|Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #48
Exegesis Digest Wed, 23 Aug 2000
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 16:36:56 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #47 (ASTROLOGY YES, BUT WHICH ONE?)
From: Juan Revilla
> To be really a model of astrology, I would need the following:
> - that it is not contradicted by well-established astrological practice,
> regardless of its "physics likelihood".
The problem is that IT DOES'T EXIST AT ALL SUCH a "well-established astrological practice" !!
> Astrology is defined by what astrologers do much more than by theoretical pre-conceptions physically biased.
Which astrology? And which astrologers? One astrologer = one practice.
> It is not only a question of "accurate charting". Astrology manipulates
> time-units (directions, progressions) and time directionality (converse
> progressions, directions, and transits). It also manipulates purely
> symbolical categories (signs of the zodiac, planetary significators,
> rulerships, etc.), and offers many alternative ways of modelling the same
> reality (the many alternative systems of directions, the many alternative
> techniques, the use of asteroids, etc.). All this is very "astrological",
> and accurate charting is not necessary to provide useful and successful
It's not sure that all these techniques are mere symbolical categories. Transits aren't on the same logic than progressions and directions. And a zodiacal sign could be explained and investigated as a light's frequency.
> Oblique longitudes derived from the planets' ascensional plane, for
> example, represent better their positions in the sky than normal ecliptical
Yes. Let's do it! Go on! Juan, and tell us how you are calculating these coordinates. Take a chart, that of Goethe for instance, or yours, and teach us how do you proceed. I'm convinced that we need to change the chart.
> But this sort of accuracy has never been necessary in
> astrology, even if it is desirable. Medieval astrology worked with very
> inaccurately calculated charts, and there are multiple carefully worked-out
> versions of some people and nations' charts that work very well.
Nothing was or is working very or rather well, except the feeling of astrologers that it does.
> is needed by the mind, because the mind requires the sensation of
> specificity, but as long as the mind *believes* that it is accurate, the
> particular chart is accepted without question.
By whom? Not by those who precisely are searching about these questions.
> The accuracy of the charting
> is very relative and ultimately subjective, since it is the result of
> arbitrary conventions and of beliefs. There is no "objective accuracy" in
> the choosing of the time to erect a horary chart, for example, nor in the
> choice of "the right moment" to erect a business or a political chart. They
> all involve subjective interpretations and conventions that need not be
> related to physics.
Of course. That's why I've been suggesting that it was just PLACEBO ASTROLOGY.
> This, to me, would be accounting for astrological practice in order to
> understand the nature of astrology, what astrologers do, not merely
> theoretical assumptions or prejudices.
Astrologers are doing, in general, what they have learned to do. I don't care to justify what astrologers are doing in general (it exists sociology for that!!) - mere supersticious practice for the majority - but I care to understand how astrology could work. If astrology were not more than a field for late believers, then let's get it away!
If I may take back the theorem of William Tallman (see Exegesis 3.64 and also CURA): "There exists a mechanism by which certain terrestrial phenomena are made subject to influence by certain celestial configurations.", it follows that it does really exist smth we could call astrology, and which merits to be investigated. It follows also that all the practices are not equivalent. (Incidently it's the modern, "unrivalled", ideology which is saying so - about all things.)
End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 48
[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]
Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-1999 their respective authors.