Exegesis V07 Issue 035

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #035

In This Issue:

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #34

Exegesis Digest Fri, 01 Mar 2002

From: "JG or DF"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #34
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:05:37 +1300

> >But I was thinking that the progressed chart derived its reported significance
> >from persons who verify their astrology by noting the timing of *predictable
> >events*--a proposition for which I personally have no reason to argue. It

I have seen impressive correlations many times over the years. Some astrologers seem quite adept at identifying them. My bias against the system arises from two reasons. One is the lack of rationale, and the other is the absence of any systematic verification of the procedure.

> >From a users point of view, I found that my own progressions usually failed to manifest in real life in any discernible way. I thought Rudhyar's description of them as internal evolutionary development was satisfactory, but I always pursued an evolutionary path in life anyway, so couldn't see any personal difference between developmental trends apparently stimulated by progressions and those driven by personal lifestyle choice. Possibly the latter may arise from unconscious attunement to the former. If so, a connecting rationale is still required to explain why.

> >would seem very likely that a critical shortage of accurate and dependable
> >astronomical data might logically lead astrologers of antiquity to invent and
> >rely upon a system like the progressed natal chart if only to enable their
> >*predictions*, which they must make to fulfill the expectations of their
> >clientele.

Doesn't really explain it. Transits are sufficient for prediction of adverse or suitable times and periods, and the planetary positions are readily observable most of the time. It's not as though they were afflicted by typical English weather. Climate in the classical period was generally good in the astrology-originating countries as it is these days.

> >In general I tend to depend on certain constants of human nature when the
> >detailed facts of a case are not in my possession: I've often noted in myself
> >that the feeling that I need to "fight" usually implies that silently perceive
> >myself to have a weak argument....:)

And you assume that applies to me too? It raises the question of why one would feel the need to assert a weak argument. One could also wonder why one needs to "fight" the beliefs of others.

I think one's argument may not be weak inherently, but relatively. If one is coming from a minority point of view, I mean. I have found that Libra rising sees the imbalance. Does it signal to the rest of my psyche that balance is required? Don't know, but I do find myself acting as if this were so. Perhaps because my Mars squares my Libran Ascendant exactly!

My use of the word "fight" then makes sense, however untypical it may be of my usual approach to life and others (you know how our generation manifested the Neptune transit of Libra: peace, love & Woodstock etc).

The more interesting question is why one feels that `the truth' ought to be asserted. If one feels internally that an idea or belief is true, why does it seem important. In postmodern times, we are meant to conform to the politically-correct fashion and acknowledge that one person's truth has equal value to another's differing truth. Doesn't matter if one is right and the other wrong, because nobody knows for sure which is which. Nonetheless, people keep acting and talking according to the traditional belief that things are either right or wrong, and that it is always important to know which is which.

I guess it is just because survival has always depended on knowing this. Evolutionary psychology explains that collective survival constrains individual choices toward conformity to collective beliefs. Astrologers could survive collectively by blind adherence to tradition, and one can observe most acting accordingly. However, when the host society evolves collective beliefs hostile to astrology that attain a prevailing consensus, the survival of astrology seems to depend on some reconciliation. Astrologers are then best advised to reconcile their beliefs with the prevailing consensus. I am acting in accord with such pragmatism, despite having to come from a minority position in the astrocommunity.