Exegesis V4 Issue 74

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #74

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #73

Exegesis Digest Mon, 27 Sep 1999

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:32:59 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #73

> >Hello Everyone,
> >I here observe what appears to be echoes of previous discussions on this
> >list, except now involving the two Bill's.
> >Bill Tallman wrote:
> >>>>Now, we are adjured to "deconstruct" astrology, presumably because astrology
> >>>>existed in the time of Modern philosophy, with no intention to "reconstruct"
> >>>>astrology afterwards. This spells "destruction" and wanton destruction at
> >>>>that, as far as I am concerned.
> >As I recall, when the word "deconstruction" was broached within the context
> >Bill critiques it here, I responded in one of my very first posts:
> >>Also,
> >>gentlemen, be careful with deconstruction. You both correctly define its
> >>ideal end: to lead away from destruction, but like the famous "talking
> >>cure" of the therapeutic couch, it can lead to nowheresville, the vicious,
> >>navel-gazing polemic of the narcissist.

I think we all agree that theory and practice all too often diverge, and often not for the best of reasons. Sometimes it seems that there are agenda that lurk in the development of a practice, of an "ism", if you will, that makes any theoretical presentation thereof automatically inadequate, even as an apology.

> >No one responded, perhaps because I didn't pursue my deconstruction in line
> >with what was already being discussed on the list, i.e., science, primal
> >numbers, mechanisms, and this, framed within the implicit requirement for
> >substantive, not ephemeral, or even ruminative, contributions--although I
> >did enter under the aegis of Cornelius, not unlike Bill Sheeran.

This is why I had recommended that there be parallel threads, so that this inevitable clash not continue to occur. Science, primal numbers and mechanisms are objective considerations, and are tools and techniques for addressing the phenomenon of astrology as having objective existence. This leaves the whole field of the subjective reality open to exploration, and if this had been clearly noted (and accepted by all), your ephemeral and/or ruminative contributions would have had equal power, I think. There are many ways to detect or determine substantiveness.

> >Deconstructing something that is at least more complicated than a Lego set
> >would demand a rather longer wait before "reconstruction," as Bill suggests
> >above, could even be attempted.

This is a quite reasonable requirement, much like history ends a century before the present time; it takes time to evaluate this sort of thing. Unfortunately, the consequences of deconstruction with no attempt at timely reconstruction leaves the field of interest a decaying corpse in the meantime. I suggest that the notion of deconstruction should remain a specific activity confined to a well defined discipline, lest it leak out to become a common mode weapon against anything that might be vulnerable. That's what seems to have happened here, at least to some extent.

> >The fact that this post-modern and highly
> >specialized word has developed a life of its own on Exegesis, and is
> >included in the same paragraph as "destruction" frightens me, Bill.

Yeah, frightens me too!! As I said, it seems to me that this is the result of throwing around notions and terms for common usage that should not exist outside their appropriately constrained field of relevance.

> >Your
> >creating this correspondence "presumably because astrology existed in the
> >time of Modern philosophy," as you note above, is inscrutable to me since
> >most subjects that I have ever seen on this list post-date astrology--with
> >the exception of the free will and fate debate--ably and passionately
> >commandeered by Candy, but that too seems to have been shunted aside.

Astrology predates almost anything we might consider, but it has continued to have existence down through the development of our culture and its history is replete with descriptions of how it has suffered or thrived according to each era through which it passed. Thus it has had existence during the time of Modern philosophy, and has surely been affected thereby, for good or ill.

The debate over fate versus free will is obviously relevant to any discussion of astrology, for it speaks to the essence of astrology itself. Unfortunately, it is rather too large a subject for the context of our discussion, it would seem. Not only philosophy but religion, sociology, etc, etc enter the picture and such a discussion would inevitably require sorting through all that material to even define meaningful terms. This is the reason that I did not actively pursue this subject, even though I have definite opinions in these regards, as I have said.

> >But in this instance, Bill Sheeran responded to Bill Tallman's
> >thoughtful presumptiveness so:
> >>>I think it is very important to take a hard look at what we think
> >>>astrology is, given the fact that we have a pre-modern subject wearing
> >>>modern clothes. Demonstrating the validity of astrology is impossible
> >>>if we don't take all the layers of clothing off the emperor (maybe
> >>>that should be empress).
> >..which reminds me so much of this post:
> >"It is more like the screen on a computer, each window opened being a layer
> >added onto another layer, technically speaking. Multitasking on a computer
> >is close to what I'm trying to describe, for in multitasking, many
> >operations are conducted at once, some related, some not, some to the same
> >end as others, some with different ends, virtually simultaneously and
> >equally valuable, or covalent. In linguistics, this is polylogous
> >discourse, multi-phonic, no one voice having privilege over another."
> >Six of one, half-dozen of the other, isn't it?

Ummm..... well, there is another defined parameter for operating systems in addition to multitasking, and that is multithreading. This parameter refers to the ability of an operating system to carry out separate processes simultaneously. Multitasking is accomplished by appropriate algorithms that control the activity of the CPU, such that it will not be forced to wait while one process reads or writes to a disk, or awaits input, etc. This makes possible a much more efficient usage of the CPU. Multithreading is the ability of an operating system to carry on separate processes without their mutual interference, etc.

Windows 3.xx was a multithreading operating system but did not multitask: only the top application was active at any given time. Windows 95/98 are also multitasking, but not so successful at multithreading because applications do interfere and bring the system down (crash). Operating systems like UNIX (Minix, Linux, etc) were intended to be so capable from initial design and are robust in these regards: they both multitask and multithread with ease.

Most people are like Windows 3.xx; they can have several threads going on at once, but can focus on only one at a time. This means there will always be a voice (thread) that is dominant at any given time, and it is up to the user to determine which that shall be. Many people crash when they attempt to handle multithreads in real time, especially when they come to conflict to any extent.

So polylogous, multiphonic discourse may deem all voices as equal in theory, but from the perspective of a participant, only one of those voices is likely to be heard at any given point of focus, and that means that the theoretical and practical view have a divergence inherent in the lack of synopticicity between the collective and individual usages.

> >Then, Bill Sheeran ends on this note:
> >>And astrology will eventually expand the horizons of science, although
> >>as that process unfolds, the subject will be hijacked and assimilated
> >>under an assumed name.
> >Again, uncannily similar to this post and one of Andre's:
> >"I fully appreciate that this is the trap set for the demystification of the
> >anti-rational: its utter co-optation by either the scientism that abhors
> >and fears it, or by that lay spiritualism which is so ready to ambush
> >anything science cannot define and appropriate for and to itself."

You may recall that I have stood alone on this stage (as well as others) and proclaimed this idea as worthy of concern. I've been heckled for doing so, but have stood firm. I have no knowledge of other contexts, but on this forum both of these gentlemen succeed me in these regards. I am, however, greatly edified to witness these agreements, as you might imagine!!!

> >It all just seems so familiar which is why I felt I could just jump in
> >and pick up where I left off (which was quite a while ago). Is a zipper
> >stuck somewhere, or is it my bra clasp? Onwards, gentlemen--a cigar for
> >both of you as you continue your manly discussion in the den, and one for
> >Dennis, whose posts invariably empty my printer's ink cartridge. As for me,
> >the dishes are done and I come to join you in the den.

My dear, you are welcome in the den, where a glass of the finest sherry shall await you before the fire; cigarillos are optional. With regards the zipper or bra clasp, please don't let that detain you; I'm certain we gentlemen would be more than willing to give you whatever assistance you might require.

Warmth of these sorts is probably signatory of Cynthia, who provides it with much panache; I, for one, respond with the appreciation it deserves.... < grin >

Dale Huckeby responds to Dennis and Bill Sheeran, and I nod rather enthustiastically in response to many of Dale's concise and pithy observations. Dale probably expresses my views better than I in at least these regards.

Lots of food for thought on all parts, and, as a semi-lurker, I do appreciate the work of all concerned