Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #86

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #84

From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #84

Exegesis Digest Sat, 20 Nov 1999

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:35:14 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #84

Dennis says:

 > >Impressed on what?

Whatever is manifest at the moment. Patrice has selected the word "impress"; I have used the word "imprint" from a decades old notion of "initial imprinting" that became pop psychology at one point.

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

Again, semantics; perhaps useful in some manner. I don't know.

 > >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...

Yep. Cosmic ring-master is good, though somewhat dramatic, if you believe in the idea that some part of the cosmos in which we live is a volitional entity, popularly called God in American English (make your own translation into other languages...). Ellipse-master? Well, perhaps God is indeed a mathematician as Dirac suggested, and maybe Newton really was spiritually enlightened....

 > >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.

Arguably so. For us, appearance has quite a lot to do with how we address the exigencies of our lives. To posit reality as a baseline, you have to define it adequately, and in this case I don't think it can be done. So let us deal with the appearances that are useful. I suggest that the idea of a cosmic impression at the time of manifestation is valid: whether that manifestation was simply another part of an ongoing process or not, the demarcation was an observed change in state and it is that change we identify and assign an impression.

I presume you refer to Barbara Walters, the television interviewer? And a reading has or has not a thing on the other side of the desk as is appropriate, I imagine; the Empire State Building *is* rather hard on chairs, don'tcha know....

 > >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.

We agree, though it's apparent we state things differently.

 > >>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.

Synchronicity is a word invented by Jung to describe an observed phenomenon, and I've had the opinion that it has yet to be adequately defined. Apparently Dennis regards Jung's insight as that of a rather pedestrian process that is a part of our common and, in this case unremarkable, experience.

 > >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.

Yeah, I think we all understand this, even scientists which Dennis seems to regard as more dimwitted than the average fellow on the street. Your point, Dennis?

 > >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.

I would hope that this is how it happens for most of us, although we may describe it differently.

 > >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.

Unfortunately this is the case, although not without the active assistance of advocacy prone researchers. The advocacy is almost always in favor of debunking astrology, even on the part of some well known astrologer/researchers themselves, oddly enough. As it is not my practice to make two diatribes in a row, I will refrain from expanding on this matter, except to say that most debunkers have a personal agenda which drives their activity, and that makes a mockery of the research process itself.

That astrology still remains anathema, by and large, to the scientific community is a demonstrable fact. Let us not conclude that this will be a permanent state of affairs; otherwise it will certainly tend to become so.

 > >"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

The parameters of this list do, as I have attempted here, permit self-caricaturization. Unfortunately, I shot myself in the foot by including the letter "s" where it was not intended. The third word in the above paragraph should have been "exit", ROFL!!!!! It would seem that one, having shot one's own foot, is constrained to remain on stage... first aid kit, anyone?

 > >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...

The Aquarius Sun in the Vth House probably makes this easier, as it allows one to claim whatever place on the stage is appropriate (completes the patterns) to the moment; such a configuration "belongs" nowhere and so is at liberty to choose where to reside.

Let the play begin!!!!



Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 20:53:27 +1300
From: Janice & Dennis
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #84

[Bill Tallman] < snip > 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. < snip > ... 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.

OK, reasonable enough. Why some gods and not others? Guess the obvious answer is that those thus allocated into tradition as planets had been tacitly collectively identified with the planetary archetypes.

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.

Point taken, but I was merely reporting my long-considered opinion based on the findings of historical research. If you are reluctant to draw this conclusion, 'tis your prerogative. One would hope that you have also undertaken the research and assessed the available evidence, as I did. If, as you have suggested, you hope Project Hindsight will throw more light on the subject, I can tell you I would welcome this. I forked out the current equivalent of 3 weeks wages in the early '90s when the initiative was launched with a funding appeal, to support the Greek track translations. Unfortunately I moved house in '95 & '96 and forgot to ensure notification of change of address, so didn't get issues past vol. XI.

 > >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 problem here is the increasingly redundant word factual. Policemen and reporters have so consistently and for so long complained that eyewitnesses to traffic accidents or crime scenes give different accounts of what happened, that it has become an accepted truism that the facts of an event can often not be established even by consensus. Early in the 20th century physicists found that apparent facts were not necessarily so, phenomena changing according to viewpoint, and science writers and philosophers since have increasingly warned that acceptance of data as facts may be delusive.

I assume Bill is aware of all this, so that leaves us with the concept of ratio. Does this produce reason? How do we decide if the relation it signals is appropriate?

 > >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.

One could apply your logic here, Bill, to any other language. People tend not to find that such idiosyncratic differences of interpretation loom sufficiently large as to form impediments to communication. The common understanding of the symbol system, combined with the motivation to communicate, overwhelm or diminish the relevance of subjective meanings in the dialogue.

 > >>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 hemisphere
 > >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.

The notion in question, as Bill provided it in 4/83, was "reading around the cycle from the vernal equinox (northern hemisphere) we get the notion that energy manifests as substance and is formed into matter, which sounds reasonable: reading the crosses, we see that energy and form bisect substance and matter, etc." So I asked if Bill was able to present this logic in pan-hemispheric form. If not, Bill, do you really mean to suggest that energy manifests as substance (etc) in the northern hemisphere only?

 > >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.

OK, these equations seem viable. The fourth not immediately so, until one recognises the common quality of flow.

 > >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.

No this needs to be spelt out. The logic you are using here, Bill, is not intuitively obvious.

 > >[Re] 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.

Yes, this logic seems reasonable. Processes driven by energy flows through material structures, with perhaps the energy/density variations consequent of the breaking of earlier symmetries. This picture of entropy is the antithesis of the holistic emergence of new qualities at higher levels of system organisation.

 > >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. < snip > 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.

Yes, the process of universal (change producing) manifestation is the holomovement. But wait, Bill is deconstructing this!

 > >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.

Good one, Bill. I've often reflected on this. It is an experiential commonality that people tend to readily concur with. Tad Mann came out with that logarithmic Ascendant progression of his to rationalise the common experience, but it always seemed too contrived to me. Seems `ratio' applies better here, inasmuch as any passage is experienced as a relative proportion to the whole, as you suggest. Several times I've found myself, in recent months, idly musing on this logarithmic (?) proportionality, without ever getting to spell it out as you did. It always has seemed to me evident in the relative transit of years, since I first noticed it as a teenager. Perhaps it is the inverse of the proportion of the chambers of the nautilus, or perhaps a different part/whole ratio applies, hopefully someone mathematically inclined can advise on this.

 > >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).

Yes, hence my possibly invalid comparison to the nautilus. Obviously the spiral axes of the planets are indeed aligned along (although mathematically tangential to) the solar system's galactic orbit.

 > >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.

This deconstruction seems rather nifty. I had assumed manifestation and change to be one and the same, both consequent of the holomovement. But I'm inclined to agree that they are indeed essentially different, according to the logic you provide. What I like about this is that it provides the basis for a rationale for relating the formative functions of the number archetypes 2 and 4. Intuitively I'm tempted to correlate manifestation with yang and change with yin.

 > >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.).

What is not spelt out here is how the `cross of matter' is derived from the two more primal archetypes. I appreciate that you have seemed to deal with this earlier, and that this common esoteric concept contains a usage of matter essentially different to the one you employed in an earlier paragraph (`Earth is Matter'). If we have here a confusion of crosses, do please clarify.

 > >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 & 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 & Libra).

Well, I find myself unable to make sense of this. To me, the equinoxes and solstices are defined by cardinality. Manifestation has an inherently cardinal meaning, and once things manifest they cohere in fixity, and evolve in mutability. Change encompasses the entirety of cycles, since it refers to the temporal context. On the other hand, perhaps subtle logic here lies beyond my current ability to comprehend it!

Dennis Frank


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 4 Issue 86

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

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