Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #003 In This Issue: From: Dale Huckeby Subject: [exegesis] Science & Astrology
Exegesis Digest Sun, 20 Jan 2002

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 03:56:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [exegesis] Science & Astrology

Hi Fran et al:

Nice to see the list up and running. I have several suggestions, one of which I'm sure you're already working on. That's the volume number. I've edited mine to read volume 7. Will the digests prior to getting that wrinkle ironed out be corrected in the archives to read volume 7? My other suggestions concern the table of contents and the subject line. I like the previous format, which listed a "From:" line and a "Subject:" line for each contribution. Here's my edited version of Issue 001:

##############################################################################

Exegesis Digest Sat, 19 Jan 2002 Volume: 7 Issue: 002

In This Issue:

From: Lois Cruz
Subject: Re: Astrology seems a matter of relating verbs to...

From: DF or JG
Subject: some feedback

- - - - - -

From: "Lois Cruz"
Subject: Re: Astrology seems a matter of relating verbs to one another
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:23:31 -0500

##############################################################################

My final suggestion is incorporated above. The "[exegesis]" at the beginning of the subject line is both redundant and unaesthetic. Would it be possible to remove it?

On to more substantive matters. Before the hiatus Patrice Guinard posted a section from his Manifesto [v6/iss17], and I've been wanting to discuss it. Roger Satterlee's post in 7/1 and the responses to it reminds me of what bothered me about Patrice's argument: its attitude towards testing and science. Since this attitude is not only prevalent but has been expressed here by thoughtful and intelligent people, it has to be taken seriously, but I think it is seriously mistaken. I sympathize because I share some of the sentiments that I think cause it, but I think there are more constructive ways of dealing with the problems that have evoked it.

By "the problems" I mean to suggest a general malaise, more intense here, probably, but widely if weakly felt amongst astrologers in general, a sense that something is amiss. For some the most nettlesome problem is that it doesn't make sense that something like astrology _could_ work, for others it's that astrology often predicts what doesn't happen yet fails to predict what did happen. But most prevalent is a feeling that we simply have too many factors and techniques, too many degrees in our orbs, too much leeway in our meanings, in other words, albeit not always clearly articulated or seen, too many ways of being "right". However, because they don't recognize the underlying cause, astrologers who decrease orbs, limit factors, and look for multiple confirmations fail to realize that in their efforts to close loopholes and be more rigorous they are simply playing the same game at a more sophisticated level.

End of exegesis Digest V7 #3

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