|Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #30
Exegesis Digest Tue, 23 May 2000
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:13:08 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: commentary on octagonal house division (2)
> From the octagonal house division rationale presented by Patrice Guinard at this site: http://cura.free.fr/02domi-e.html
> It could be possible that the model of 8 houses has been
> organized in relation to the system of Elements and of elemental values,
> at an epoch early enough to predate the first hermeticist astrological
> writings (~ 250-200 B.C.), perhaps in the stoical world of the beginning
> of the 3rd century B.C., which, taking again the Platonic succession of
> Elements (Fire, Air, Water, Earth) and ordering them in the
> direction of diurnal movement, may have incorporated the intermediate
> elemental values (dry, hot, humid, cold), markers of the 4
> characteristic moments of the solar course (the rising, the upper
> culmination, the set, the lower culmination). This produces a model
> which would have been in competition with the elemental zodiacal model
> (Air = Spring, Fire = Summer, Earth = Autumn, Water = Winter) whose
> symbols of the quarters follow one another in the opposite order of the
> diurnal movement. The two circular organizations, one running clockwise,
> the other in the opposite direction, agree if one logically superimposes
> noon with the summer solstice. This model could have been the prototype
> of a unified theory of the astrological Houses and zodiacal Signs.
Such arbitrary correlations indeed seem characteristic of traditional astrology, unfortunately. I'd prefer to see logic that made sense. I bet the Greek philosophers felt the same!
Patrice commented: "The Elements and elemental values were first symbols, and as so, they were representing some qualities of things."
OK, maybe I was a bit harsh, but I was reacting to the lack of explicit logic. Patrice is right to suggest that the elements were symbols abstracted from life. It is easy to see how natural phenomena can be classified into these 4 archetypal categories. It is easy enough to go further, and recognise fountains as cardinal water, rivers as fixed water, and the ocean as mutable water, for instance. But Patrice is not presenting such reasoning. He asserts that "two circular organizations, one running clockwise, the other in the opposite direction, agree if one logically superimposes noon with the summer solstice", but does not explain how this subjective perception might be made comprehensible to us.
> There is a contemporary text, of 2nd century A.D., the
> essential text on the matter, written by an anonymous astrologer, which
> describes a system of 8 houses or places (loci) that is alloted to
> Asclepius: "From the horoscope one seeks all that relates to the life,
> from the second sector, while going to the top, one seeks the material
> life, from the third the brothers and sisters, from the fourth the
> parents, from the fifth the children, from the sixth misfortune and
> difficulties, from the seventh the woman, and from the eighth the fate
> and the death and term of life, according to those [the planets] which
> exert a dominant influence in their houses..."
You ought to explain how this relates to the oktotopos: same or different - if the latter, then how?
Patrice commented: "I explain it after. I was helped for this first translation of this text (from Greek). I don't know the translation by Rupert Gleadow (of the other Michigan papyrus), I even don't know if it is (it could) or not the same text. (American Astrology, sept-oct 1950). Do you know this issue?"
No, only that reference in Cyril Fagan's book. The key pointer is the phrase "while going to the top" which clearly implies that the 2nd house follows that of the Ascendant in the direction of the Midheaven, therefore a clockwise progression. The correspondence of traditional meanings of all 8 houses as given, to the traditional meanings given via the 12 house system, is remarkable! Looks like there was a bit of mix and match going on in the classical world!
> The eight arcs of approximately 45 degrees, centered on the
> Angles for four of them, follow one another in the direction of the
> diurnal movement. In the dodekatopos the sectors are counted starting
> from the Angles, which define the four "cusps" of reference, and,
> illogically, in the opposite direction of the diurnal movement. This
I assume this refers to the system of the above author? [P: Yes]
> triple divergence between the two systems (the number of the Houses,
> their positioning, and their direction of succession) would be explained
> by their incomprehension of the initial system, from which results the
> relatively late development, by the Greeks, of a duodecimal
> distribution, copied on the zodiacal model. This contrived assimilation
> deprives local space of its specific nature and implies a redundancy of
> the zodiacal structure. The astrologer Cyril Fagan : "The Greeks made it
> [the Dodekatopos] synchronize with the signs of the zodiac, commencing
> with Aries [8?], notwithstanding the fact that the order of the houses
> runs from west to east, whereas the signs of the zodiac run from east to
> west. Hence, they are incompatible. One cannot pair off twelve signs and
> twelve houses when they run in opposite directions."
Well, I'm inclined to disagree. I think an independent metaphysical origin is more likely. The hypothesis of a zodiacal archetype can explain the opposite movement. The sun or any planet map it into the zodiac in the conventional direction. Facing north, here in the southern hemisphere, I can observe this occurring clockwise. The zodiac rises past the eastern horizon in an anti-clockwise direction. Invoking relativity, this motion can be seen as the Ascendant moving clockwise through the zodiac.
The tricky bit is envisioning how the archetype is mapped into local space by the diurnal cycle. I admit to not being confident that I have got this right. We must regard the horizon as fixed if we use the horoscope as model of the psyche, so we must conceive of galactic space, illustrated by the stars, rotating past it, and totally ignore the zodiac because it is a different temporal mapping and will only confuse us. So the archetype is mapped out by the undivided star-field into a secondary 12 equal divisions of time (placidus) or space (campanus). Campanus is easy, all you have to do is copy Rudhyar and imagine 12 equal spatial divisions of a frozen moment projected onto the zodiac as cusps. Placidus is mathematical, the times taken for points of the zodiac to reach equivalent equal divisions of space, I think. I've never quite grasped this, and don't think it can be seen physically as 12 equal divisions of the diurnal cycle frozen in a moment.
Patrice commented: "What to answer to you? And why 12? Why the set of houses should be 12-folded, as the zodiac? For rulerships reasons? And even for the zodiac, I submit the question: why 12 signs?"
I did actually explain this some months ago in this list, at least once. How many complete lunation cycles are there every year? Remember that a calendar must combine lunar and solar motion in order to structure social time. If you are a primitive people you use the most evident natural cycles to measure time. That's why Jews, Christians & Moslems all have festivals at about the same time of the year that are precisely located by the Moon. Even today. If you want to get religious about it, you can rationalise that it is (any) god's will that heaven is divided by Sun and Moon into 12 sections. Thoth was called `measurer of time', not Ra!! Thoth provided 12 lunations per annum, eternally. This eternal structure of a year was reliable. Those seeking precision in social time were then confronted with the fractional 13th, which was even sometimes whole. Whatever religious rationale resulted from this is beside the point, because humans are pragmatic enough to use whatever is available that apparently roughly fits. Every historical culture seems to have found months that useful, which is why the description of past events as `many moons ago' has been found in may tribal cultures round the world.
Priests consequently extended this mandate of heaven, so you eventually find the watches of the night made into intervals 2 hours long (in Egypt). I'm relying on memory here, this information being available in various books, but I have so many relevant ones now that I couldn't be sure which ones specifically. There was an intermediary stage, before the 24 hour day. 12 sections of the diurnal cycle, I mean, which presumably led to our house systems. God's will was fairly influential, so night and day later got separately divided by 12, obviously for doctrinal reasons. Seasonal variation therefore gave Egypt varying durations of day and night hours, according to some texts. Messy, and I'm sceptical about that, evidence not having been sighted. Elsewhere I have seen assertions that a 12-fold division of the diurnal cycle was observed in Sumeria. We could reasonably remain sceptical about that too, but their use of 360 degrees to the circle is clearly supportive evidence.
Anyway, every time you look at a clock (mechanical, not digital), ask yourself why it is wearing a 12-fold equal circular division. There, right before your eyes, is a model of a genuine mapping of the zodiacal archetype!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:40:56 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Time 7
In the sixth of this series, I suggested that the points connecting the parts of a process have an intrinsic significance complimentary to the parts themselves. Thus, the temporal dimension of process is complex, rather than simple: the application of any proper temporal metric must take this into account, and provide meaningful information about the relationship between the parts of a process and the points that connect those parts. This relationship, as expressed by the metric Number, is given as n:(n - 1); other metrics should be expected to generate appropriate meaningful analogous expressions, one might presume.
I suggested that (n - 1) provides insight into the archetypal meaning of (n), such that (n) represents any given Number. The source of this temporal complexity is the interaction between any Process of Interest (POI) and the larger contextual process of which it is a part. An analysis of the relationship between the intrinsic nature of a POI and its manifestation within a larger context produces another relationship, further complicating the archetype of temporal dimension: in addition to n:(n - 1), we can derive n:(n + 1). The relationship n:(n - 1) expresses the difference between the structure of an archetypal cyclical process, and its manifestation, such that one of the points of connection between the process parts takes on the role of interface between the POI and its larger context, leaving (n - 1) connection points in the internal structure of the POI.
The relationship n:(N + 1) expresses the reality that the interface point is manifest in two places, at the beginning and at the end of the POI, thus creating (n + 1) connection points. Having pointed this out, I must address the question of the significance of this second expression, but we must realize that this expression arises out of the condition of manifestation which is unique to any given POI. The short answer to the question, then, is that it is fundamentally dependent on the uniqueness of the given POI, and so is not a consideration proper to an archetypal analysis. It is important to recognize, however, that any practical application of Number as a temporal metric to any given POI must address this second expression, and so we can expect some resonance between the specific meaning of the second expression and the structure of archetypes of the metric of Number; this is not the same as an archetypal significance.
The most obvious clue to the significance of the second expression is that its measure, (n + 1), suggests an incremental increase in the general complexity of the POI itself. We can observe that the presence of the POI in the larger context serves to divide that larger context into two (2) parts: that which precedes and that which follows; this suggests that the interaction between the POI and its larger context is itself complex, at the very least it is duplex, an expression of the Number two (2). The result of all this is the recognition that the analysis of a given POI must address an hierarchy of levels in the temporal dimension, and so is not so simple as the contemplation of the meaning of a single Number as a temporal measure. Nevertheless, the analytical tools presented here are appropriate to the task, however complex it is allowed to become.
Turning again to the analysis of specific Numbers, the Number four (4) is the first factorable integer, containing within it the Number two (2). We should expect this to figure prominently in the archetype of four (4), and so it does. Each of the parts inherent in the Number two (2) is itself so divided, and this serves to provide a deeper insight into the POI, for it illuminates the structure of parts as functions or subprocesses, such as we discovered in the analysis of the Number three (3). In this case, the measure is the Number two (2) in its most fundamental iterative form, and so we can turn to the previous analysis of the Number two (2) and expect to find the Number four (4) an expansion of the Number two (2).
I spoke of going forth and returning in that analysis, such that the fundamentals of perspective were acquired. In the cyclic format, the measure of the Number two (2) is the most primitive expression of the temporal dimension of a POI in its own right (the Number one (1) representing identity which has meaning only in the larger context of which the POI is a part, and so not having significance in terms of the POI itself). In that regard, then, the Number two (2) represents completeness. The dynamic role of the Number two (2), however, addresses the functional aspect of the POI, showing something of its essential nature: the only internal point of connection is at the center of the POI. The simplest significance of function is purpose, and so this is the primary significance of the Number two (2).
When we apply this to the each of those parts, we can expect to discover something of the nature of the purpose of each part in its own right, and so we also discover another aspect of the internal structure of process itself. Within the POI is another going forth and returning as the initial two parts are seen to functionally interact. The primary going forth now has its own purpose, as does the primary return, and now we have the interaction of these two additional internal purposes. The question now arises concerning the nature of the relationship between these purposes, specifically between the primary purpose and the interaction between the internal purposes. We can reasonably view these two both as peers and as parts of an hierarchy (micro/macrocosm), but we must recognize that those are distinct relationships. Primary purpose and internal interaction are roughly peer attributes, but the evaluation of the several purposes as such must be in terms of an hierarchical relationship.
In the first instance, we can reasonably expect to gain some insight into the nature of the primary purpose by an investigation into the nature of the internal interaction, and we discover that the two internal purposes are indeed about the reasons for going forth and returning. The first of the internal purposes is about what is intended in going forth, as the second of these is about what arises as a result of having gone forth in the (sub)process of returning. These are archetypal significances, of course, and so provide only clues as to the reality of their manifestation in the POI. In the second instance, we can expect to discover in the nature of the relationship between the two internal purposes how the POI itself might interact with such other process in the larger context with which it might find itself in direct interaction.
A third approach is to disregard hierarchical concerns and contemplate the three internal connection points as de facto peers. Without the tools of analysis presented here, this approach is probably the most intuitively obvious, and we discover that it produces the view that the relationships here are evidently intractable. In this approach, we are forced to contemplate the conclusion that the relationships we have already determined as being hierarchical are in fact inherently antagonistic when regarded as peers. Interestingly enough, it appears that this is exactly the approach that has produced the most common astrological views of Aspects generated by this construction.
Astrology literally concludes that these relationships of purpose are at "cross purposes", and that the relationships between them are inherently fractious. The Aspect of the Square is deemed intrinsically difficult, and it is generally thought, so it seems, that the virtue of the Aspect lies squarely (oops, sorry... < grin > ) in its fundamentally difficult nature. We are commonly adjured to regard the Square as an opportunity to gain in strength, internal integrity, stability, etc. Unfortunately, there is no commonly accepted notion that the Aspect provides any insight into how it might do so.
Turning to the analysis of derived expressions, we can assess the value of (n - 1) and come up with the perspective of the "odd man out", which further enforces the negative conclusion. In other applications, the Number three (3) yields qualities of stability (the tripod) and primitive resonance (see analysis given in this series). In a common four (4) based figure, the T Square, we find the "odd man out" intuitively obvious, but when the idea of hierarchy is taken into account, we come up with the idea that the balancing connection point at the base of the T has the quality of a monitor/controller, dictating the dynamics of the T Square function. This idea is, I believe, well regarded and often used; what is of interest here is that the idea is easily generated by the tools of analysis I've presented in this series of posts.
In the next post, I will look at the Number five (5) and will begin to draw some general observations about the use of Number as the temporal metric of process, and attempt to show how they may be utilized as analytical tools. I will also take a more rudimentary look at other Numbers and suggest how they may be treated in accordance with the ideas set forth here.
Comments..... or maybe not until the series is complete < grin > .
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:21:32 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
A year ago I began in Exegesis with a commentary on the perspective presented by Geoffrey Cornelius in an online article. There had been some prior discussion in which various contributors recommended "The Moment of Astrology", the book in which he advocates his approach in a more comprehensive and in-depth manner. In trying to find a copy I was defeated by the fact that it was out of print and not even in the national library system. You can imagine my surprise and delight when I walked into the quarterly local Lions Club book sale not long ago (all one dollar each!), and found a copy in the first handful that I picked up to examine! What's more, it had been deleted from a library, even though published in 1994. A sad reflection on ephemeral modern culture: rapid obsolescence, regardless of literary worth. For, having since read it, I can concur fully with the prior opinions expressed in this list. It is certainly one of only 2 or 3 astrology books produced in the past decade that address the profound nature of the subject.
By the time I was half-way through it, I had given up expecting to find any major flaw in his thesis. Later, however, one did emerge. It seems to be due to Cornelius not having studied event charts. I think it is quite natural for astrologers that merely focus on the psyche to end up believing that the part of the elephant they have a grip of is the whole thing. If they eventually come to recognise the merit of embracing a more objective perspective, it ought to become apparent to them that there are two major relevant arenas of further learning; nature, and society. Both these domains of knowledge provide essential pointers to how astrology works, such as patterns of timing and collective coordination. More specifically, one could test the hypothesis that events in nature and/or society are precipitated by planetary alignments relative to a locality.
We must recall the traditional use of the horoscope as diagram of a moment. Learning from events that impact upon the collective has always struck me as necessary for anyone wishing to comprehend how astrology works. My personal premise has long derived from an intuitive recognition of the horoscope as diagram of an event, in which it seems the astrological archetypes don't just signify features of an event, they also help to catalyse it.
To illustrate how this approach differs from that of Cornelius, consider any significant political event, run the correct chart and see if the planets are making significant alignments in the moment of the event. I have already pointed out the exact conjunction of Uranus and the Midheaven at Hiroshima in the exact minute the bomb destroyed it. A further example that comes to mind is the first time for over a century that the President of the USA was impeached by Congress. This happened at 1025 PT (according to the 7am News Free Wire) and 1320 EST (according to Reuters new agency web page, who cited Time's home page 19 Dec 98).
Readers may find it prudent to do a cross-check, but I was struck by seeing Saturn exactly on the Ascendant. The point is that the normal astrologer will not be able to learn from this synchronicity because their belief system will prevent them from seeing it. They will do the usual thing and try to discover the significance of the event in the natal chart of the person concerned. The error in the habitual logic is that the significance is not merely in Clinton's life, but in the lives of all members of Congress (one group), concerned Democrats (another group), joyful Republicans (third collective), Americans as a nation (fourth), and via headline news in the world's media, several billion others. It ought to be noted that the informational and functional impact differs from group to group.
So it looks like Clinton was impeached by Saturn; the lord of fate in the collective unconscious coordinating the congressmen to produce the vote in unison. Anyone wanting to learn about real astrology will wonder why, and examination of numerous such instances would be required in order to discern any pattern. Examining actual exact correlations in actual major events enables the astrological researcher to avoid being misled by the phantasms of tradition, and begin instead to discover the real nature of cosmic timing. Too bad that such a capable theorist as Geoffrey Cornelius will be prevented by his predilection from seeing the evidence and thus connecting with the reality of the moment.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:33:00 -0500
From: RAB WILKIE
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #2
-= Quoting Metalog to Rab Wilkie
< =- Me > Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:36:15 EDT
Me Exegesis Digest Mon, 15 May 2000 Volume 5 Issue 29
Me Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:49:30 +1200 Me From: Janice & Dennis Me Subject: this, that & the other
DF In Ex5/27 Bill Sheeran made some good points...
BS "Assume an ideal square room, with a door in the middle of one of
> the walls < snip > The four walls and the four corners scream out
> eight. < snip > if geometric archetypes exist, the diagonal
> demanded by a rectangle (or square) is surely one of them."
DF ..I can't see how this logic would apply to a DF rectangle without producing unequal spaces. Luckily, since any such DF rectangle does not exist in our spatial orientation to the world, this DF question need not be pursued.
Rectangular orientations were basic to northern megalithic astronomy, as these were derived from the rising & setting points on the horizon of Sun & Moon -- the Sun at solstices, and Moon at its extremes. On the Equator, the solar solstitial rectangle approximates a square which at increasingly higher latitudes narrows along its north/south axis until at the polar circle the rectangle reduces to a vertical line because the Sun sets & rises due north & south. At the latitude of Stonehenge, the ratio of the rectangle's sides reflects the Golden Mean.
So, from ancient times there has often been two ways of dividing space & time -- based on cardinal and intercardinal directions yielding equal divisions of space and place, and based on equinoxes & solstices which yield unequal divisions. (Not to mention the added complexities of lunar & stellar phenomena).
BS "the Celtic New Year started on or around one of the cross
> quarter days, Samhain (today celebrated on November 1st, but
> originally the period bisecting the Autumn Equinox and Winter
> Solstice, around November 6th). This suggests a conscious psychic
> attunement to the number eight < snip > "
DF I agree that this is significant. The subsidiary point about DF arbitrary historical dislocations of traditional calendrical festivals DF is also very relevant. Any research of the historical relation between DF zodiac and calendar seems to encounter such instances, in my DF experience. The implication that the Celts exalted Samhain due to a DF cultural disposition to the octagonal archetype is evident, but I agree DF that we cannot assume it is anything more than a suggestion.
If the primary orientation of the human individual or society is towards South/noon, then Samhain is Left/Behind, which corrresponds neuropsychically with Subconcious/Past. This may explain the association of Samhain with ancestors & ghosts, the thinning of the veil between this world and that of spirits. (A southward orientation was primary in northern regions because noon, especially in winter, was the source of light & warmth).
BS "Another interesting peripheral point is that for the Celts, there
> were five directions - N, S, E, W and the Centre. One might wonder
> whether their astronomy/astrology contained an orientation towards the
> zenith and circumpolar stars, given that the obvious unique extended
> orientation in space of a centre point is a vertical one."
DF Well, as you probably are aware, this is precisely what the Chinese DF did, so it would not surprise me if the Celts did likewise.
Celts, and those who inhabited Britain before them. The whole Arthurian thing, with motifs involving bears and dragons, derives from zenith constellations (Ursa Major, Draco) and very likely has Neolithic and earlier roots. The archetypal star-mage of Welsh lore, Idris, is remembered in Cader Idris, a mountain on the west coast in the shape of the Big Dipper with seven high points that closely approximate each of the positions of the main stars in that constellation. ["Awen: the Quest of the Celtic Mysteries", Mike Harris, Melchior Press, 1999; pp 226-230]. And one of the royal ritual game, Gwyddbwyll, involved the sacred quincunx with King at center.
DF The DF correlation of emperor with centre, zenith and pole was very ancient, DF Indo-European era, when the Celts had not yet moved into Europe from DF the East. The original constellation maps, that the Greeks inherited DF from the Babylonians, came from Akkad according to my reading of late DF 19th century sources.
The format of the first alphabet, Semitic, devised around 1700 BC, displays an interesting geometrical pattern when the letters are arranged in a circle. The phonemic relationships create a series of five rectangles, including one square, plus a single axis, that might have been calendrical in nature.
DF ..the documented track record of such DF astrologers ought to be examined, and any failures of prediction taken DF into account in a balanced appraisal.
Vital. Apparently there's at least one major institute in Russia that has been doing this for decades.
Regarding 12-fold divisions:
The lunar & solar markpoints on the horizon, as I mentioned above, in combination with the cardinal points produce an unequal 12-fold division of a locality. The lunar points are offset from the solstitial by only several degrees, but at high latitudes this gap widens considerably.
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 30
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.