Exegesis V07 Issue 083

Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #083

In This Issue:

From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Physics, Biology & Astrology

Exegesis Digest Fri, 18 Oct 2002

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 20:42:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Physics, Biology & Astrology

> >Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:36:50 +0200
> >From: Patrice Guinard
> >Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V7 #81
> >
> >Dale, I'm not a specialist in physics nor in biology (although I've begun my
> >university cursus with biological studies). I'm only saying that astrology
> >is impossible without a "reasonable" physical hypothesis. The other way,
> >"symbolism for symbolism", the current use made more & more by astrologers,
> >seems to me impossible (except as cultural trend & superstitious practice).

I agree that a physical foundation is necessary. I think at least the outline of such a foundation is provided in the pieces I cited. I haven't seen the phrase "symbolism for symbolism" (symbolism for its own sake?) but I think I know what you mean and have written extensively on precisely that subject. The way I put it is that astrologers play games with words rather than simply observing what regularly and therefore predictably coincides with a given configuration or kind of configuration.

> >Look at the new planetoid just discovered in the Kuiper belt. The object,
> >named Quaoar, after a god of the Tongva American tribe (South California),
> >could have 1,300 kilometers in diameter and a sidereal revolution of 288
> >years. (See for instance CNN News,
> >http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/07/ice.object/index.html
> >or BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2306945.stm)
> >Are we going to give to it the meaning of this Tongva god, (if the object
> >could have any effect) because of the name, chosen "par hasard" by their
> >discoverers? It's absurd, but it's what astrologers are usually doing.

Yes, this is silly, and I regularly piss traditional astrologers off by saying so. No doubt you do, too.

> >. . .
> >
> >My hypothesis is free folded:
> >1. The astronomical signal is integrated in the neuro-physiological
> >organization.

In other words, the organism must have a way of knowing what's going on in the sky. Since there are rhythms on earth that mirror those in the heavens, I assume that such means have been evolved even if we don't know the particulars at this time. I know SOME of the particulars with regard to diurnal cycles, but the interaction between earth organism and other planets - Mars, Saturn, etc. - is still obscure and needs to be researched. Nonetheless, the model proffered in the pieces I cited assumes their existence as a working hypothesis.

> >2. The astral impression (impressional) is the inaperceptible psychic effect
> >of that signal. It is "almost-lived".

If I understand you correctly, "motivational pattern" is my equivalent of what you're talking about. It's the organic regularity that corresponds to the celestial regularity.

> >3. The astrological symbol is the cultural and psycho-mental translation of
> >that impressional.
> >(see http://cura.free.fr/19fabwo.html)

This remains obscure to me even after reading the above link, and after reading (several months ago) various versions of your *Manifesto*. To me astrological symbols are part of a way of reasoning that enables us to seem valid to ourselves even though presentday astrology has very little empirical content. It's a game we learn to play through exposure to astrology's paradigms.

> >Point 1 means a cellular, nervous, integration, synchronization (not
> >synchronicity) of planetary rhythms. So it's a temporal adaptation (see my
> >text on Pavlov on CURA. More far interesting theories for astrologers is his
> >Opera than the Freudian fancies & its clowning use by astrologers). A temporal
> >adaptation means that if every month (approximately), the Moon comes back to
> >the same position in the sky, the nervous system has been made able, with
> >time, to register the cycle & its variations. With that an astrology is
> >possible. & nothing extraordinary in this.

Organic nervous systems have evolved inner clocks that correspond to the external clocks by which they regularly reset themselves. Is that what you're saying? Regardless, it's what I'M saying.

> >It is the (future?) work of physics & biology to determine how it could works
> >exactly, not mine. (& I'm not sure that "a science" could explain one day the
> >change from 1 to 2)

I don't think we can slough off our responsibilities that easily. If we want to claim that astrology has physical and biological foundations, and I do and apparently you do, then physics and biology-trained astrologers are the ones who should and will be doing that research. In that case we should at least make an effort to understand, however imperfectly, physics and biology in order to help lay the groundwork for that pursuit.

> >But the work of "translation" (Point 3) is the real astrological work. What
> >I've called "matrix-based reason" is helping for this. Ancient books &
> >traditions may help, if the cultural contexts are understood, but also can
> >trick.

I'm not sure what you mean by "translation". What I've been doing, and perhaps this is what you mean, is looking for terrestrial regularities that correspond with celestial ones. Does Saturn transiting conjunct, square, and opposite Mercury MEAN anything. If so we should be able to observe developments in people's lives that occur during those transits at those intervals, as I have in Freud's life among others.

> >Concerning the website you mention, I'm going to have a look. A physics
> >compatible with astrology must be discovered. Although I'm rather sceptical
> >about the application of "new physics" (that one that is "known" today) to
> >astrology, the subject must be deepened (Dennis is preparing a paper on the
> >subject).

I don't think a phsyics compatible with astrology needs to be discovered. I think existing physics, perhaps with some changes, will do. (I'm not one of those astrologers who thinks that the validation of astrology will revolutionize physics. I don't think the tail wags the dog.) I think an astrology compatible with physics is needed, has been discovered, and can be found (at least my version of it) at that website.

> >
> >Patrice
> >
> >>From: Dale Huckeby
> >>Subject: [e] Physics, Biology & Astrology
> >>
> >>Patrice has argued recently, and several times in the past, if I've
> >>understood him correctly, that astrology should be compatible with physics
> >>and biology. I couldn't agree more. My own conception of the organic
> >>integration of planetary rhythms (a notion that pops up in several places
> >>in Patrice's *Manifesto*) can be found in Exegesis [1:11] and later, in
> >>more detail, in [4:53] (an article-ized version of the latter can be found
> >>at < http://www.aplaceinspace.net/ > ). Patrice, is the material in those
> >>pieces compatible with what you mean by "organic integration of planetary
> >>rhythms"?
> >>
> >>Dale Huckeby
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >End of Exegesis Digest V7 #82
> >*****************************
> >|| http://exegesis.dyndns.org/exegesis/exegesis.html
> >|| Moderator: exegesis-owner
> >|| To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe exegesis'
> >|| as subject to lists
> >