Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #38

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #37

Exegesis Digest Fri, 14 Jul 2000

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 23:15:28 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #37

 > I recognize that the theoretical case could be improved, and I could let
 > the attempt to a stronger than me. But, I point about this: none
 > astrological matter is convincing...for the modern thought, because the
 > astrological reasoning is different from the modern scientific one. I
 > was confronted with this problem with my thesis. And I've forged a
 > concept, Matrix-Based Reason (French: "Raison matricielle"), which could
 > explain this situation, and also which could explain why astrology is
 > definitely not accepted in academy, universities... Other thing that the
 > Jungian synchronicity (see my critics about it on CURA's site)
 > The use of Matrix-Based Reason is essentially "TO MAKE" astrology, and
 > not going on "interpreting charts" (and, as doing it, finding nothing
 > else that is already obviously known). THE PLURAL, MATRIX-BASED
 > charts" (an application), or doing predictions (a pretension). It's my
 > thesis.


 > Astrology comes from very ancient times as you well are aware,inner and
 > outer are concepts that reason uses for building our contemporary myths.
 > Psyche itself, as a result of this distinction, is a theoretical construct
 > that needs to be criticized, because Astrology thought does not need it,
 > despite our modern astrological discourse that uses it a lot, as psychology
 > does.


 > Jung himself said that archetypes belong to the sphere of the pshycoid, a
 > realm that is beyond inner or outer artificial compartiments. Planets, signs
 > and houses, tarot cards and dreams belong to it, to a perpetual flux of the
 > universe that we experience as inner or outer or something else according to
 > the level of our counsciousness.


Apparently, current thinking has it that astrology really has nothing to do with the Solar System in particular, or the celestial sphere in general, or so I gather from this discussion. Are we to presume, then, that the ephemeris and the table of Houses, the data of time and place of event (birth, in this case), are merely conventional devices that might indeed be treated as ancillary and perhaps even dispensable? Is the notion that the word 'astrology' means "the study of the stars" now considered irrelevant or perhaps even erroneous?

It has been my understanding that, by and large, our astrology rests on the ancient Greek philosophical practices of the same name, where they regarded the movements of the celestial sphere as the source of time and our own handy-dandy window to the existence of perfection. In contrast, they thought that the affairs of our terrestrial realm, inasmuch as they existed within the sphere of human influence, were essentially corrupted thereby. The intuitively obvious assumption appears to have been that if one wished to understand the essential reality of things, one consulted the movements of the heavens rather than the machinations of earthly existence. Am I mistaken in this regard?

Please continue. I stand prepared to be instructed.



End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 38

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

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