Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #32

Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #3

From: StarTiming
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #31

Exegesis Digest Tue, 13 Jun 2000

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #3

Me Exegesis Digest Thu, 08 Jun 2000 Volume 5 Issue 31 Me

Me Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 08:27:59 +1200 Me From: Janice & Dennis Me 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."

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

I would be surprised if there were not an external directional influence on the developing embryo, but I am not aware of any embryological research in this specific area. Certainly there are biocycles set by the diurnal rhythm which depends on directions (east-west) as much as on alternating periods of solar light and darkness, not to mention the possible effects of geo-magnetism (north-south).

In any case, I would suggest that orientation is a process that begins at conception and develops through several stages of elaboration, the latter few involving externalisation of a set of innate biological referents usually followed by cultural entrainment or various adaptations that depend on one's culture and social status.

This is usually more obvious in primal or traditional societies that have rites of initiation involving sacred geography. In modern societies, however, the process of adapting inner referents to the external environment tends to be more varied, mostly optional, and entirely haphazard. (Which may partly explain the poor sense of direction & geography of most 'New Worlders' these days).

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

One inhabits space through movement within it, even if that movement is mental rather than physical. Movement involves leaving 'home' (center & source). We spent a lot of time away from home. At these times it has a direction.

Yet even when centered, we have a sense of 'here'. Call it no-direction, if you wish, but since here-ness enables us to gauge all directions I'd be loath to place it in a separate category.

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

More study is required. Embryological development definitely involves an innate orientation that proceeds from polarisation within the first cells. Neurophysics (or neurolinguistics) has shown us that we have a subconscious orientation that not only distinguishes right from left, back from front, and up from down, but also links these directions & zones -- relative to the spinal axis and a center of conscious that may shift upward or downward but which usually tends to be focused at heart or head -- with temporality (past-present-future) and certain other evaluative criteria, i.e. easy/difficult, actuality/potentiality, hopes/fears, etc. (v. "Body Language"). This neurologic scheme seems innate and probably derives from patterns of growth that began in the womb.

But then how does this internal programming interface with, and adapt to, the external environment?

After a long harrowing night of initiatory trials, possibly under the influence of herbal hallucinogenics, a candidate might be brought, blindfolded, to the Place of Dawn. What he sees when the Sun peeks and the veil is lifted, will forever impress his mind & psyche with the experience of Illumination and the Eastern direction.

This is an educational event that's qualitatively different from figuring out for the first time that the sun rose earlier in Fiji.

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

And the horoscopic meaning of this vertical axis may be hard to grasp without reference to the para-zodiacal firmament, (and the stars that once more brightly informed astrology).

Ecliptical astrology should begin to make more sense when its slim plane is reintegrated with the greater sphere celestial.

-=Rab Wilkie


Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 16:48:39 EDT
From: StarTiming
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #31

In a message dated 6/8/0 6:51:01 PM, Janice & Dennis wrote:

< My right brain relishes the promising scope of this series, while my left brain tags reluctantly along behind, whimpering... >

How true here as well. Nevertheless, i follow straggling, distracted by the blooms on the spiny bushes. It is rains in the desert, just not reliably -- and in the desert of abstractions a little rain brings sudden glory.

Yes, this is the right place for me. Soon i will find just the right place to insert lengthy explanations of just why. You will all be bored to tears, and just a bit confused as well.

Eagerly watching,

Jane Axtell < A HREF="http://members.aol.com/StarTiming/galactic/" > Galactic Astrology Home Page < /A >


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 32

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

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