limits, and is mapped onto Saturn, which is then mapped onto the wall. Is the wall generated and shaped by Saturn? Or are Mercury, Mars, Moon, Venus also included in the equations, symbolising the thought, imagination, action, aesthetic sensitivity, need for the wall, etc. And yet the wall is not an archetypical Mars or Mercury form.
My feeling is that generative archetypes are more Aristotle, while non-generative archetypes are more Plato (modified to remove his perfectionism). SNIP >>>>>
> >Another consideration is the reality-creating function, or perhaps I really
> >mean consequences, of perception. Do we see circles in our eyes when we
> >look in the mirror because they are there? My bias leads me to believe that the reality we perceive (and try to objectify with science) is a product of the interaction between subject and object (and I'm not alone in this!). The objective models are still imbued with subjectivity. We can't reify (thingify) or objectify phenomena beyond the limits of what we can perceive. With science, this is overtly a consequence of the capacity of instruments to make measurements, and the limitations of science's ability to ask questions that lead one outside the prevailing paradigm. The questions lead to the instruments which lead to the data which lead to the definitions.
As some philosophers of science maintain, all observations are theory laden. In other words the interpretation of the digital print outs is also subjectively constrained. Hence, contrary to the myth, when an experiment does not confirm the hypothesis it was designed to verify, the hypothesis is not thrown out (having been disproven). It is supplemented with auxiliary hypotheses until it reaches a point where it collapses under its own weight. (Rather like the epicycles story).
Whether or not the circles in our eyes are actually there, one could
also add "what are we not seeing that is also there?". Unseen by eyes
(or other senses), unseen by instruments, unseen by imagination, etc.
> >Does the spiral form the
> >galaxy, and the nautilus? Or is it merely revealed in the like shapes?
> >Preference of choice between these options is driven by personal taste, I
> >guess. To me the latter option just seems limp-wristed and unconvincing. This is to do with pattern perception, which is a consequence of the interaction between subject and object. It is a valid question to ask whether the spiral form exists in reality, or only in our subjectively perceived reality. To what extent does our wiring and physical make up determine the way we perceive reality? How many colors are there in the spectrum. Ask a Papua New Guinean native, and they'll say three. All nuances and shades are alternative forms of either red, black or white.
I remember reading about a TV documentary on the indigenous inhabitants of the Congo forests in Africa, also known as pygmies. They live in thick vegetation where vision is restricted to very short distances. When out hunting, they sing constantly to keep in touch with each other. The organiser of the documentary took one of these people out of the forest to the plains. They main comment was surprise on seeing animals roaming. He didn't realise that antelopes (for example) could be so small. To me this indicates how subjective our sense of perspective is, and if something so basic is not to be taken for granted, what else is implied?
> >One striking feature of astrology is the
> >extent to which, unlike science, it is not a universal language. Not only
> >are there different cultural expressions of astrology (across both temporal
> >and geographical borders), but within a given culture (especially in the
> >west) there is a huge and growing diversity of techniques. And all
> >astrologers think their techniques work. While this observation is often
> >used to make criticisms, whether from sceptics, or from astrologer to
> >astrologer, it may be suggesting that the usual processes of rational
> >exclusion (e.g. arguing that the tropical and sidereal zodiacs can't both be
> >valid) might lead to one missing the point. It may simply be a culturally
> >determined error to try to apply Aristotelian logic to astrology." Dennis wrote:
> >Fair enough. So why not conclude that astrology as generally practised is
> >an art, not a science? I did, long ago. Well, to my mind it is clearly not a science by current definitions. I prefer craft to art in this regard - it emphasises more clearly the practical (and functional) aspect of astrology, and also puts the astrologer at the centre.
> >This has nothing to do with the
> >mechanism, synchronicity, `as above, so below'. Reasoning in the arena of
> >metaphysics seems closer to science, even if the construction of new
> >paradigms is the product of artistry. I don't think paradigms are constructed. I think they emerge despite resistance from consciousness.
> >So "the fundamental problem of not
> >having in focus a contemporary set of paradigmatic guidelines" may only be a
> >problem if you want your new paradigm to be testable, huh, as Bill T & Andre
> >do? I'm more interested in the role of "paradigmatic guidelines" in facilitating the development of astrological theory and philosophy. It's not that they don't exist. They're simply not in focus, and are submerged beneath the dominant scientific paradigmatic consensus. Bringing them back into focus is what is required. They can only be tested within the context of the paradigm itself. We don't know how to test it if we haven't defined to ourselves what it is. In other words, what is astrology?
This is not a simple question to answer. Is astrology today basically the same as astrology in the past? I think not, because I put the astrologer at the centre of my definition of astrology, and the astrologer is not a fixed feature, but lives in a society. The fact that astrology evolved away from divination towards an astrology of causes is an indication of how astrology's form is modulated by cultural evolution. Astrology's function is now different. In the past, it was a product of the need to establish and maintain order in the early days of patriarchy. Now it's all about self-development.
In my thinking, astrology is intimately connected to humanity's pursuit of order in a world of change. The sense of order and ability to understand and control the natural world has changed profoundly since 2000 BC. That's one of the reasons why astrology nearly went extinct in the west - because it was no longer deemed necessary. In what way will our newer understanding of order influence the evolution of astrology (assuming it doesn't go extinct)?
Issues such as these need a lot of teasing out.
> >And what if astrology actually is potentially a relatively universal
> >language? Relatively universal is a contradiction in terms......
> >I mean, if we agree on keywords that accurately convey the
> >essence of the archetypes with the same (or very similar) meanings in
> >different cultures. It will still depend on what the keywords mean to the astrologer - i.e. on their interpretation of the meaning of the words. Science is not burdened with such problems. x = x .
> >So how do you see your scientific expertise applying to the subject matter
> >of this list, Bill? The most important aspect of my experience as a scientist was in helping to refine my ability to ask questions and to think. This eventually resulted in me abandoning science, as I realised that science is very restrictive in this regard. A side benefit has been the recognition that science is wearing a completely different set of clothes to those which it advertises. It has been valuable spending time on the inside of that particular "church", as it means that I am quite aware of the way scientists think and work, have had the opportunity to perceive first hand its limitations. In debate situations I am not intimidated by their dogmatism, which as an astrologer I find a real bonus.
> >Do you then come here as a
> >generalist, like me? The world sure needs lots more generalists (still). I'm not sure what you mean by generalist.
> >Incidentally, I am aware that post-modern fashion requires people to deny
> >such old-fashioned notions as reality, excellence, being correct. I choose
> >to differ. Interpreting relativism as meaning that everyone's description
> >of reality is equally valid, no matter how thick the author, just leads to
> >terminal vacuity. I agree with your criticism of relativism. But I would argue that post-modernity is not innately relativistic. It's not that old notions of excellence or reality definitions are not correct, but that they are not absolute. There is a middle ground between universal absolutes and out and out individualistic relativism.
> >The '60s revulsion against a sterile elitism was necessary, but it's a
> >goddam huge pendulum with lots of inertia, and it has kept going in the
> >direction of pluralism long after the '80s bland-out required it to begin a
> >swing back toward expertise and (dare I say it?) rectitude. It's early days yet. One could also say that the pendulum of monotheism, absolutism, and the taboo against process, change, the unpredictable, etc., has had a pretty long life! What we are witnessing in our time is break down of the consequences of the patriarchal mindset, which evolved in response to a very chaotic world. This has happened very rapidly (i.e. over the last 300 years) due to the successes of science in understanding and subsequently imposing order on the natural world. Exploring pluralism is a natural consequence of this novel state of affairs. That doesn't mean we're very good at it yet. Post modern is a contradiction in terms. It is a transitional phase in the evolution of modernity.
> > Dennis, replying to Candy:
> >Candy: "what we are doing with NA is, more often than not, in the absence
> >of an absolutely correct birth time, equivalent to a 'divinatory' reading".
> >I think this point is valid, but not sure to what extent. What makes me
> >uneasy about agreeing fully is the quite unpalatable implication that the
> >real birth time is irrelevant. I think the real birth time is relevant, but not an absolute necessary or sufficient condition to be fulfilled in order for useful astrological statments to be made. And I'm not talking about being a few minutes out here. My feeling is that astrology can be differentiated into various modes of practice. The simplest categorisation would be into horoscopic and non-horoscopic astrology. The former would be more birth time oriented (in other words, a divinatory technique using the time of birth), while the latter is less tied to such discrete moments of actual beginnings. For example, the significance of real time planetary patterns such as the current Saturn/Uranus square, horary, etc.. If the astrologer assigns significance (to use a typical Geoffrey Cornelius phrase) to the exact time of birth (as has been the case for a long time), then that is what is significant, from a divinatory point of view.
The question is whether or not astrology "works" when no significance is assigned to the birth moment, and other criteria are used instead. What's weird is that the answer to this question would seem to be yes.
Again, this tends to focus attention back onto the astrologer rather
than some kind of objective astrological mechanism which the
astrologer has to submit to in order to get a correct reading.
> >I was a late-comer to the I Ching, but have been using it about a decade. I
> >made the transition from sympathetic sceptic to impressed sceptic to
> >awe-inspired advocate. But I believe the verdicts only inspire awe due to
> >my particular method of interpretation: I use a cross-section of
> >interpretive sources. Here the diviner is obviously the key. The hexagrams cannot be seen as generative causes, but are clearly signs (which reveal). And of course interpretation is clearly subjective. Any development in the understanding of the reality of the I Ching will have relevance for understanding the phenomenon of astrology, and vice versa. Perhaps we need a General Theory of Divination. Different modes of astrological practice can then be considered as special cases within this general model, each influenced by a variety of cultural factors. For example, we are so culturally obsessed with precision, causality and time that it doesn't feel right mentioning an astrology which dances to a different tune. It is difficult to conceive of other possibilities.
Like the pygmies mentioned above, we are surprised to discover that, once removed from our cultural conditioning, things can be perceived in another way.
All the best,
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 67
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.