Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #31

From: Janice & Dennis
Subject: bits of feedback

Exegesis Digest Thu, 08 Jun 2000

Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:27:59 +1200
From: Janice & Dennis
To: Exegesis
Subject: bits of feedback

In 5/28 Rab Wilkie wrote: "At conception or shortly thereafter, the fertilized ovum begins dividing and new cells migrate and differentiate in association with one pole or the other, top (head) or bottom (root), and then according to zones of specialisation along the main axis of development (spine), and to left/right, front/behind."

Yes, I agree this is well worth considering, and may be quite relevant. However, Rab offered it after an affirmative reply to my question "But is there any evidence that we have a psychic orientation to the midpoints of the four quadrants?". In the prior context, these quadrants were implied as deriving from the 4 directions north, south, east & west. Perhaps I should have specified this. Our psychological orientation to these derives from daily experience of the physical & social environment. It may also derive from foetal development, but to my knowledge science has not yet identified any basis for such an assumption. Obviously, if it has indeed been found that cell division after fertilisation occurs in relation to a polar axis aligned with any of those 4 directions, then I am wrong.

Rab went on to refer to an "archetypal or inner seven-fold plan that is not oriented externally. Instead of East-West and North-South there is Left-Right and Behind-Ahead, and instead Zenith-Nadir, there is Above-Below." It seems he is not assuming any direct pattern reflection from above to below here. A free-floating foetus is suggested here, not locked in directional orientation. But I see only 6 directions of foetal structure being identified. What is the missing 7th component of this "archetypal or inner seven-fold plan"? If, as Rab seems to suggest elsewhere, it is merely the centre of the system, then there is a category error in the analysis. 6 directions in one category, and centre as origin in another. Illogic.

Rab then suggests "this personal sphere becomes oriented with an external sphere, through cultural entrainment", another useful and entirely feasible hypothesis. Perhaps this is his answer to my initial criticism above.

I agree with Rab's citation of another fundamental relevant concept. The world-mountain (navel) is indeed a vital component of ancient cosmology, as identified in many cultures, and the contemporary relevance is sadly neglected by astrological literature. However, Dane Rudhyar did frequently in his books describe the difference between zenith & MC etc, with psychological implications. His notion of `the pole of the individual' was one I felt obliged to recycle in my own book. One can hardly grasp the meaning of the vertical axis of the natal horoscope without it.

"That a rope radius was handy for cutting six equal arcs of a circle might have had something to do with 12-fold divisions.." I haven't tried this, but if the theory works then Rab has made a very good point. Mathematically, circumference = 2 pi r = 6.283. About six and a third arcs the size of the radius, so not really equal division. However, near enough is good enough, and, as with the calendar lunations, most users were probably happy with the utility of the scheme. Must've been quite an effective illustration in the neolithic classroom!

Bill Tallman's exemplary exhibition of the Aquarian archetype proceeds apace in his developing thesis on the substructure of time. Initially perturbed by the extent of abstraction, my Virgo planets have been reassured by some convergence of Bill's reasoning with both astrological concepts and generic real-world experience. My right brain relishes the promising scope of this series, while my left brain tags reluctantly along behind, whimpering occasional complaints...

"Another aspect of the structure generated by the Number three (3) is that of the two inner divisions which delineate the central inner segment. They serve to define that segment to the other two, which are connected to the larger contextual process. Taken together, they represent the primary attributes of a function: the input and the output; and they act as such to the extent that the central inner segment is indeed a subfunction, a process for which the POI is the larger context." [Ex5/27]

This struck me as being both substantial and useful (metaphysical) perception and reasoning. But then Bill went on to "the quality of resonance between these two portal markers" and "the presence or absence of resonance between the two portal markers bounding the central subprocess speaks directly to the nature and efficacy of the POI." Huh? Figure of speech? Resonance that is non-physical? Bill seems to elaborate; "from the above analysis, we might be able to perceive something of real import concerning the effectiveness and robustness of the POI: these qualities may be considered generally proportional to the presence of resonance between the inner markers that connect the temporal segments created by the measure of three (3)." Hang on, I'm thinking, how can you have resonance between two moments of time??

"Resonance, the primary quality of the Number three (3), is a quality of relationship, of connection. It implies the existence of two entities of interest; the question arises whether it implies more than two entities. I suggest that the answer is no: the quality of resonance is always reducible to the relationship between two entities, even though more than two may be involved. With multiple entities, a complex of resonances is generated which is characterized by the nature of the interaction between and amongst the several two-entity resonances."

Let me recite from my memory of physics education, to compare views: resonance is harmonic oscillation. A system resonates when (suitable incoming) energy oscillates within its internal structure. Frequency of radiation must match wavelength of receiving sytem for attunement to occur. Resonance is the sympathetic vibration that occurs as a result of the energy transfer from without to within the system. Seeing resonance therefore in these purely physical terms, my left brain cannot comprehend Bill's suggestion that two temporal portals can resonate with each other. My right brain suspects some enhanced concept of resonance is being suggested, and is happy to consider such metaphysical innovation on its merits.

The two moments are 1. the end of the input stage = start of subprocess, and 2. end of subprocess = start of output stage. These temporal portals may be seen as bounds, and resonance does indeed operate within bounds. However these are physical spatial structures in normal physics. Am I to read between Bill's lines to assume he is suggesting analogous `physical temporal structures' as bounds?

"The Cardinal Sign has no temporal dimension: everything is in the present moment. The Fixed Sign has a single temporal dimension: the past continues to be represented according to the standards and ideals that are the refinement of tradition. The Mutable Sign has a dual temporal dimension: the past and the present combine to make possible the concept of potential, of what is possible, thereby creating the future. < snip > the Cardinal/Fixed/Mutable trio span duration itself, from none at all to eternity: The Cardinal Mode has no time, the Fixed Mode has time and deals with duration, and the Mutable Mode is timeless and deals with the eternity of endless change. It's interesting to observe that it is the middle Mode, bound by the other two, that possesses duration and is therefore concerned with process. Thus it demonstrates the property of being the principal identifying internal function of the astrological cycle of Modes; the other two serving as links to extra-Modal considerations."

Yes, I agree both views have merit. The theory of punctuated equilibrium has been trending toward acceptance in acadaemia in the past 2 or 3 decades. Thus geology, biology, history and maybe other fields have been subjected to shifting paradigms that allow cardinality a place of metaphysical pre-eminence along with fixity. Neo-Darwinism, the modern theory of evolution, implicitly exalts mutability as the pre-eminent factor driving the variation of species. The many-worlds theory of quantum physics has had influential advocates in that field for decades, implicitly exalting mutability. The idea that freedom of choice collapses the wave function, thereby creating at least two subsequent universes each time a choice is made, implicitly exalts cardinality in the moment the mind cuts the gordian knot, as it were...

In the paradigm according Bohm, cardinality as genesis is the emergence of form from the realm of potential. It pops out. Just like a baby. Two atoms click into mutual bondage to form a molecule. Every time you sign on the dotted line, think "I hereby give form to this document right now!".

Endurance is the performance of fixity, in manifesting a duration. Process takes form in order to perform a function. Max Planck, the physicist Nobel prize-winner, originally defined the quantum as a piece of action. Too esoteric for most scientific punters, I guess, since they routinely mislead themselves by calling it a quantum of energy. Better to get it right! Action = energy x time. Action means a packet of energy occupying a duration to some end result. Process for a purpose!

Mutation is the consequence of mutability, as a process distributes the resulting effects into the environment. Informational results seep into the underworld, via morphic resonance perhaps. Patterns of manifestation reflect through the veil of maya into patterns of memory and potential (in the implicate realm). More identifiable effects percolate through the environment mediated by other systems and processes in interaction, some of which trigger cardinal moments launching further processes...

Dennis Frank


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 31

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

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