Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #51

From: L: Smerillo ;, X-Mailer: "Mozilla 3.01Gold"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #50

Exegesis Digest Fri, 01 Sep 2000

Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 01:07:57 -0500
From: L: Smerillo ;, X-Mailer: "Mozilla 3.01Gold"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #50

The division of what ever was to be divided is in origin twelve as that is a lunar division of the year into months. It is purely calendaric. It is observable the world over, and is the basic time measure of all societies for that reason.

Intercalendary months are necessary only when one attempts to reconcile the lunar and the solar 'go back to Go' cycles. otherwise the two cycles become quite disjointed. But that is a perennial problem when astral observations are made and then theories built upon them.

That's all there is to it. I don't see that we need the burdensome concept of a mathematical archetype. Ockham, you know, old chap!

with best regards,

Lorenzo Smerillo

Dennis Frank wrote:
 > "The system of duodecimal measure is so widespread one would think various
 > civilisations had collaborated on it. But independently of each other,
 > China, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and India all divided the day/night cycle
 > into twelve two-hour periods..." ("A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the
 > Universe" MS Schneider, 1994, p209).
 > Obviously this twelve-fold division
 > of the diurnal cycle was the origin of astrology's most influential house
 > systems. The author goes too far in discounting the influence of
 > cross-fertilisation of cultures due to travellers (such as Pythagoras),

Far too late, the cross fertilization you are talking about happened about one or two thousand years before Pythagoras.

 > nonetheless it is significant that such a vast consensus on the merit of
 > this diurnal division did emerge. It survives on the faces of mechanical
 > clocks and watches to this day.
 > The division of a cycle into 12 equal phases can be seen as a mathematical
 > archetype.


End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 51

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

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