Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #52


From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #51


From: JG or DF
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #51


Exegesis Digest Tue, 05 Sep 2000


Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:13:02 -0700
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #51
 

Lorenzo Smerillo said:


 > 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.

This is a fairly slow list and only a few people seem disposed to post here, but I would be somewhat surprised if Smerillo's blanket statement of calendaric purpose as being universal is not challenged. I will not do so at this time, as it would require dragging out the books to cite exceptions, but I suspect there are others here who need no such refreshing of memory to refute this statement.

If I recall correctly, there have been some cultures who deliberately kept the solar and lunar cycles separate, and preferred to measure the year by seasons or some analog thereof. The question might be whether there was a universal need to reconcile the seasons and the lunar periods. I suspect not, though I could well be wrong in this.

In any case, this is probably an issue relevant to astrological theory and philosophy, and it might be worth the effort for someone to present exceptions to that assertion; if Smerillo is able to refute each and show such a universal adherence to the asserted custom, we might learn something of value, achieve some useful insight.


 > 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.

Smerillo asserts that the number twelve is a lunar division of the year into months. A little grade school arithimetic defines these months as being 30.43 days in length. A year of thirteen months defines a month as having 28.1 days. The current average lunar month (period) is a shade over 29.5 days. At present, it would appear that the division of the year into twelve months would produce a variation at approximately a day per month, whilst the use of thirteen would do so at the rate of nearly a day and a half per month.

We have good evidence now that the moon is indeed slowing down. This gives one cause to suspect that the lunar month may have been perceptably shorter to our ancestors, making the choice of a whole number of divisions per year less obvious, if indeed it was the rate of variation that was the primary concern.


 > 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!

Here we see an example of a citation of the good Abbot's shaving tool to support a gross oversimplification of the issue. Perhaps Smerillo is unable to see this, I don't know, but I've never heard anyone knowledgeable of these issues suggest that there is no need to explore the possibile relevance of mathematical archetypes here. Mr. Smerillo might be interested to know that the alternative number of months, thirteen (13), is a Prime Number, not factorable except by itself and the number one (1). It makes a poor choice if one would wish to factor in the seasons of the year, whereas the number twelve (12) is easily so factorable.

A corollary interest here might be whether our ancestors found the frequency of solilunar rectification an issue of importance, and if so, why so. This might suggest that a closer inspection of their customs in this regard could reveal some considerations here with regard to a specific scheduling of such rectification procedures, such that might bear on the choice of number of months in a year.

In general, Ockham's Razor is constrained by the same considerations as any other dicta in the development of scientific theory: There are two requirements for the assertion of the status of theory, and they are sufficiency (satisfys all data) and necessity (is the only theory to do so). I must presume Smerillo is unaware of this, as his explanation doesn't even begin to satisfy the data, and there are several other ideas that have equal plausability at this point.

It might be in Smerillo's interest to recognize that the members on this list are fairly sophisticated in these matters, and that it is fatuous to recommend such "dumbing down" of the issues in this venue.

wtallman


-----e-----


Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:19:08 +1200
From: JG or DF
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #51
 

Lorenzo Smerillo wrote:
 > 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. < snip >
 > 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!

I do know, but don't see the bare fact of the solunar relationship cycle as sufficient to explain the pan-cultural generalisation of that mathematical structure in ancient times. When such a structure is conceived in the abstract, as a model, it has become a mathematical archetype in the minds of those performing the abstraction. Sure, the recognition of it may be tacit rather than conscious. But the application of that archetypal structure in completely different domains (other time cycles) is evidence that the zodiacal archetype was operating in the minds of many in different cultures at different periods.


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

That's what I meant. I just used him as illustration because we don't have surviving examples in the historical record from those earlier millennia.

Getting back to Occam's razor, the application of that principle will always be subjective and aesthetic in the judgement of individuals. Do we need a model to explain the facts? I think so. When I learnt astrology I was very much taken aback by the lack of any credible basis for the theory. A natural sceptic, I was tempted to dismiss astrologers as deluded fools. That temptation persists, but my intuitive perception that the correspondence between real life and my results from applying the theory was sufficiently close (most of the time) forced me to suspect that there must be a basis of substance underlying that inadequate theory.

So in 1985 I embarked on the intellectual endeavour of reconstructing that t heory. Metaphysical considerations tacitly held in common had to be extracted and articulated as hypotheses or delineated as principles, and woven together with reasoning. It became obvious to me that the community of astrologers were not just tacitly recognising the zodiacal archetype as a mathematical structure, but they had for many centuries been using it as the generic substructure of natural time cycles. What's more, they had added a qualitative dimension to facilitate interpretation. This was achieved by integrating the elements and modalities as a 4x3 matrix.

Now the main facts of the astrological tradition are identified by historical documentation. As regards theory, published works by individuals will both differ and agree with others on various specific points, so the main facts of theory are indentified with the most obvious commonalities of their expressed beliefs, plus the reasoning followed in their most common practices of application of the theory. To what extent would Occam have wanted to generalise the collective beliefs and practices of astrologers into common principles? Rhetorical question, we can't read his mind. But applying his principle to astrological theory and practice, which elements are sufficient to explain it? I made my choice as to what seemed the most fundamental. I wonder, Lorenzo, how your choice would differ.

Dennis Frank


-----e-----

End of Exegesis Digest Volume 5 Issue 52

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

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