Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #84

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #83

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Elements and...

From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: re Exegesis 4/81 & 82

Exegesis Digest Mon, 15 Nov 1999

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:19:12 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #83

 > >Martin Howe wrote from Orkney in Ex4/79: "A propos the fact that the
 > >classical rulerships as we consider them today aren't really the ones
 > >originally derived from experience/observation but ones subsequently
 > >proposed from theoretical ordering into applepie neatness, I remember
 > >reading that that the four elements were subverted at the same time < snip >
 > >so as to give each equal preponderance in the zodiac . We work with the
 > >material as presently ordered for the sake of convenience or otherwise we
 > >are mere Chaos Magicians surely ? Rediscovery can fill in the blanks
 > >though".

Yes, I recall having read this, but did not comment at the time. It would be interesting to know what it was that Martin read that said the Elements were subverted at some point.

 > >Subverted? Rationalised seems more accurate. Of course Martin is right that
 > >we use tradition for convenience, and those who invent planets or believe
 > >that asteroids endow them with interior goddesses may fancy themselves as
 > >chaos magicians, although they would be more likely to promote their systems
 > >as a higher form of order, and prefer that others considered them real
 > >rather than imaginary. Rediscovery, in theory, can indeed fill in the
 > >blanks. A shame it never seems to do so.

I think it could be argued that one continuous thread in mankind's history has been a growth in our ability to identify and address our environment (and ourselves) in detail. The recognition of aspects of that reality have entailed naming and describing, then analyzing and defining; we can say that the earliest work involved large chunks of natural phenomena, and the common notion is that those chunks were given the names of living beings, having apparently the ability to have a powerful effect and the capacity for independent volition. We say these beings were the gods.

Although the process of refining our understanding(s) seems to have gone forward in fits and starts, that is probably more a function of geopolitical machinations that it is of man's willingness to gather the relevant data, which is the first step in the process of describing. The records support this contention: what must be called good science has gone on almost continuously all over the world by those who could do it. How it was utilized was, of course, another matter. The point is that the fundamental process seems to have been continuous.

The result is that we have, especially in recent centuries, become able to address the details of reality in a more increasingly effective manner. In consequence, the size of the chunks of reality that we name has decreased so dramatically that it can become difficult to recognize that it's only different in degree, not in kind, from those at the beginnings of history. We name and describe, analyzed and define, though our names are no longer those of living beings.

At each stage there is, necessarily, I think, the need to do house-keeping, and we all understand that entails both cleaning and putting things in order. We sort out what is apparently relevant and keep for use and either discard or store the rest (including the dirt and dust from the corners and the spiderwebs that have grown in unattended places), and then we set about organizing that which is retained so that it is useful in whatever way is appropriate. This is, however, a special manifestation of an ongoing process, much like spring cleaning: that we do such a cleaning doesn't mean that we don't do house-keeping at other times. What happens is that we wind up with a gradiation of organization, ranging from the front room to the hall closet (or the attic); the front room organization reflects the most current and ongoing realities of life, and the hall closet reflects what has been, for whatever reason, left unattended. Thus, the hall closet can possess and organization that is obviously badly out of date; this doesn't mean that the organization of the hall closet is wrong, but simply outdated.

So it is with human knowledge and understanding. The process does not go forward in an orderly manner, in which all relevant items or areas of interest maintain a more or less similar state of up-to-dateness. Some things become well understood, while others do not. This means that there are areas of human understanding that are likely to retain the names of the gods; if this were not so, then we would be forced to conclude that human understanding is, to some arbitrary state, complete. This is most clearly not the case.

So I think we must honor any level of organization of understanding as being appropriate thereto, and not attempt to foist upon one that which is appropriate to another. If the gods are appropriate to explain some phenomena that science has clearly been unable to address, then it is unreasonable to apply scientific standards thereto: those standards have not earned the right of application.

 > >The basic flaw in the doctrine of rulerships is the initial presumption that
 > >some planets belong to some signs. Anciently, these were domiciles, with
 > >the signs then being called houses (before houses as we currently use them
 > >were invented). The traditional assumption that a similarity of meaning
 > >underlies each correlation seems not to have been the original rationale.
 > >That was culture-specific astral religion derived, varying between cultures.

I would argue that we do not have enough understanding of these matters to make these sorts of statements. What is being expressed here, I think, is a modern tendency towards rejection of anything that does not seem tractable to current abilities to reason. The ability to reason rests largely on the state of relevant understanding: one has to know something of a subject to be able to make reasonable (rational, logical) statements about it. We simply do not have anywhere near enough knowledge about the tradition of astrology to engage in rational discourse.

Rational discourse, in my mind, is discourse that is founded on that which has been demonstrated to be (apparently) factual: rational is a word that defines the condition of a ratio, which is a statement of how a thing is related to another thing, and although this is a mathematical usage, I suggest that it is appropriate in general.

 > >The robotic recitation of tradition makes most modern astrologers unwitting
 > >recyclers of nonsense, in my opinion. Better to learn the nature of the
 > >archetype that underlies each symbol, and then the essential differences
 > >between each unique archetype will become clear. Clarifying one's
 > >perception of the archetypes facilitates the generation of a more refined
 > >language of interpretation. Assuming similarities between planets and signs
 > >prevents one from tuning into the archetypes as they are, and instead the
 > >astrologer drifts into error due to projecting a contrived equivalence onto
 > >the two sets of symbols. Better to learn from the reality of nature than
 > >the fantasy of a garbled tradition.

Robotic recitation tends to make a fool of the reciter, as I have had far too many occasions to learn.... < grin > . This is why I am rather free with my usage of qualifiers (as you no doubt will have noted...).

Archetypes are probably more relevant in the realm of the collective, it could be argued, I think. One person's understanding is almost certain to vary from another person's understanding, and so an archetype is more likely to convey what is understood in common, which any individual is likely to find personally incomplete and probably thus unsatisfactory. This addresses a matter taken up later in this post.

Again, we do not know enough to make statements about the nature of the astrological tradition, I suggest.

 > >In 4/80 Bill Tallman wrote: "The correspondence between the Elements and
 > >the states of matter is evident, with the exception that Fire probably is
 > >equivalent to the plasma state, I would think."
 > >
 > >Interesting technical point. I was unconsciously reciting my programming in
 > >general science from age 13/14. Describing energy as the 4th state of
 > >matter was once routine, and one could always quote Einstein (E=MC2) to
 > >verify it. However I recently noted some physicist author including plasma
 > >as the 4th state as Bill suggests, so perhaps there has been a change in
 > >convention that I never picked up on. Consulting the dictionary, I find
 > >plasma defined as hot, ionised gas. Obviously this does not (necessarily)
 > >equate to energy, thus supporting the earlier convention. Interstellar
 > >space is awash with cosmic radiation, a portion of which passes through us
 > >constantly. This energy provides a universal experiential common factor, it
 > >would seem.

Ahhh... well, after I made this post, I realized that I'd not said a word about another interesting correspondence, which *does* involve energy: consider the correspondences of the Elements to Matter, Energy, Space and Time. This notion is worth a post in itself, so I won't take it up here.

In any case, I suspect that energy is not properly regarded as a state of matter in the same way as solid, liquid and gas might be. Energy is probably better regarded as the alternative state of all matter in any form. But that may be a quibble, I don't know....

 > >Bill goes on: "In general, I think, one might suggest that the elements [snip]
 > >so I've not said anything here that isn't a part of the basic astrological
 > >tradition."
 > >
 > >I'm inclined to question that notion of yours, Bill. Northern hemisphere
 > >chauvinism may be habitual, but progress will only come from a global
 > >perspective. Can you spell that notion out as logic that applies in any
 > >hemisphere?

It seems to me that astrology as we know it, particularly western tropical astrology, is a northern hemispherical tradition that got imported to the southern hemisphere in the last few centuries. Consequently, we must expect that any derivations therefrom are specifically applicable to the northern hemisphere.

I suppose one might make the argument that those who live in the southern hemisphere need to develop their own reflection of the northern form. From the communication I have had with residents of the southern hemisphere, it appears that there exist some alternative understandings of the applications of the Signs, equinoxes, and soltices. Southern hemispherical spring begins with the Sign of Libra and blossoms in Scorpio; I've heard rather compelling descriptions of Scorpio as appropriate in the role commonly played by Taurus in the northern hemisphere.

If something of this sort can be developed, then it would probably be fruitful to make a comparison between the two to discern what may be common, or what may underlie the zodiacal oppositions involved. In any case, as a resident of the northern hemisphere, I'm not likely to be able to provide a useful description of the southern alternative.

 > >Bill suggests that "for each Equinox/Solstice, there is a process that is
 > >signified by the Cardinal Sign, but is bounded by beginning in the Mutable
 > >Sign and ending in the Fixed Sign. Likewise, for each House Angle, there is
 > >a process of development where the Angle is signatory, and which is bounded
 > >by the Cadent House in the beginning and the Succedant House in the end."
 > >
 > >I'm even more sceptical of this reasoning, which seems to have no basis in
 > >nature. The `process' refers to exactly what? I appreciate that our
 > >theorising must form concepts abstracted from reality, but we need to see an
 > >evident pattern correspondence between model and phenomenon.

Yeah, it looks rather wierd, does it not? But it seems to me that something of the sort may be inherent in the basis for the terms used. Cardinal and Angular are geometric terms, of course, but the others seem to be descriptive, I think. As far as discovering the natural manifestation of a theoretical model is concerned, the history of such things makes it clear that there is almost always a gap in time between the conception of the model and the reality it represents. Theoretical models are not so useful to explain what is already observed: empirical models do quite well in that application. Theoretical models make it possible to conceive of what otherwise is (by definition) beyond our current perception. So the model comes first, and the reality it represents (if it indeed does so) is most often discovered, at least partially, as a consequence of the model.

 > >Your point about mystery schools is crucial Bill, and we tend to overlook
 > >it. The in-crowd psychodynamic has been a critical boundary issue
 > >throughout history, even into this century. We inherited whatever leaked
 > >out! Of course the other critical formative influence on our tradition was
 > >the two great fires of Alexandria. Modern astrologers spew forth the dregs
 > >of tradition, thinking it is cosmic wisdom.

Thank you, sir. The problem here is that very few astrologers even know about such things, because the current manifestations thereof are not recognizable in those terms. The current manifestations are such places as M.I.T., etc. Everyone knows they exist, just as the ancients were all aware of the schools. The entrance rituals are different, but (probably) only in degree, not in kind. You gotta >>>KNOW < stuff in order to get into those places, and I mean "know" to at least the degree expressed here. Sitting outside the gate for a week without food doesn't do the job any more: the entrance qualifications are orders of magnitude more difficult.

And you are right that we continue to spew what leaks out as being cast in stone, even though we haven't a clue about what we're talking about, and then have the temerity to cavil when what we've arbitrarily cast in stone turns out to be unworthy thereof. But I suspect that this is a more modern phenomena: the church or the state (or both) dictated to the masses until the advent of the printing press and the rise in literacy.

Did the Romans who frequented those baths in Alexandria have a clue what they were doing to the future of the human race? One might wonder, I think!

 > >Bill rightly warns against presuming equivalences between different symbol
 > >systems. Much drivel has been published in astrological journals by
 > >astrologers deluded by the mystique of metaphysics promoting contrived
 > >correspondences. As Bill says "these insights are individual and are
 > >certain to be different for each seeker." Such writers may have genuine
 > >personal insights, or mere fancies. However it remains, as Bill suggests,
 > >an endeavour worth pursuing. It is an exercise in pattern recognition,
 > >presuming there is a subtle pattern within the dregs of our tattered
 > >tradition. It seems reasonable to assume that the extensive trans-cultural
 > >and trans-temporal appeal of astrology is due to a pattern-generated
 > >resonance in a multitude of minds.

I agree about the drivel in the astrological magazines in recent times. Older magazines were pretty much restricted to case studies and fairly closely proscribed astrological commentary. There was very little NewAge influence until... well, until the NewAge became popular enough to sell magazines. Decades ago, NewAgers were pretty much a collation of cults and not a popular movement, and the magazines that served them were pretty specialized, even as some are at present. Now, NewAge thinking has been diluted to the point of impotency and it seems now to encompass any and every point of view that can be made attractive enough to draw any sort of following.

I've attended my share of NewAge lectures.... well, I suppose I should admit having given a few of my own years ago before NewAge was such a popular movement... and one of the common factors is that the lecturer almost always *does* have some useful insights and points of view, even though they be derivative to the point of dreariness if one had to review them in an article. What makes them useful is not the insights and views themselves, but how the lecturer has had the experience of applying them: it is the lecturer's experience that is what is communicated, and the following that is generated is a function of the effectiveness of that communication, of the charisma/energy/whatever that is generated in the process that makes it real to the audience.

So the NewAge experience is powerful in its immediacy, as has been made quite clear in almost all accounts thereof. Where it looses it's power is the application to other (related) matters where it is intended to serve as an interpretation.

The Buddha made such a powerful impression on his followers that his life and legacy has lasted down through the centuries. The effect of most of his followers in that manner has largely tended toward drivel, with some startling exceptions of course. The difference between Buddhism and the NewAge is that Buddhism is a cohesive construct that is (at least potentially) useful for anyone who would use it, and NewAge is an atmosphere that promotes almost exactly the opposite: NewAge would have everyone "doing their own thing" regardless of how it relates to the individual's environment, etc, etc.

Pattern recognition now appears to be a quite precise definition of one of h. sap's most definitive abilities. That other vertebrates and lower primates seem to have this ability is probably illusory, it seems. The response to patterns is more reflexive than active, or so the thinking goes as I understand it, and the ability to actively recognize patterns is the basis of a language.

What is interesting here is that we must define language, I think, as an ordered means of communication: nothing is said about vocal or verbal, however. That means, of course, that language can utilize other media that may not be intrinsically recognizable to other species... an idea which as served the science fiction community thematically for years.

Makes us wonder just how it is that we really are unique. That we are (or appear to be) could well be as much a matter of accident as anything else, perhaps.

wtallman (who had some difficulty extracting his tongue from his cheek after sending the last post... < grin > )


Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:10:47 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Elements and...

Whilst downloading email, my thoughts turned to the matter of the Elements once again, and so I will indulge those thoughts with another post.

The obvious assignments are: Fire is Energy, Earth is Matter, Air is Space, and Water is Time. There are other not so obvious assignments that can be explored, but this should probably be investigated first; the results can be used subsequently as a baseline for other ideas.

In the great crosses of the horoscope, we see that Energy and Space are a dual, as is Matter and Time; these are different from the more common duals of Energy and Matter, Space and Time, which provides an opportunity for some interesting insights, perhaps.

Regarding the first dual, we can observe that the current cosmological model has the universe beginning as a point of pure energy which bursts forth into, and presumably defines, space, which in return contains the expansion of that burst. The debates now going on in cosmology all appear to accept this model, while positing different processes and different consequences thereof. An interesting process that is different from the intuitively obvious is the "many-worlds theory", and there are other less well known hypothetical processes; of the different consequences, there are the steady state, the cyclic, and the infinitely expansive universes, etc. All these assume at least some version of the Big Bang origin, where Energy expands into Space.

Regarding the second dual, we can observe that all cosmological models fail to achieve absolute homogeneity, and thus mandate that the universe has differentiated content, which in turn mandates the existence of process. As energy expands into space, matter is created as a consequence of process, which is mensurated by duration, the metric of which is time. As the energy of the Big Bang burst expanded, it was presumably forced to follow the inverse square law which meant that energy density in any given volume of space could be differentiated from any other... or maybe not, I don't know as I wasn't there < grin > In any case, in the process there began to be a differentiation of types of energy, which eventually created energic differences in space, resulting in different types of processes in different places, creating Matter as a consequence of the flow of Time.

Two archetypes arise here: the first is that of Manifestation, and the second is that of Change. We can regard the expansion of Energy into Space as Manifestation, and the development of Matter through Time as Change.

The notion of Manifestation is basic to metaphysical considerations, of course, and is generally couched in the context of the unmanifest realms, whatever those might be. The late David Bohm saw this phenomenon as the Explicate arising out of the Implicate. Incidentally, Bohm's early family background had a strong element of concern with metaphysical realities, so I understand, as a result of his father's interests in those regards, and so his recognition of the issue is not entirely unrelated to the matters at hand here (astrological theory, etc).

In general, it could be said that particle physics and quantum mechanics as well are concerned directly with the matter of exploring the interface between the manifest and the unmanifest, and so there is a great deal of interest and work that continues in this area. If there had to be a particular description of the area under investigation here, it might be that it was about those first few femto-seconds in the Big Bang, I suspect. The better this is understood, the greater the ability to comprehend what has been observed to have been (and continues to be) the result of that point in time as we watch the universe unfold before us.

The concept of Change is probably familiar to us all as one of the universe's great constants, one that drives everything we experience, etc. It has also been suggested, so I'm given to understand, that Change must have a temporal dimension: no change takes place in zero time. If this is so, then it could be said, I think, that *all* change can be classified as a process. This may seem self-evident, and it most likely is, but I think there is an important insight here.

If all Change is a process, then it can be observed in some manner and that potentially leads to understanding. The key here is the exploitation of the properties of Time. We understand now that Time is much more malleable than we are accustomed to expecting: science gives us some means of insight here, and our life experiences teach us much about Time as well. We recognize that it is indeed relative in ways that are accessible to all: Time goes by more quickly as we get older, so we observe; what is happening here is that we identify the passage of time as it is a dimension of the whole. A year is a major portion of the life of a young person and so goes by slowly. A year is a much smaller portion of the life of an older person, and so goes by much more quickly.

Fundamental to all these considerations is the observation that a basic mensuration of Time is that of the cycle, where processes appear to be repetitive in some manner. It is this property of time (that it possesses the cycle as a metric) that we exploit, gaining understanding as we experiment with the similarities and differences of these repeating processes. But, of course, the cycle is only a metric, it is not the only description of the dimension of Time; we say that Time often appears to be linear, that it continues onward allowing the unfoldment of the unknown, unknowable because not cyclic in nature. And so we come to conceive of the metric of Time as more properly that of a spiral, where the axis of the observed cycle(s) is itself part of a larger, as yet unrecognized, cycle (presumably).

As we contemplate all this, we recall what we already so well understand, and that is that Manifestation itself is a function of Change, as Change is also a function of Manifestation. When Change goes forth, new (different) Manifestations arise; when Manifestation takes place, Change affects everything. Manifestation and Change, then, are archetypes that describe a part of the essence of the Elements as they are a part of the astrological tradition.

As the archetypes define the Elemental duals, they can be said to be "at cross purposes" as they comprise the Zodiacal axes that constitute the great astrological Crosses of the horoscope. Basic to astrology, of course, is that these crosses also define the aspect of the Square, which identifies the sources of the dynamics (the results of stresses that are the consequence of being "at cross purposes") of the matter of horoscopic interest (native, point in time, question, etc.). It can be argued, I think, that these sources are probably the matters of most consistent concern for the astrologer as the astrologer provides the astrological service.

In the Cardinal placement, the Elements define the Equinoxes and Solstices: Manifestation from Equinox to Equinox (Fire in Aries and Air in Libra) and Change from Solstice to Solstice (Earth in Capricorn and Water in Cancer). In the Fixed placement, Manifestation is seen as the result of the Solsticial axis (Fire in Leo and Air in Aquarius) and Change as the result of the Equinoctial axis (Earth in Taurus and Water in Scorpio). The Mutable placement brings Manifestation (Fire in Sagittarius and Air in Gemini) to the axis of Change as given above (Capricorn and Cancer) and Change (Earth in Virgo and Water in Pisces) to the axis of Manifestation (Aries and Libra).

These ideas are, of course, most likely not immediately useful to all readers as a source of insight, but perhaps the procedure of writing these down in a table and making connections recorded as annotations, might prove fruitful. To others, there may be aspects of this that are intuitively obvious that might otherwise remain undefined and unrecognized, and to still others, this may well make no sense at all!!

This (thumbnail) analysis of the most obvious set of correspondences was the substance of a train of thought, and so I must assume that there are others to be explored. I would enjoy hearing of those others if anyone is disposed to explore them and contributing the results to this list.




Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:05:44 +1300
From: Janice & Dennis
To: Exegesis
Subject: re Exegesis 4/81 & 82

In Ex4/82 Cynthia wondered "Why would anyone expect horarists to parade around in fine, expensive vehicles when they are, even among their fellows, regarded as syphlitic siblings?.. The bee in everyone's bonnet seems to be a rank dissatisfaction with their ability to "predict" from natal work, not horary. And then this sour grape philosophy is projected onto the venue of horary. I will never understand how this sleight of hand, this specious logic, manages to persist and even flourish among astrologers."

I understood Elwell to be reacting to the way English promoters of horary were hyping the subject. I do recall noticing a tendency along those lines, associated with a trend to exalt certain traditional practitioners. Lilly, mainly. Having a copy of the excellent bio by Derek Parker, I am aware of how much he screwed up and assume those trend-followers are afflicted by the true-believer syndrome, and don't want to learn from history.

Regardless of what behaviour antagonised Elwell, Cynthia may have a point about envy of apparent powers of prediction. Except that astrologers keen to acquire such apparent powers are likely to be motivated by the `if you can't beat `em, join `em' logic, and adopt whatever further technique is required to enhance their mystique.

In 4/81 Patrice wrote: "I say IMPRESS, thinking in IMPRESSION, "IMPRESSIONAL", the latin word IMPRESSIO in the sense of Paracelse. At birth there is no such imprint like a photographic one. You are Saturnian, you are Libra, because there are repetitions, RECURRENCES, of cyclical patterns, and because these cycles are synchronised with biological processes. There is a SYNCHRONISATION (not synchronicity !!) of planetary rhythms with biological, organical, molecular rhythms, AND from this synchronisation merge imperceptible transformations in organism, hence in human psyche. But which processes ? : We don't know, and it's not in the capacity of astrologers to know that : it's properly a scientific affair."

In 4/82 Bill Tallman commented: "I think all this is a matter of juggling semantics, unfortunately. Whether the idea as given is simplistic or poorly expressed, it still conveys an important truth: at some point, we begin our lives within the context of the astrological cosmos < snip > that we must express within that context something of the nature of that cosmos at the time of our beginning, seems incontrovertible. < snip > cycles work *because* there is a starting point, as provided for analysis by the natal horoscope, and I think it's probably meaningful to say that this starting point made a strong enough impression to remain to resonate at the beginning of the next cycle. Without that impressed starting point, how could one identify a cycle?"

Impressed on what?

If not an imprint, is any impression merely a metaphor rather than a (hypothetical) fact?

One might even go so far as to assume some kind of impressario performing these impressions. A cosmic ring-master perhaps. Ellipse-master, to be precise. Sorry, too old-fashioned...

Juggling semantics perhaps, but biological processes occur in organic and Gaian time. Development tends to be cued by environment, particularly diurnal & solunar cycles, but also internally according to genetic programming. The local cosmos is qualitatively unique, thus Gaian rhythms also, and these constitute most of the context that Bill calls the "astrological cosmos". Development originates and unfolds in organic relation to this spatio-temporal context.

So I suspect the impression at the genesis of something is more apparent than real. Latent potential can be described in archetypal terms, so if you are Barbara Watters doing the horoscope of the Empire State building, several decades ago, you do not need to have it sitting across the desk from you in order to do a reading. Despite what most astrologers think.

The key seems to be the organic relation between entity and context, in which the whole creates a new part at an appropriate time. The horoscope of the new part details the archetypal potential provided by that holistic context, and development unfolds in complex cyclic interaction with the whole. The whole is both environment and continuum, a dynamic matrix.

 > >There is a SYNCHRONISATION (not synchronicity !!) of planetary rhythms
 > >with biological, organical, molecular rhythms, AND from this
 > >synchronisation merge imperceptible transformations in organism, hence
 > >in human psyche. [Patrice]

Synchronization and synchronicity are two very different matters (concepts?). It appears that they may both be applicable in their own way. The point is that they are not mutually exclusive. [Bill]

Methinks these two fellows doth protest too much. The solar system coordinates all of its component parts in unison, just like we do. Synchronicity is merely conscious experience of this synchronous process. Look, you jump in the car and go somewhere, is it any surprise that others see all your bodily parts arriving simultaneously? The whole coheres. The apparent separate development of any bunch of parts is an illusion. Even scientists are now getting the picture.

Patrice refers to "the 4 cardinal astrological structures, which already appear in Greek astrology. The "Planetary" (french Planetaire) is the structured set of the planets ; the "Dominion" the structured set of the houses ; the "Cyclade" (Cyclad ?) the structured set of the cycles, aspects and planetary ages. The same "matrix" underlies these 4 structures, or they are THE SAME MATRIX according to 4 different view-points (energetic for planets, spatial for houses, temporal for cycles, and structural for zodiacal signs). Hence a real rulerships' theory is the heart of astrological knowledge."

Well I was tempted to assume we were onto the same matrix, but now I'm not so sure. The one I have been describing certainly could not include planets. The concept of the 12-letter alphabet has been used to lead many novice astrologers astray, particularly in the USA. It seems to be favoured by those unable to differentiate between archetypes, and, presumably unable to discover that there are not 12 planets in the solar system. As for the proposal of "a real rulerships' theory" at "the heart of astrological knowledge", heaven forbid. Hard to imagine anything less likely.

I just checked out Patrice's website, at http://cura.free.fr/ and copied as text file "What is really astrology : Astral matrix and matricial reason in astrology" without the enigmatic typographical signs which afflicted the text in the Exegesis issue 4/71. Hope to provide further analysis & feedback, thanks Patrice.

Bill goes on to talk about client interaction... "In general, a session entails a provision to the client by the astrologer of a useful (client-friendly) astrological model of the client. The largest part of that process is working with the client to create an understanding of how the client *manifests* that model in his/her life, which is almost always most easily accomplished by making short meaningful astrological statements (of fact and of tradition) and allowing the client to talk his/her way into an appropriate (for the client, not the astrologer) understanding of that aspect of the astrological model, a process which is never the same for any given session, etc.."

Yes, this is how it happens for me too. Except, instead of `statements of fact and tradition', I provide descriptions of archetypal potential sometimes embellished with elements of tradition that seem relevant.

Then Bill proceeds with a wee diatribe... "I have stood alone in the spotlight of the Exegesis stage and raved about the typical astrologer's unwillingness to accept that science *has* any inherent relevance to the astrological practice. It seems obvious to me that anyone who declares valid insights or discoveries concerning one's craft to be irrelevant is guilty of gross professional negligence. So I (continue to) suggest we welcome any and all *real* scientific work on astrology and contribute as we may, with the recognition that most astrologers will find themselves without (sufficient) applicable scientific competency to make direct contributions thereto."

Fair enough, but real scientific work on astrology has tended to be conspicuous by its absence. Some researchers proved effective at debunking the gross generalisations that traditional astrologers were prone to. Others have bolstered the Gauquelin findings, but with only marginal relevance. This whole business is a morass of category errors, and most of those who blunder into it seem to lose themselves therein.

"I will exist stage right still muttering in my beard", Bill concludes. Oh good, prolonging one's existence is certainly an admirable trait, and doing it on stage is an appropriate performance of the astrological archetype of fixity. A shame that the parameters of this list do not permit me to enquire what 5th house fixed planets motivate this behaviour! Being neither left nor right, this ex-Green activist belongs centre stage (typical Leo) and wonders where the other players will locate themselves...

Dennis Frank


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 84

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

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