Exegesis V07 Issue 033

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #033

In This Issue:

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #32

Exegesis Digest Tue, 26 Feb 2002

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #32
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:05:43 +1300

Patrice wrote:
> >Dennis, although sceptical on progressions, a real interesting correlation you've
> >made with your "Physical basis for progression theory"! Always thought that
> >geomagnetism correlated with biochemistry could give the explanation (in the
> >future) to the astrological fact.

Me too, ever the sceptic on progressions. Remembering that you, as well as me, also found Seymour's theory insufficient to explain the astrological correlations, I'm not sure if geomagnetism and biochemistry are sufficient.

> >But, to go further to the correlation, how does it work, physically? Can we
> >imagine the scenario?

Not easily, to be sure! It would really require a specialist such as Seymour, yet I bet the link between the core rotation and Earth's magnetic field generation is not fully specified anyway. All I've ever heard it described as is in such terms as an `apparent' link. That means they aren't sure. There's a consensus, and has been for decades, but it is based on theory (as far as I can recall) that is not proven. Possibly not even provable.

One can sidestep the academic consensus, of course. Often it is more satisfying to do so, insights from intuition being possible, although in doing so we must keep in mind that we remain in the realm of conjecture. As I suggested, the most fruitful point to begin from is the relation between sidereal time and solar time. Of course, this immediately confronts us with the notion of time as a physical entity, and we have entered the arena of scientific philosophy.

It so happens that I was obliged to address this issure in the course of several chapters of my book, but rather than weigh in with an abundance of substantial material I'll endeavour to be concise in covering the most relevant points. First, time is a physical dimension of the universe in traditional physics. In modern physics, courtesy of Einstein, it appears as part of the fabric of the universe. No longer a separate feature, it is woven with space into a physical union called space/time, or space-time. At least, such is the standard interpretation of the theory. This qualification, often not even included, signals the tacit metaphysics that any writer of such interpretations routinely fails to specify. The normal practice of science writers is to assert the consensual belief as fact. Thus the description of the planetary orbits as paths of least resistance through the medium of space-time displaces the old Newtonian view of planets pulled along orbits by gravitational force.

Okay, next we have time as measure of duration. This requires collective frames of reference in which to locate the temporal position of moments. The answer to any question of when something happened locates the event (or process) in a communal context that users share. Here we already see the other fundamental of modern physics creeping into our description: relativity. Time is relative. The time of an event is given relative to our collective frame of temporal reference. The relativity is formalised as measure by means of time zones.

Further relativity exists between subjective time and objective time, but we need not go into that here I hope. Suffice to say that we wear a watch and use clocks to transcend subjective time and achieve coordination with social time, which has been objectified by means of these collectively-endorsed measurement systems. Also, psychological time derives from biological time, which derives from physical time. Subjective time therefore is at least partially internally referenced to an objective temporal context.

We must remember that physical time is not fully addressed by science. Physics does not deny that natural time cycles structure our personal and collective experience of time - it merely chooses to ignore the fact. It is the diurnal cycle of Earth that forms the primary structure of passing time. This physical cycle is created by the rotational spin of our planet. The lunar orbit creates the secondary physical time cycle - the month - and Earth's orbit around the Sun creates the tertiary physical time cycle - the year. Everyone knows these facts, of course, but I'm stressing this for good reason. Not only is time a physical dimension - it is also structured into regular periods by physical cycles. Physics has always discounted this, and science and culture generally follow suit. The reason is that physics relies on a traditional focus on mathematics to assist measurement, calculation, and technology. The price we pay for this is an active cultural suppression of our personal and collective experience of time.

I will return now to the point of the question. The research suggests that the Earth's inner core rotates "faster than the rest of the planet" - it "turns about one degree farther than the planet as a whole each year". This means that the physical agency that forms Earth's magnetic field progresses in diurnal motion (relative to us) at the same rate that astrologers progress the horoscope. Note the relativity. I have to keep stressing this because I'm aware that unless I do people will not notice it even when I do include reference to it. Everyone is indoctrinated with the belief that relativity doesn't affect them, and that is what I must fight. I was with everyone else on this issue myself until recent years!

So let us assume that we have evolved an internal time-keeper that keeps biological time, which in turn is geared to physical time cycles. This is a widely-held assumption. Internal orientation to the geomagnetic field is documented in various species. Biological clocks that are correlated with the rotation of the inner core would have to be the implied hypotheses required to explain the facts. It is probably not currently possible to establish this correlation. The difference from the diurnal cycle is so small that the measurements of researchers do not detect it.

Let us nonetheless assume that an organic correlation with the diurnal cycle does in fact include a subsidiary correlation with the inner core rotation, and all organic process internally contains a coordinating system that references the temporal context created by these physical cycles. Psyche has access to this temporal context at a level deep within the subconscious. At least, this is our next required hypothesis. My hunch is that the physical relation between solar time and sidereal time is the key to comprehension of the issue. I'm feeling my way on this, so bear with me!

Now solar time is created by the apparent motion of the sun; this local time is created by the (physical) diurnal cycle. Solar time is related to sidereal time by means of the year (also a physical cycle). Mathematics and collective temporal frames of reference (hours, days, months, calendar) are used to combine these into non-local collective (global) time. Looks like the social bonding of days to the year reflects a bond that exists in nature. We see this in-built bond on our astroclock as the zodiac (depicting sidereal time) progresses relative to horizon and meridian by about a degree per day. Progression theory derives from this physical binding between sidereal time and solar time.

This discussion, and any reasoning it contains that may be evident to the reader, are not intended to justify the technique of progressions, merely to note a possible physical basis for such a justification. The questionable aspect of progression theory remains the `year for a day' symbolic equation. Any apologist for the technique would have to explain why a day after birth is equivalent to a year after birth, which is illogical to sensible people.

My interest is in the physical relation of sidereal time to solar time, which does at least provide a physical day for a year differential between the two, and the new-found link to the geomagnetic field. If organisms have an internal time which derives from our planetary time, astrology probably arose and survives on the basis of attempts to consciously construct a mental representation of such internally-sensed time.

There is another aspect of this difficult issue which may add much-needed clarity. That is the systems view, which can relate levels within any natural hierarchy in a generic manner. Considering time from this perspective may well be fruitful. Time can be seen then as relative to each system. Sidereal time comes from the galaxy, perhaps, whereas solar time comes from the solar system...