Exegesis V07 Issue 046

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #046

In This Issue:

From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44

Exegesis Digest Wed, 27 Mar 2002

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:12:49 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #44

> >From: L:Smerillo
> >
> >This then seems to be saying that astrology is a relativist subjective
> >approach to being. The problem with this approach is that it is a ghetto
> >of one ape in a treeless desert. There is no dialogue with the real
> >world, no tension, no loop and feed back of critical thinking, it is
> >mere expression: take it or leave it.
> >(...)
> >The retreat into subjectivism is a
> >way (called passive aggressive) of protecting the individual from social
> >contact, from dialogue and compromise. It is simply a reaction of fear,
> >and the camouflage of boundless expression hides from the invasion of
> >the real world upon the seemingly 'artistic' (ie, individualistic)
> >mirror of intuition which is ever looking only at itself.
> >(...)
> >This would mean I think that one has decided not to dialogue with the
> >real world but to magically inhabit a space of idiolexic monologue.

Just some reactions, "subjective & individualist", after the good answer by Lois Cruz:

[Ultimately there IS no other approach to being, so such a view of astrology seems appropriate. The weight of science, history, tradition, authority may give the illusions of objectivity and of some kind of unchanging "absolute", but in the end it probably *is* all illusion, consensual or individual. We seem to live in a Democratic Universe--the perceptions/conceptions with the widest and most long-lasting agreement, "win". (...) This is a human condition, and certainly not limited to any particular paradigm, point-of-view or mode of consciousness. Academia itself--the ultimate in rationality and "objectivity"--is rather notable for such "egoism and turf protection/expansion".]

By giving consulations, with his clients, the commun astrologer is adapted to the REAL social world -- which is money-trading-pragmatist world. And what's the difference between an astrologer & a psychoanalist?

The world of academy is a protected appendice, ideologically oriented, the "faire-valoir" of the "real" increasing trading world, and also (it's true) a rather bigger community than the astrological one. Just a question of quantity. You seem to ignore, Lorenzo, the advent, here or there, of a real astrological thought. Of course, most of the articles published in astrological magazines are mere "bouillie pour les chats", but have a look beyond!

Individualistic? Not an invention of astrologers! Just a "quality" of modernity. But paradoxically, modern thought is precisely unable to think the person, nor the psyche (in fact it doesn't exist for it such a thing!): So it could be that modern astrology is filling the gap.
Personally, I've not found that academy has been able, up to now, to answer properly to the astrological question (only by silence, suppression of dissidents, biaised research & ...). So: go on Lorenzo!