Exegesis V5 Issue #49

Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #49

From: Lynda Hill
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #48

From: Juan Revilla
Subject: opinions, prejudices, and a "theorem"

Exegesis Digest Thu, 24 Aug 2000

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:09:26 +1000
From: Lynda Hill
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #48

> Exegesis Digest Wed, 23 Aug 2000 Volume 5 Issue 48
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
> From: Patrice Guinard
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #47 (ASTROLOGY YES, BUT WHICH ONE?)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 16:36:56 +0200
> From: Patrice Guinard
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #47 (ASTROLOGY YES, BUT WHICH ONE?)
> Message-ID:
>
> 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
> interpretations.
>
>

I agree and this is the largest thorn in the side of 'scientific' research into astrology. Rob Hand said, in a lecture in Sydney in around 1994, that astrology is nothing but magic. I sat there and I had to say 'yep' and my perception of astrology changed considerably over the years.

I'm not saying that my way of looking at astrology is the 'right' way, I get so large about it I believe that the whole lot works, no matter which house system, zodiac, sink plunger you use : )

Just a few cents worth from a unseasonably warm Sydney :) -- Greetings from DownUnder Lynda http://www.sabiansymbols.com

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:33:19 -0600
From: Juan Revilla
To: Exegesis
Subject: opinions, prejudices, and a "theorem"

> The problem is that IT DOES'T EXIST AT ALL SUCH a "well-established
> astrological practice" !!

"A" practice, meaning any practice, is well established if it is consistently done by hundreds of astrologers agreeing on fundamentals over many decades, or many generations. These "practices" are so consistent that they can be called "schools". So, to repeat the argument, no theory of astrology can ever be successful if what generations of astrologers have been doing is clearly contradicting it. An example is any theory that pretends a real-time relationship between real persons and real planets as they can be seen physically in the sky, because astrologers almost never work that way. That is not astrology. Another example is the use of Uranian planets contradicting the "physics" requirement, which is also contradicted by the fact that the wrong chart can "work" very well and that many of the events charted by astrology are very subjective.

> It's not sure that all these techniques are mere symbolical categories.
> Transits aren't on the same plane than progressions and directions. And a
> zodiacal sign could be explained and investigated as a light's frequency.

With few exceptions noted, transits are (almost) never treated by themselves. A transit "happens" to a completely symbolical "radical", and in this sense they are in the same "plane". The only difference is the time-units used, which in transits look more "real". But this disappears when you use converse transits, and when you calculate transits to a radical of purely symbolical "events".

Any physical hypothesis that pretends to explain the use of the exact 30-degree classification boxes we called "signs of the zodiac" must be able to explain the elements, qualities, and the symbolical attributions of each sign, not only the exact 30-degree divisions, and the explanation must apply to all the planets and stars, not be reduced to the path of the Sun only.

> 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.

The "oblique longitudes" were developed by the inventors of the so-called "Topocentric" or "conic" system of house division. They define them as the points where the ascensional plane of a planet cuts the ecliptic. In practice this is done by calculating the oblique ascension or descension of the planet by means of the ascensional difference under its own pole, and the result is converted to the 12-signs scheme (173=23 Virgo, etc.). I really do not use them, but here is the example of Goethe, calculated with my software Riyal:

Moo = 11,31 Pis 11,53 Pisces Sun = 7,00 Vir 5,10 Virgo Mer = 0,08 Vir 25,56 Leo Ven = 26,31 Vir 26,25 Virgo Mar = 21,56 Cap 3,33 Cap Jup = 26,09 Pis 25,58 Pis Sat = 29,47 Sco 15,12 Sco Ura = 24,15 Aqu 18,48 Aqu Nep = 7,01 Leo 26,36 Can Plu = 8,55 Sag 29,10 Sco Nod = 1,15 Aqu 18,39 Cap M.C.= 7,00 Vir 5,10 Vir

These longitudes are much closer to the *proportional* mundane coordinates where all the ascensional motions are reduced to the plane of the equator, and have the advantage of still being "ecliptical" measurements. As I said, I do not use them, but a fraction of South American astrologers work with them by default.

> Nothing was or is working very or rather well, except the feeling of
> astrologers that it does.

> Accuracy
> 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.

What matters is that it works for the individual practitioner or group of practitioners who have accepted a set of conventions. There are many techniques that work for some astrologers and not for others, and this fact must be explained by any astrological theory. To dismiss this fact as the result of self-deception on the part of astrologers, the same as dismissing the fact that the wrong chart produces good results, or dismissing the empirical effectiveness of the Uranian planets, is nothing but a prejudice resulting from a pre-conception of what astrology is or should be. It is trying to force astrology into what I already think it is.

> Of course. That's why I've been suggesting that it was just PLACEBO ASTROLOGY.

Most of astrology is placebo. PLACEBOS WORK! Why can't some people accept this? Why is this bad astrology? WHO DICTATES WHAT ASTROLOGY SHOULD BE? Instead of adjusting their conceptions of reality, so that a placebo effect can be truly understood, physically-prejudiced researchers dismiss it and pretend to invent a new type astrology that follows their own personal notions of validity or validation.

> 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!

These opinions are a good illustrative example of what I am saying regarding prejudices. Here is a list of my own: Astrologers do what they do because it works for them. They are not fools. Sociology does not "justify" anything and is essential for an adequate understanding of man's pursuit of knowledge in any field. Superstition must be understood first before using it as a pejorative label, and many physical scientists are also a field of late believers.

> 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 there do really exist smth we could call astrology, and
> which merits to be investigated.

< Because this mechanism exists, and in my opinion this mechanism is what astrology is about, then it follows that this is what is called or "can" be called astrology > .

I do not endorse this logic. Astrology as it is cannot be explained this way, and I already mentioned some of the reasons why. Logic does not dictate that astrology is the result of a celestial "influence" "mechanism" unless you are a late believer of physical science. "Influence" and "mechanism" are culturally determined and subjectively chosen metaphors when applied to astrology, not logical necessities.