|Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #19
Exegesis Digest Wed, 29 Mar 2000
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 15:16:17 -0800
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #14, #15
> To conclude, therefore, it seems apparent that change will only come from
> those who make the paradigm shift for other reasons, deciding to
> collaborate to provide a contemporary alternative consistent with the
> multi-disciplinary context. As Dennis Elwell suggested in an online article
> a while ago, what we really need is `Project Foresight'.
> You, Bill Sheeran, and I have all called for work on what amounts to
> theory-building, which would then enable us to proceed to theory-testing.
> But I don't think any of us (that I have noticed) have said - in simple
> terms - how we should set about doing this.
> How would you suggest we start? What criteria would we need to meet?
These questions address the same concerns, although differently.
The catch-phrase coined by Elwell and here echoed by Dennis, that all we need is a Project Foresight, is an assertion that no trained scholar would countenance, and I find it a telling symptom of what is wrong in modern astrological philosophy.
The fact is that the work of Project Hindsight is exactly the sort of work that is done in *every* accepted discipline as a matter of course, and is done without any question of expected value. Why do we believe that astrology does not warrant this treatment? Do we account astrology as unworthy in this regard?
In answer to Andre, I think we're well advised to accept that we aren't ready to go directly to the process of building theory. I think it's clear that we haven't done our homework yet, and until we do, we should not be comfortable that we are prepared for that stage of work. If, after appropriate historical scholarship is done, we are unable to see how to proceed, then at least we will know that further data is required and we should easily be able to discern some questions to ask based on historical paucity.
It has been proposed, as I have noted in a recent post, that Ptolemaic astrology may well not be representative of Greek astrological knowledge, and so our modern astrological lore may be of questionable worth to the extent that it is an expression of Ptolemaic fundamentals. If this view has any validity at all, then we have reason to see what other sources may be of worth, and we may find out that we are practicing a flavor of astrology that is at the very least poorly understood, and may possibly be so corrupt as to be intrinsically worthless. It seems clear to me that the work of determining this will provide some valid questions to which the search for answers will certainly provide directions for our efforts.
> I have some suggestions, but they must await a larger time-window than I
> have now!
And of course I look forward to hearing them!!!
In #15, Dennis said:
[in response to Patrice]
> can foreshadow by mentioning my main philosophical concern; that focus on
> astrological space seems to be at the expense of time. Can the fabric of
> spacetime be thus separated, even for the purposes of analysis?
> Mathematically, yes. Physically, no, since Einstein. Experientially, no,
> it seems to me. I appreciate that this question is metaphysically
> inseparable to that of house division.
I am curious why the focus on astrological space seems to be at the expense of time, and so look forward to Dennis' exposition of this idea. The question is indeed relevant to the subject of calculation of Houses, but it appears that there is some question as to our understanding of the appropriate use of House schemes in general.
The eight House scheme seems to have had good use, at least prior to Ptolemy, and I would like to know more about this myself. The use of Houses for the modern purpose of fitting the celestial figure to the individual in terms of the life experience is not the only use. It has been suggested that the twelve division corresponding to the Signs was primarily used to assess the relative strengths of the various Planets in a Horoscope. If this is so, then there is no obvious reason why the twelve house system should be intrinsically more valuable than that of any other for other purposes. Indeed, it has been proposed that the decanates were not the only division of the Sign, that they were also divided in half, and so the eight fold system could be generated from arranging the Sign-as-house system in terms of units of three of these halves.
It's probably obvious to all that the eight house system mirrors the eight phases of the moon, and perhaps Rhudyar's analysis of these phases has some relevance here.
I'd like to hear more about historical usage of the eight house system, and I'll have the grace to duck my head if Patrice tells me I've only to read his website < grin > .
> evidence of sublunar imperfection. Constellations were culturally derived,
> by sight and from ceremony, thus local and regional variations were the norm
> in prehistoric and early historic times. For every audacious mathematician
> trying to launch a precise frame of reference for astronomical measurements,
> there were probably thousands of farmers and others who preferred local
> tradition (`from the gods'). Then the spread of civilisation via waves of
> empire tended later to unify belief systems.
This view of the development of these various notions was pretty much cast in stone by Sir James Frazier and has not been questioned since. I wonder if we are really well served by persisting in the assumption made by Frazier and stated in "The Golden Bough": myth is generated by attempts to explain unknowable natural phenomena, to which magic is a reasonable response. Frazier baldly states that this must be true because no other explanation could be countenanced. We know that anthropology is bound by this assumption, but at the risk of cracking open a related by irrelevant can of worms, I would ask: are we to uncritically accept it as well?
[In response to Andre:]
> loose correlation can be accepted on the basis that much entrainment in
> nature is approximate, partial. Tidal correlation with lunar position, for
> instance. Evolutionary systems that once shared a common archetypal feature
> diverge in their respective trajectories, and the passage of long time
> periods loosens the temporal correlation while not necessarily diminishing
> the archetypal qualitative commonality.
Good observations about approximate entrainment, I think. The result of this is that no order exists long enough to capture the process of development we call evolution. Our task here is somewhat different, in my view: we are seeking a means to identify useful order where it exists, just as we do in our lives so that we can leverage our existence accordingly.
> If there is a zodiacal archetype that provides both a mathematical and a
> qualitative substructure within natural time cycles, it may be mapped into
> real time by any cosmic relationship cycle. Mapping is both a geographical
> and a mathematical term. I think they have a shared meaning in that a
> pattern is transferred from one domain to another. I suggest adding to this
> a functional consequence for temporal processes. So we can envisage the
> zodiacal archetype emerging from the implicate realm (of potential) into the
> explicate realm (of spacetime), in each cosmic cycle. Effects would be
> relative to the formative influence of the bodies concerned. This
> hypothesis merely erects a theoretical ambience of intermeshing cycles, it
> says nothing about morphogenetic fields or any other mediating system via
> which a child may receive information from collective memory and/or cosmic
> environmental patterns.
Good observations, Dennis!
This is some of what I'm looking at in my part of #15, incidentally.
> Bill (#12):
> The twelve Signs were a convenient way of representing the tropical
> seasons, which more closely aligned them with terrestrial phenomena and
> concerns. It seems to work very well, and needn't have continuous
> correspondence to the constellations intercepted by the plain of the
> Of course, but why TWELVE signs? It seems to "work" as you said, and I'm
> inclined to think that they are "working" rather well, but the only
> thing which could be accepted without too much difficulty is the 4
> quarters, on account of the points of intersection of equator and
> ecliptic (0 AR, 0 CN, 0 LI, 0 CP). After, why to divide by 3, and not by
> 2, 4, 5?...
Here is where the numerical archetypes proposed by Dennis make real sense. I've indicated that I'm not comfortable with their use as having intrinsic power, but I think we can see how they do in manifestation. Twelve is divisible by the first four numbers, and these have discernible significance according to how they are seen to manifest and according to how those are understood.
It's been said that six (6) is mathematically a perfect number (sum of its factors, etc.) Twelve is two sixes and so is also the sum of its factors, etc. So there are some number of reasons why twelve is useful. In that regard, sixty (60) is a good number because it contains five as well as the first four numbers, etc., etc..
Again, I intend to address this in the posts I'm writing on Time.
[In response to me..]
> The Centiloquium (Greek : Karpos) is probably an arabic text of the Xth
> century. Richard Lemay as shown that the Kitab al-Thamara (i.e. the Book
> of the Fruit) was probably written by a Ahmet Abu Ja'far (+ ~944) or
> Abugafarus, from Cairo (see "Origin & success of the Kitab Thamara of
> Abu Ja'far Ahmad ibn Yusuf" in Proceedings of the 1st International
> Symposium for the History of Arabic Science, University of Aleppo
> (1976), Aleppo 1978).
> Now the aphorisms of the Centiloquium are very different minded,
> compared to Tetrabiblos. And some astrologers and scholars, since the
> Renaissance were already suspected that it was not a text by Ptolemy.
Yes, they do appear to be very different. Don't recall the source of this at the moment, but I'll look for it.
> Good evidence strongly suggests that Hipparchus summarily rejected
> astrology in its entirety.
> In the contrary! Hipparchus was probably the first theorician of
> astrology, as Plinius suggests. And the scholar Franz Cumont
> (anti-astrologer) wrote he was "the leader of Greek astronomers AND
That would be Pliny the Elder, I would assume. And the source would be his Natural History (do I recall that correctly?), where he attempts to record just about everything then known to Romans. Pliny had the same sort of problem as Heroditus, in that he was not in a position to verify everything he recorded, and so Pliny can be suspected of having simply set down someone else's opinion in this matter. This is not to say that the guy was slipshod about checking things out, of course, as his attempt to do so in regard to Mt. Vesuvius got him killed, as I recall.
That Hipparchus was an astronomer is well understood, but that he was an astrologer as well may easily have been an assumption on the part of one who did not understand that these disciplines were even then considered distinct by those who practiced them.
Where did Cumont get his information?
> Many things to say, Bill, with your text about Ptolemy. I will address
> another mail later.
I look forward to that! Incidentally, I'm still not disposed to engage in a scholarly debate here, because I'm neither qualified nor prepared. If I can recall a source, I will cite it, but otherwise I'm merely generating the opportunity to ask questions.
A second installment of the Time series is in the works.
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 12:56:45 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: planetary stations, death, systemic relativity
My astroclock (Solar Spark) has a step function. Stepping in diurnal cycles per button stroke, it took me only a few seconds to ascertain that that Pluto was at 12.54 Sagittarius from the 10th through the 20th of March inclusive. Still you will get astrologers in their communications referring to `the day of the Pluto station'. It's easy to see why there is a myth in the astrocommunity that planetary stations occur on a particular day: both ephemerides and computers indicate visually that this is so. One day the planet does not have an Rx sign attached, the next day it does, or vice versa. Just a small example of the interplay between myth and reality in the astrocommunity.
The theoretical question raised is how, in theory, may one measure the period of a planetary station. The obvious approach is to use an orb. Above, I used an orb of + or - half a minute of arc (by implication, from the computer program) to demonstrate that Pluto was effectively stationary for 10 days. I have noticed that the same orb applied to a Mercury station gives about one diurnal cycle of duration. It may seem too precise to set user bounds at a minute of longitudinal arc, but I don't see why not. Empirical evaluation from mundane astrology ought to provide the necessary reality check. Hearsay has it that planetary influence is max at the station, so we might expect events to be precipitated in consequence. Often this happens, but not enough to draw conclusions about any general rule. Anyway, astrologers are reluctant to get into communal pooling of such empirical research in order to discover the reality, preferring to recycle the myth.
A website I saw informed me that a "March 1992 Life Magazine article with a front page feature, "Visions of Life After Death, the Ultimate Mystery." The article shows polls that reveal 8 million Americans have had Near Death Experiences (NDE). When reading the account of people who have experienced the divine energy radiating from that light, and who know for many years afterward that death is not the end, we can share some of the inner assurance they have. It's a message about the purpose and meaning of life, not something that makes people interested in dying. People who have NDE, often enough, show that meaning in their everyday life, in that they make their days and nights count.."
This report, issued during the Uranus/Neptune conjunction, surprised me. So about 3% of Americans have had NDEs? About one person in every 30. The ratio of experience to publicity confirms that profound experiences remain in the collective shadow. Death, itself, remains in the personal shadow for many of us. Death in the horoscope is a perennial favourite topic for astrologers, being an arena for the mind at play and a game in which there are no rules, and in one social occasion at home the conversation between 3 astrologers turned to this topic. It ran about two minutes, then switched to another topic while I sat there thinking "Hmm, I wonder what prompted that?" There was no evident reason or logical flow to the conversation which might have predicted that the topic would arise.
Residual scientific training seems to have inclined me to endeavour to learn about how astrology works in the real world, and this empirical attitude caused me to realise I had better check the astroclock before I got distracted and forgot. Adjusting it two minutes back to the start of the conversation before I looked, you can imagine how I marvelled when I saw Pluto sitting exactly on the 8th house cusp! Now I have never had any ideological adherence to these Placidus cusps, using them only for the pragmatic reason that they maximised my capacity for communicating with other astrologers. What's more, being a sceptic about traditional astrological lore, I had never been keen to correlate the 8th house with death. Needless to say, I somehow got the idea that someone was trying to tell me something!
That aside, I'd just like to float a suggestion. I have long interpreted the Dragon as the time axis of the horoscope. It provides us with an evolutionary trajectory in archetypal terms, showing us what we ought to leave behind and what is likely to facilitate achievement of our destiny in this lifetime. So I suggest research of events involving or implying death (such as NDEs) be referenced to the (true) lunar nodal axis. It would not surprise me if the traditional neglect of the Dragon turns out to be part of the reason astrologers have yet to see a characteristic death correlation. Of course, the main part of the reason is the reluctance of astrologers to actually record case studies, and list death correlations in a systemic manner.
A while ago I copied this interesting conjecture from somewhere online:
"Does anyone think that the problems with landing/orbiting Mars by NASA are a cause of some strong astrological influences of Mars or by other planetary bodies along the travelled path of the spacecrafts?
It might be helpful to look at the Mars-Centric positions, since the problem appears (at least in part!) to be based on Mars.
Mercury has been Square to Pluto, as seen from Mars, for the last few days..........disrupted communications?
Mars-Centric Ephemeris (1999) available at http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/jekyll/75/mars1999.html"
Usually the mysterious failures of NASA Mars probes are explained by ET interventions, or paranoid NASA officials trying to prevent further pics of The Face returning to feature on the headline news. So, at first sight , the above explanation seems rather prosaic. But consider the implications: local effects on Mars due to Mercury being Square to Pluto as seen from Mars implies a general principle of systemic relativity. Within the solar system, effects of planetary archetypal phase relations may be characteristic, and relative only to the observer/experiencer. This logic has always been available to the advocate of heliocentric astrology, though I have been surprised that the heliocentrists haven't used it effectively, but planetary angles may not just be significant in relation to the Sun (and/or the Earth) but may retain that same unique quality wherever/whenever they emerge with the system.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:53:01 GMT
From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #15
> We all seem to agree that time is a major part of astrology, and from a
> cursory inspection of historical documents, it appears that this has = always
> been the case. This is something of an understatement! Astrology emerged out of our subjective experience of time.
> I suggest, then, that time is an appropriate subject to
> consider here, so that we can attempt to determine whether our knowledge= and
> understanding of time is adequate to the task of developing a = theoretical
> base for astrology. The western understanding of time is clearly inadequate as regards modelling astrology in the current era, whatever about the past. For example, it is not even considered a variable in the scheme of things within much of materialist science, which essentially defines for us how we are to perceive reality. This at best secondary status given to time is implicit in the doctrine of reproducibility in scientific method. It is a major topic of debate among scientist-philosophers as to whether time actually flows at all.=20
"The flow of time has no significance in the logically fixed pattern demanded by deterministic theory, time being a mere coordinate." Hermann Bondi from "Relativity and Indeterminacy", Nature vol169, 1952, p660
"In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle concerns the glaring mismatch between physical time and subjective, or psychological time." Paul Davies, "About Time" 1995, p283.
In my opinion, the greatest outstanding riddle is to get to grips with the reality revealed by astrology - that subjectively experienced time has a qualitative aspect. This presumably overlaps with Davies' "psychological time", though it doesn't *seem* to be restricted to humans. Businesses, political states, ideas, etc. seem to dance to the rhythms too.=20
Quantitative and qualitative time are not separate from each other. This makes things very complicated.=20
> I propose that time is a metric, a proper measure, of process. I'm not sure what you mean by this. All processes happen in time - becoming as opposed to being (structure). Our sense of the extended and shared present (horizontal, now) coexists with our sense of time as a flow, where subjectivity arises through the importance of history in modulating the potential behaviour of life process dynamics. I experience my being - I'm the same person I was 20 years ago - but I also experience changes in time.=20
> In order for
> that proposal to make sense, it's probably appropriate to consider the
> concept of process, and return to time when we've looked more closely at
> process. So we turn to the subject of process.
> The word itself derives from 'proceed' which is from the Latin meaning = 'to
> go forth'. Implied here is action (go) and direction (forth), which = express
> the idea of change with purpose. Action expresses change, and direction
> demonstrates an intention arising from purpose. This is a very dodgy definition of process, which would require some elaboration before I could buy it. To what extent are purpose and intent an aspect of weather processes?
> Process, then, is a means to effect change with intent. Now, one thing = that
> has been proposed about change is that no change takes place instantly, = that
> all change must possess the dimension of time, if only as simply as
> duration. When we add intent to change, duration become too simple, I
> suggest, because it only describes a comparison to some chosen common
> standard, like a day or a year. It does not address the specific source= of
> the intention, which seems of primary importance, and so the measure of = that
> dimension must take into account not only a common standard, but some
> expression of the source's relationship to that standard as well. Are you saying here that time is subjectively experienced, despite the objective calibration of duration aspect which informs the definition of time as a coordinate? That adding a contextual element takes one beyond the pseudo-objective "calibration of duration" version of time?
> We can
> see that time is not a simple matter to define, although we are not yet
> saying what sorts of considerations must be involved. Philosophers throughout history, up to the very present would marvel at your capacity for understatement!
> In order to make these matters clearer, let us imagine what sort of = action
> might warrant simple duration as a measure. We can conceive of a simple
> movement, where the purpose of that movement is irrelevant. Such as a swinging pendulum?
> When we look
> closely at this simple movement, we find that it's not so simple after = all:
> the movement has a beginning and an end between which the motion takes
> place. Now, we've already suggested that no change takes place without = a
> temporal dimension, and since a beginning (of anything, in fact) is a
> change, it cannot occur instantly; the same is true of the end, of = course. Is it not simpler to talk about phase transitions - i.e. from stasis to movement (1), the experience of movement (2), and from movement to stasis (3)?=20
> This means that the simplest movement we can imagine entails at least = three
> distinct periods, two of which connect the movement to what went before = and
> what happens afterwords.
> We can understand these as the mechanisms by which the movement acquires
> context, and creates significance within the environment in which it = took
> place. The context already exists before any movement. The subject is not separate from the object.=20
> Hence, at least potentially, there is *no* activity that can be said
> to be completely described temporally by a simple statement of duration.= We
> can make that determination for our own convenience, treating that = activity
> (the movement) as a "black box entity" that we don't need to investigate= in
> the normal course of things. But, at least within a certain cosmic = scope,
> we can change that determination and address the movement itself as a
> complex entity. I don't understand what you are saying here, or what you are getting at.=20
> Therefore, all activities within that cosmic scope or human modular, = must be
> assumed to warrant a more complex temporal description than that of = simple
> Further, because all such activities exist within some
> environment, they must be assigned intrinsic significance: they are the
> expression of some sort of intent and have some sort of purpose, and = this is
> true whether or not they are a part of human activity! I don't see how you can even begin to justify this notion. Why should activities have intrinsic significance, or be an expression of intent? Significant in what way, for whom? Am I misunderstanding some fundamental aspect of your speculation?
> So we must assign certain basic attributes to the notion of process, and= one
> of these, as we've shown, is that no process can be a simple entity, = that
> all process(es) are complexes of at least three parts, two of which = involve
> change. It gets far weirder than that. Life is essentially an infinite tapestry of processes inter-connected by multiple feedback loops. There's no need to take the starting point you seem to have chosen. =46or any educated person with open eyes, this is surely self-evident. Clearly processes are not simple - ever tried speculating on the stock market, getting your phone lines fixed, baking bread? The very reason why reductionist science got so far for so long is because mathematicians didn't know how to model life processes. This only started in earnest halfway through the last century. Today, one of the most important aspects of mathematics is dynamical systems theory (for which read process theory).=20
> Another of these is that all process(es) exist within (an implied)
> environment, from which they originate and into which they are resolved.
> There are probably more basic attributes that are intrinsic in the = concept
> of process, but these two are sufficient for the purpose of laying out = the
> basics for the temporal dimension thereof. Process is the bridge between structure and function. In non-linear (i.e. living) systems, the dynamics of the process are modulated by internal and external factors, again via feedback control mechanisms. Separating out what is cause and what is effect is impossible.=20 =20
> There are some insights here, and one of those is that the environment
> within which a process takes place must also be a process: the = environment
> itself is changed by the existence of the process of interest, and so = must
> at least to that extent have the attribute of action, which itself must = be
> defined as process. So we see that, at least within the human modular, = we
> are forced to consider the notion that any process exists within a = larger
> process. No one on the planet will argue with that. There's no need to attempt to rationalise it. The emirical experience of its truth is overwhelming, and the mathematical modelling of it is very sophisticated. No need to reinvent the wheel.=20
> Further, said process also must contain at least two subprocesses.
> This makes our subject here rather more complex than we might have first
> imagined, and it also implies that there exists the potential for having= to
> consider some indeterminate number of super and sub processes as well! You are right there - and if you haven't already read them, you will find any introductory book on complexity or non-linear system dynamics extremely illuminating. They may cause a crisis if you adhere to strongly to the need for unambiguity or the promise of unravelling mechanism. On the other hand they contain very suggestive metaphors for making sense of certain aspects of the astrological "language" and the way that language is experienced. Ruminating for a while on the concept of "attractors" in time (or space-time), bifurcation theory, and the conservation of pattern across scale which is a feature of systems which have a fractal-like character will bring its rewards. This will leapfrog you way down the line. It will also bring you to the coal face of creative modelling of dynamic systems, which is what astrology is actually addressing (the behaviour of complex systems).=20 SNIP
> This first attribute of time is one we already understand fairly well, = and
> we call it the attribute of cyclicity. We say that time, at least to be
> useful to us, is well considered to be cyclic in nature. We say that as
> astrologers, because astrology teaches us something of the nature of
> cyclicity, and so we have a special understanding that cannot be = expected of
> all people. The fact that Saturn has a 29 year cycle or so doesn't mean that time is cyclic. The 29 years is just duration in a circular orbit, like a tuning fork slowed down. All nature oscillates in time, but unless you're Plato, this doesn't mean that oscillations cause time, or that time has a cyclic nature. Astrology may have a cyclic nature all right, and in that it mirrors all of nature.=20
The endogenous and exogenous rhythms of life are not reflecting (or creating) cyclic time. They are a consequence of energy management. No movement - no life. No asymmetry - no free energy - no life. No in breath but only outbreath - no life.=20
> For most people, time is simple duration, it is a measure of
> progress from the past to the future; we call this linear time and we = can
> suspect that linear time is an incomplete perception of cyclic time, in = that
> linear time does not describe a process, which must have context, and = which
> is complex in fundamental nature, possessing some number of = subprocesses.
> Cyclic time does all these things. The processes happen in time, they are not a product of it.=20
> When we say that we, as astrologers, have a special understanding of the
> cyclic attribute of time, we do not mean to imply that everyone else is
> unaware of that attribute, but that they may not have the depth of
> understanding thereof that astrology has taught us. SNIP
> I suggest that some fundamental part of the sorts of wisdom acquired by
> people as they grow older is an appreciation of cyclicity as an = expression
> of embedded processes, and a growing understanding of life in general = that
> results from such an appreciation. Such wisdom is said to comprehend = the
> larger scope of things, the bigger picture, if you will. It seems = evident
> that such comprehension can result from the insights accessible from the
> cyclic view of time, and we might argue that such a view may well be
> necessary to that comprehension; It's not the cyclic view of time, but the understanding of rhythmic dynamics which are a consequence of the nature of the system itself that gives wisdom. For example, the concept of limitless growth (as in simple capitalist philosophy) is not wise, because it doesn't take into account the oscillatory impact on the system behaviour of the diminishing of global resources, not too mention all sorts of other factors. The oscillatory or rhythmic flow of traffic in an urban context is not due to the cyclic nature of time, but the very linear way that office workers have to keep to a time *structure*.=20
Whatever astrology is all about, the rhythmic unfolding of potential
*in time* manifests within and through the contextual matrix. It does
not cause the system behaviour, and it does not happen *at* the
system. The astrological factor is instead (in my opinion) a variable
alongside all the other ones which contribute to the system dynamics -
it's intrinsic to the system. In my opinion, a major conceptual shift
is required in order to make sense of astrology. We have to move from
"as above so below" to "as below so above", and take it from there.=20
> But we can argue that the recognition of cyclicity doesn't await the
> attainment of years, that even the young achieve that recognition. And = I
> think the argument is valid. The question is, then, what is it that = does
> await the attainment of years and experience? I would answer: = understanding
> of what is recognized, understanding of what cycles are all about and of= the
> fundamental role they play in our life's experience. The next question = is:
> what is it that is missing in that initial recognition? And the answer,= I
> suggest, is a useful conceptual structure, such that makes possible the
> acquisition of real time useful wisdom as a result of ongoing = experience. Worldy wisdom is based on feedback between consciousness and experience. Our capacity for self-reflection (utilising memory) with our ability to anticipate (a future oriented consciousness), combined with the fear of death, all contribute to developing wisdom. The time lag as regards developing wisdom is based on at least two factors. =46irstly, not being old enough to have had sufficient experience from which to learn, and secondly, having the experience, but not being able to learn from it due to externalisation of responsibility, an overly strict adherence to dogma or received wisdoms and tradition which no longer have value, and adopting a generally closed system approach to life. Wisdom is a consequence of evolution, and evolution only happens in open systems. Those who become wise are those who do not close down the pathways to paradox and ambiguity, which is as close as most of us will ever get to truth.=20 =20
> If we can agree with these ideas, then we can perhaps agree that the = cyclic
> attribute of time is a valuable thing to understand in general, and that= the
> fundamental assumption that time is cyclic and not linear might be very
> worthwhile in our lives. As you may have gathered, I don't agree with your thesis!
> Here, astrology, as we currently understand it,
> has the potential to have a very great value for modern times, I = suggest.
> So far, it seems that this potential has not been significantly realized= by
> astrology (astrologers?), and it seems appropriate to place a real = emphasis
> on the development of a more useable astrological technology in this = regard,
> such that might have better success in making a general understanding of
> temporal cyclicity readily available to all. In my opinion, to understand the nature of astrology, the first step is to get a handle on the innate non-astrological dynamics of system behaviour. This means temporarily moving away from a focus on structure in astrology, and paying more attention to process in the contexts onto which the astrology is being mapped. This is especially true if one wants to capitalise on astrology's predictive power.=20
> What I've done in this post is to lay out the basic nature of time as we
> experience it, and give some ideas about the hows and the whys involved.
> For those who would observe that I've only stated the obvious, I can say
> that I've learned that what is obvious to one person may not be so to
> another; what we're trying to achieve here is a common understanding of= the
> issues, if not a consensus concerning their nature (too much to = expect...
> ah, well...). So I've here taken the task of starting the endeavor to = build
> such an understanding. Well, I have aired my prejudices, which are perhaps somewhat radical. Hopefully others will do the same and we can see the extent of the problem we may have reaching that elusive common understanding.
All the best,
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:34:40 -0500
From: "Francis G. Kostella"
Subject: Lost Messages
A glitch in my system destroyed some of the messages sent after March 24th. As I was preparing to read them before forwarding them to the list, some disk error caused a problem and I don't recall which messages or authors were in the queue. If you don't see your message in the last issue, could you resend? Thanks. Sorry!
Note: If you post a message and do not see it here and have not received a reply from me, then the message was "lost" and you should send me a note. Be aware that messages may take a few days to cycle through, I rarely post a message the same day it is sent.
PS. There was no issue #17.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 19
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.