Exegesis Volume 08 Issues #041-050

exegesis Digest Sat, 06 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 041

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Peter Nielsen
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #40

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 09:02:44 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #40

>It is true that Sir Leonard Woolley is of the opinion that Ea and Enki
were the same
>deity, but other contributors to the literature do not share that opinion.
>

One indication is that the two were assigned the same number, being 40. Anu
was 60 and Enlil 50.

>You correlated Enki with air, but Woolley describes him as "lord of the
>waters" ("The Sumerians", p121) and "the water-god" (p137).  This implies
>that your assertion that "the elemental correspondences are historical fact"
>is merely a personal opinion.
>

Sorry, that was my typo. Maybe Lorenzo can offer me a job in his library so
I can do this full time :-)

Yes, the Sumerian image of Enki is a figure pouring water from two jars,
eventually associated with Oannes. However, Enlil was originally the god of
storms. Hence a lingering water connection.

>In any case, these Sumerian elemental correspondences seem to have no
>logical correlation with the later elemental correspondences with the
>tropics & equinoxes, which obviously weakens the argument in favour of the
>historical pedigree of the zodiac.
>

The boundaries of the three ways were used to divide the elliptic into four
parts. Each was assigned to a season. The elemental correspondences reflect
the Sumerian agricultural cycle. For example, Spring equinox was the time
of flooding and renewal of the land.

In comparing these with modern astrology, we should keep this in mind, as
well as the 5,000 year difference relative to precession. Using these
criteria, why don't you have another look and tell us what you find.

Peter Nielsen
 

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #41

exegesis Digest Sun, 07 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 042

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #41
 #2: From: L:Smerillo
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #38

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #41
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 22:37:57 +1200

I wrote:
> >In any case, these Sumerian elemental correspondences seem to have no
> >logical correlation with the later elemental correspondences with the
> >tropics & equinoxes, which obviously weakens the argument in favour of
the
> >historical pedigree of the zodiac.
Peter responded:
> The boundaries of the three ways were used to divide the elliptic into
four
> parts. Each was assigned to a season. The elemental correspondences
reflect
> the Sumerian agricultural cycle. For example, Spring equinox was the time
> of flooding and renewal of the land.

Ah, that immediately rang a bell.  I had forgotten, but did read that
somewhere.  The equinoxes both occur in the middle way, with only the
directional movement to distinguish them astronomically.

> In comparing these with modern astrology, we should keep this in mind, as
> well as the 5,000 year difference relative to precession. Using these
> criteria, why don't you have another look and tell us what you find.

You seem to be better-informed on this topic than me, so perhaps you could
explain it?  So the attributions were agricultural, much as in Egypt.  It
floods at the spring equinox, so why do we inherit a fire sign then??
Precession?  Taurus led the early zodiacs.  The twin-starred boundary stones
are often hopefully cited as the only hard evidence of the Age of Gemini.
Neither is a water sign.
 

Dennis

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 04:36:25 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #38

dennis frank wrote:
> > > The astrological
> > > archetypes are generated by the solar system, with component major
> bodies
> > > (orbits) playing a similar structural role to the mirrors.

> Lorenzo commented:
> > If you mean the 12-fold zodiac, this is lunar based.
>
> No, I don't, and your comment is merely a half-truth.  The zodiac, like the

Historically it is the whole truth. It just doesn't fit the
archetypicality of your archetype.

> calendar, was derived from the natural time cycles created by the solar
> system.  The primary one experienced on earth is the diurnal cycle,
> generated by our planetary rotation.  The secondary time cycle of our
> experience is the lunation, the cycle of lunar phases.  The tertiary time
> cycle that structures human experience is the transit of the sun across the
> galactic background of stars.

All this is obviously true to the modern mind of a scientist, or a
scientist manque. No ancient observation of the sun across the galatic
(which is not all the stars which are seen at night) background of stars
was ever made for a very simple reason: which is also obvious.

> These are commonly known as day, month, and
> year(except that months as we know them derive from a mathematical
> abstraction of the lunation cycle, and subsequent cultural customisation).

I've said all this more clearly from the very beginning of the
discussion.

> The structure of the zodiac arises from the relation between the apparent
> lunar cycle and the apparent solar cycle.

When? Who made this connection and when did they make it? Why did they
make it? What is the "structure"  of the zodiac to which you refer? 30
degrees by 12? Or some archetype? Some idea you wish to impose on a
measuring stick?
 

> There are always 12 lunations in
> a year,

No, this is not true.

> so the apparent path of the sun around the star-field was divided
> into 12 equal sections.

NO one past present or future can see the apparent path of the sun
around the star-field. This is physically impossible. It was only the
Neo- Babylonians in the 6th-4th saec. BCE who calculated this
mathematically.

> This early mathematical abstraction was the easiest

'early' seems a gross exaggeration.

> way to combine the two time cycles so as to structure the changing seasons
> for mutual convenience.  Social planning was required for reasons of
> communal survival and profit, and a common temporal frame of reference
> allowed hunting, agriculture & trading to be done at suitable times.

No, there are no texts which bear this out. The earliest texts, based on
earlier practice, of course, was a system of star rising referents,
plant and aviary growth, and some horizonal siting of the equinoces.
 

> Thus the Rig Veda, early to mid 2nd millennium BCE, refers to the wheel in
> the sky with 12 spokes.  Scholars normally describe the Vedas as the
> surviving record of the oral tradition of the 3rd millennium, recorded
> centuries after the aryan invasion & settlement of northern India.  It is in
> reference to this context that we ought to consider the earliest surviving
> record of the current form of the zodiac.

I don't think this would get by as a adequate historical critical
reading of the text with my Sanskrit colleagues.

> > historical development of the 12-fold month system is an *average*
> > reckoning of time. Nothing to do with subjective meanings and other
> > tangential add-ons you wish to *read into* the process and texts.
>
> Lorenzo, you appear to here confuse the calendar and the zodiac.

No. But the Babylonians did.

> The
> qualitative attributions and accretions, no matter how seemingly arbitrary
> or illogical, have been historically attached to the latter.  Your statement
> is true only of the former.  If you really wish to deny history, you are
> wasting your time in this mailing list, and ours.

Practise what you PREACH, Mr. Dennis Frank.
 

> > Believe as you will. That's your rite. But a discussion of beliefs and
> > subjective feelings, projections and post factum patterns is as jejune
> > as to pick out pixilations in the clouds.
>
> Check the parameters of this mailing list as specified on the website.  You
> will find that these things you wish to eliminate are not excluded.  Like
> weeds in a garden, they are natural.  If you see them spoiling the
> ecosystem, you work at minimising the damage.  Sloppy mental practice can
> indeed spoil discourse, but so can a hostile attitude.

Oh, the poverty mine in logic and common sense and my deep mistrust of
Boojum Substances! Oh, Pity me!

> > Accordingly, the periodic table of elements, Lorenzo held aloft as the
> only
> > true archetype, was revealed in a dream after years of fruitless research.

So dreams are archetypes or messages from the Delta Quadrant?

> Lorenzo appears to have no idea what an archetype is.

It is an idea (eidiôn). Endless discussion of archetypes is amusing, I
admit. But the modern Jungian use of the word is tainted with Jung's own
Nazi ideas. He did a hasty retreat from these, positing that
'archetypes' are at base chemicals. Hence the allusion to the periodic
table.

A man without humour over his own ideas is a sad case.

feliciter,

Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo
Research Lector Late Antiquity
Biblioteca Nazionale Protocenobio Sublacense (ROMA)

 The periodic table
> arises from the number of protons in the nucleus, plus the structure of
> possible electron orbits.  That is to say, it is a pattern of relationships.
> It does have a basis in the archetypes of nature, inasmuch as the structural
> configurations contain certain basic numbers and forms.  It is this
> composition of number archetypes and orbital orientations that atoms & solar
> systems share.
 

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #42

exegesis Digest Mon, 08 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 043

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Peter Nielsen
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #42

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 09:19:59 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #42

>> In comparing these with modern astrology, we should keep this in mind, as
>> well as the 5,000 year difference relative to precession. Using these
>> criteria, why don't you have another look and tell us what you find.
>
>You seem to be better-informed on this topic than me, so perhaps you could
>explain it?  So the attributions were agricultural, much as in Egypt.  It
>floods at the spring equinox, so why do we inherit a fire sign then??
>Precession?  Taurus led the early zodiacs.  The twin-starred boundary stones
>are often hopefully cited as the only hard evidence of the Age of Gemini.
>Neither is a water sign.
>

Unplanted fields were flooded during the Spring equinox. But cultivated
fields were harvested.

>> way to combine the two time cycles so as to structure the changing seasons
>> for mutual convenience.  Social planning was required for reasons of
>> communal survival and profit, and a common temporal frame of reference
>> allowed hunting, agriculture & trading to be done at suitable times.
>
>No, there are no texts which bear this out. The earliest texts, based on
>earlier practice, of course, was a system of star rising referents,
>plant and aviary growth, and some horizonal siting of the equinoces.
>

Dennis' statement is correct if we define the  "two time cycles" as a
convergence of the artificial time units, in evidence around 3000 BC, with
the 30 day per month calendar which appeared several hundred years later.
The biological origins of the lunar calendar are obvious. Furthermore,
Nanna, the Sumerian moon god, was also the god of time.

However, the suppostion that they might make do without an integrated solar
calendar on this basis, does not preclude its existence.

For example, it would have been apparent that the interval between
solstices was equal. Having a base 6 number system, it is not unreasonable
that 6 divisions of this period emerged. This kind of periodicity would
have also been apparent in the rising times of recognizable star groups.
Since the year was essentially divided into two polarities, one might
speculate that the hidden celestial content of one became an inferrence
upon the other, thus reflecting the religious significance of the underworld.

To reduce the zodiac to a Babylonian mathematical convenience simply does
not ring true in a wider perspective.

Peter Nielsen
 

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #43

exegesis Digest Tue, 09 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 044

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #42
 #2: From: "Jane Axtell"
  Subject: [e] Does astrology work?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #42
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:36:47 +1200

> > The structure of the zodiac arises from the relation between the
apparent
> > lunar cycle and the apparent solar cycle.
>
> When? Who made this connection and when did they make it? Why did they
> make it? What is the "structure"  of the zodiac to which you refer? 30
> degrees by 12? Or some archetype? Some idea you wish to impose on a
> measuring stick?

Most writers who address your first question indicate the second millennium
BC, and of course the answer to your second question is unknown.  The
structure is mathematical, of course.

> > There are always 12 lunations in
> > a year,
>
> No, this is not true.

Neither ignorance nor error need be so terminal.  Any introductory text in
astronomy will acquaint you with the facts.  Better still, why not work it
out for yourself?  All you need do is choose any two days exactly one year
apart, and count the number of lunations between them.  The exercise is so
simple that even an academic ought to be able to do it.  Forget that I've
already given you the correct result;  treat it as an exciting voyage of
intellectual discovery!!

> > so the apparent path of the sun around the star-field was divided
> > into 12 equal sections.
>
> NO one past present or future can see the apparent path of the sun
> around the star-field. This is physically impossible. It was only the
> Neo- Babylonians in the 6th-4th saec. BCE who calculated this
> mathematically.

You appear to believe that knowledge of reality is only derived from what
you see.  The human brain has ways of supplementing vision with powers of
reasoning and intuition.  When these are deployed in a collaborative
context, a shared view of reality results.  Do you deny that a place exists
merely because you haven't been there to see it for yourself?  Cosmic frames
of reference are generated via the intellectual collaboration of people who
have never been into outer space.

> > for mutual convenience.  Social planning was required for reasons of
> > communal survival and profit, and a common temporal frame of reference
> > allowed hunting, agriculture & trading to be done at suitable times.
>
> No, there are no texts which bear this out. The earliest texts, based on
> earlier practice, of course, was a system of star rising referents,
> plant and aviary growth, and some horizonal siting of the equinoces.

So what?  The surviving remnant of ancient literature is the result of
happenstance.  Plus, it is human nature not to waste time writing about the
basic facts of life that everyone knows and share, because they are so
commonplace they are always taken for granted.  Books about ancient
lifestyles, and more recent hunter-gatherer tribes, often mention that
hunting, harvest, etc, were/are done at the best lunar phases within the
appropriate seasons.

> > Thus the Rig Veda, early to mid 2nd millennium BCE, refers to the wheel
in
> > the sky with 12 spokes.  Scholars normally describe the Vedas as the
> > surviving record of the oral tradition of the 3rd millennium, recorded
> > centuries after the aryan invasion & settlement of northern India.  It
is in
> > reference to this context that we ought to consider the earliest
surviving
> > record of the current form of the zodiac.
>
> I don't think this would get by as a adequate historical critical
> reading of the text with my Sanskrit colleagues.

Who cares?  Do you really believe that Sanskrit is an ethnicity?  If they
were competent and familiar with the Vedas, they would already be aware of
the passage I mentioned.  Are they Indian, or merely westerners trying to
play catch-up?  Why do you think astrology never went out of fashion in
India, and is still the norm even at the highest levels of government?

> It is an idea (eidiôn). Endless discussion of archetypes is amusing, I
> admit. But the modern Jungian use of the word is tainted with Jung's own
> Nazi ideas. He did a hasty retreat from these, positing that
> 'archetypes' are at base chemicals. Hence the allusion to the periodic
> table.

Try looking up `archetype' in a good dictionary.  You might learn something.
Those of us who were educated prior to the popularisation of Jung in the
'80s are well-aware of the traditional usage of that word in the English
language.  Being a foreigner, and younger, you obviously missed out on that.
Jung's spin on the word is too much of a red herring to be helpful, even if
he had been consistent in his interpretation of it.  It is a concept too
profound to be limited to his more superficial descriptions.
 

Dennis Frank

------------------------------

From: "Jane Axtell"
Subject: [e] Does astrology work?
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 02:02:26 -0700

What a question, but what fun to wander about
this question, to assault it from various directions!

There are three parts to this seemingly simple questionL
astrology -- and are we nearer to defining this than before?
work -- and how inded would we know? What are the
criteria for "working"?
does -- and here we have the most interesting part,
a verb in the PRESENT tense, and possibly local as well!

1. ASTROLOGY
All living beings on this planet live in a shared and electrified
soup, one that is thicker here and hotter there, boiling a bit
on the edge, but shared. This medium, the soup, carries
radio waves, sound, the visual wavebands, and much else,
but not evenly or accurately. One carrier wave of many is
the very long frequency wave created by the earth's own
rotation. (If you are familiar with the various electrical
rotors and their properties, this will seem obvious.)

By 30 years ago radio engineers seem to have concluded
that these types of waves (sorted, i believe, into VLF, ELF,
and ULF) seemed to be the carriers for the telepathic
events that most randomly experience but which no one
believes in. (The problems with consensus realities are for
another day, another post.) And i think it was in '73 that
Experiments with tanks of liquified gas attempted to capture
emissions believed to come from the sun, but penetrate the
whole planet without being blocked by any of its comples
structure.

The early space age showed us a universe which was active
on the bands of heat, of x-ray and many others, a highly
differntiated place, very localized, prone to explosive bursts
and strange silences. From unscheduled events, but also from
orderly and rhythmic processes, all kinds of bombardment
was reaching our planet. During the same era when the
Humanist Manifesto against astrology was circulated, the
physicists began to suspect that "if astrology didn't work,
something like it ought to."

Now astrology seems to be the study of the part of this
erratic and continual bombardment which can be given
meaning or used to predice events and processes. But
how could such a conversion be made from input to
meaning and events?

The model we need for such a conversion is adapted
from early descriptions of information theory discussed
in workshops in Kalamazoo about 1959. (The presenters
recognized me and whispered, "How did she get in here?")

The original model propsed
A MESSAGE and a  SENDER (Romeo)
An ENCODING of the message (handwriting)
a MEDIUM for conveying the message
(the note is tied around a rock and thrown
through a window)

A RECEIVER (Juliet if Romeo's aim is good)
A DECODING of the message
(does Juliet know how to read Romeo's spelling?
and does she GET the meaning?)
and a RESULT (go see the play!)

Information theory suggests that
senders and mediums both introduce STATIC
into the message so that any message may
be misinterpreted. The usual protection
against static is REDUNDANCY. (I know
you loved me yesterday. Tell me again today.)

---------

Now lets look at the situation of astrology.

A RECEIVER ( human or even a rain cloud )
is bombarded with what seem to be messages.
(PSEUDO-MESSAGES). The sender is unknown
and sometimes the pseudo-messages are chaotic
and confusing. But from time to time there is an
interval when the messages agree and fall into
what seems to be orderly meaning. Further the
times when order and meaning SEEM to be there
are rhythmic and can be partially predicted.

Because the organisms receiving the pseudo
messages can be grouped into sets with similar
receiver biases for interpreting, behavior changes
can be watched. If several of a set are interpreting
the pseudo messages in a similar way, the
whole set may fall into this pattern through
contagion. ( For supposedly inanimate receives
we can propose processes similar to those in
the induction coil. )

Over time, here and there, interpretations of
certain patterns in the pseudo messages would
become highly stereotyped. But at other times
and places random and contradictory pseudo
messages would undo the stereotyping for long
periods.

Without deciding whether there is a knowing
sender or senders, we do know that what seems
like a barrage of subliminal messages is being
constantly received. Biological processes are
enhanced or damped. Behaviors shift. We say
the times have changed. This is a NEW AGE.

The study of the processes just described with
the adapted information theory metaphor is astrology.

The metaphor of cosmic input being interpreted
as messages, suggests that sometimes
astrology would work and sometimes not.
Further HOW it works would shift depending
on the condition of the receivers and the
order or lack in the messages.. just to start the list
of dependencies.

Can the student of this process predict? Sometimes.

So it all hinges on the tense of the verb after all.

DOES astrology work? I think i would need to
draw a chart to answer that. (Of course we also
must understand that there may be problems
with the astrologer.)

------------

This may seem far too obvious for some of you --
just plain confusing to others.

I will be happy to discuss further, or not, as it
please you.

Recklessly,

Jane Axtell
http://www.startiming.net

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #44

exegesis Digest Wed, 10 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 045

In This Issue:
 #1: From: L:Smerillo
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 05:49:45 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44

One is sometimes amused, at others annoyed, but always somewhat
horrified at the same time, at the depths of shallowness to which
certain pseudo-thinkers, who would be better employed as sheep farmers
on an island lost in the South Pacific, off in the boondocks of the
world, will delve. This list seems to be infested, in an attempt to
merely raise the level of olefactory offense generated by dongos, by
such a Boojum Substance Abuser. I think all would recognise who that
person is.

> Being a foreigner, and younger, you obviously missed out on that.

The sheer arrogance and racism of this statement is not surprising
considering the source of it. What is surprising is that the dear little
man goes so public with his frustration. Obviously not able, nor
willing, to rise to the defense of his own ideas, he must resort to
personal insult. Not that I give a flea's fart for what he says, but I
do have the sheer bliss of the right to respond in like terms and take
the gloves off. Our Emperor Dennis Frank VI has done us all the favour
of showing us that he himself wears no clothes. Perhaps he would rather
be termed a colonial numbskull? I don't know, but the phrase does seem
to have a certain allure.

As for lunations, go shoot a Blue Moon, Denny.
 

And I am closer to 60 than 50, another area where you pompously
pontificate like a fool.

Enough of you and your ilk.

This list is a waste of time, as it is dominated by the archetype idiot
Dennis Frank, who has plagued it with his simplist relativism, which
obscures an even more than mere narrow-mindedless and lack of clear
thought, his pet peeves, his superficial grab-bag knowledge of history,
his attempts at summaries of second-rate thoughts (e.g., the Mercury
posts which effectivly silenced it a year ago) regurgitated no doubt
from his conversion to astrology after his failure as a scientist, and
has never recovered from the fact of his wasted youth, which seems to
now have devolved into a grumpy old age decorated only by mediocrity.
He would do better to paint pretty pictures on tree bark.

For details see:
http://exegesis.dyndns.org/exegesis/exgv5i020.html

Dott. Lorenzo Smerillo
Research Lector Late Antiquity
Biblioteca Nazionale Protocenobio Sublacense (ROMA)
 

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #45

exegesis Digest Sat, 13 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 046

In This Issue:
 #1: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 10:30:54 +1200

Jane Axtell wrote:
> Subject: [e] Does astrology work?
> There are three parts to this seemingly simple question
> astrology -- and are we nearer to defining this than before?
> work -- and how indeed would we know? What are the
> criteria for "working"?
> does -- and here we have the most interesting part,
> a verb in the PRESENT tense, and possibly local as well!

No, we are no nearer defining astrology.  Definitions are formal communal
meanings, normally found in dictionaries.  In cases where the commonly
understood dictionary meaning differs from that held in common by the
authorities in a particular specialty field of knowledge, one goes to the
recognised texts in that field.  Normally these will agree on the
fundamentals of the subject, including definitions.  In the case of
astrology, there is no identifiable in-crowd agreement on such fundamentals
(which answers your second question, Jane).

The judgement of whether astrology works is made by individuals.  En masse
this generates communal consensus.  Here the verdict is mixed.  As I
recently pointed out, by weight of numbers (according to population
measurement by statistics), the answer is yes in Britain.  Similar polls in
other western countries in recent decades have returned the same verdict.  A
nit-picker would argue that the question polled (do you believe in
astrology?) is not the same, but such hair-splitting seems futile.  If
people form the opinion that something works, they believe in it.  Such is
the pragmatic nature of belief.

On the other hand, beliefs are also adopted by people on the basis of
indoctrination, or, if you prefer, the trickle-down effect of expert
opinion.  If recognised experts are sufficiently persuasive as to generate
an effective consensus, their collective opinion will generate a paradigm
shift in their society, in which the traditional belief system is supplanted
by the new world-view.  Popular opinion moves with the change in proportion
to the relative weights of opinion, with the momentum for change being
driven by authority figures.  Authorities traditionally had a typical
stance:  "You will do as you are told.  You will believe what I tell you
because it is the truth."  Most people resist such pressure only with the
reinforcement of a countervailing body of opinion.  Traditional beliefs like
astrology were thus marginalised by the rise of science, and almost
extinguished.  In the mid-20th century, teachers, professors & journalists
routinely proclaimed that astrology did not work.  None had tried it, to see
for themselves;  all were reciting an indoctrinated belief.  Nowadays
authority figures are rarely taken seriously, and personal experience is
determining the swing of public opinion.

As regards the present/local sense implied by the verb "work", I see it as
indicating the judgement based on personal experience.  For someone like me,
for instance, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  In this judgement,
I am referring to my own usage.  I keep using it because the positive
outcomes outweigh the negative.  When I appraise the writings of other
astrologers, however, my appraisal becomes negative on that basis.

> The original model propsed
> A MESSAGE and a  SENDER (Romeo)
> An ENCODING of the message (handwriting)
> a MEDIUM for conveying the message
> (the note is tied around a rock and thrown
> through a window)
>
> A RECEIVER (Juliet if Romeo's aim is good)
> A DECODING of the message
> (does Juliet know how to read Romeo's spelling?
> and does she GET the meaning?)
> and a RESULT (go see the play!)
>
> Information theory suggests that
> senders and mediums both introduce STATIC
> into the message so that any message may
> be misinterpreted. The usual protection
> against static is REDUNDANCY. (I know
> you loved me yesterday. Tell me again today.)
>
> Now lets look at the situation of astrology.
> A RECEIVER ( human or even a rain cloud )
> is bombarded with what seem to be messages.
> (PSEUDO-MESSAGES). The sender is unknown
> and sometimes the pseudo-messages are chaotic
> and confusing. But from time to time there is an
> interval when the messages agree and fall into
> what seems to be orderly meaning. Further the
> times when order and meaning SEEM to be there
> are rhythmic and can be partially predicted.
>
> Because the organisms receiving the pseudo
> messages can be grouped into sets with similar
> receiver biases for interpreting, behavior changes
> can be watched. If several of a set are interpreting
> the pseudo messages in a similar way, the
> whole set may fall into this pattern through
> contagion. ( For supposedly inanimate receives
> we can propose processes similar to those in
> the induction coil. )
>
> Over time, here and there, interpretations of
> certain patterns in the pseudo messages would
> become highly stereotyped. But at other times
> and places random and contradictory pseudo
> messages would undo the stereotyping for long
> periods.
>
> Without deciding whether there is a knowing
> sender or senders, we do know that what seems
> like a barrage of subliminal messages is being
> constantly received. Biological processes are
> enhanced or damped. Behaviors shift. We say
> the times have changed. This is a NEW AGE.
>
> The study of the processes just described with
> the adapted information theory metaphor is astrology.
>
> The metaphor of cosmic input being interpreted
> as messages, suggests that sometimes
> astrology would work and sometimes not.
> Further HOW it works would shift depending
> on the condition of the receivers and the
> order or lack in the messages.. just to start the list
> of dependencies.
>
> Can the student of this process predict? Sometimes.
>
> So it all hinges on the tense of the verb after all.

All seems a suitable view of the situation.  I would just add that this
structural analysis according to the prescription of information theory
lends itself to a further structural analysis by means of the number
archetypes.  The signal/noise ratio is binary (2).  Sender (1) is in bipolar
relation to receiver (2).  Message sent (1) is/not message received (2).
Agreement of meaning (like-mindedness) between sender & receiver is holistic
(1).  The residual meaning sent that is not received, or is misinterpreted,
is a dualistic difference between them (2).  The medium carrying the message
mediates between them (3).

I guess there is also a binary subdivision of the transmission medium.  This
would be between the code and the physical medium that enables transmission
of the code.  Which implies a tetradic relation between all 4 major players
in this game.

> DOES astrology work? I think i would need to
> draw a chart to answer that. (Of course we also

I did once read an article by a British astrologer who had asked this as a
horary question and interpreted the chart.  Anyone else would be reading a
different chart for the same question so I suspect you don't get a simple
answer.

> must understand that there may be problems
> with the astrologer.)

A widespread affliction, even...
 

Dennis

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #46

exegesis Digest Tue, 16 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 047

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Rachel
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rachel
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:34:00 EDT
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #44
 

Dear Dennis Frank,
I am shocked by your response to Lorenzo Smerillo. I can understand your
frustration, but to reduce yourself to responding with personal insults does this
list little good and  takes away from what it was meant to be and why I and so
many others have joined. I hope that you can see beyond your ego and allow
the list to become something more than your ideas, your knoweldge, and your
thoughts. Greatness comes from such lists and it has on ocassion come from this
list. Don't reduce it to something so petty.
By the way there are brilliant foreigners whose english supercedes your own
and there will always be so. To make such a mistake is more than arrogance or
racism. You do not insult L. Smerillo by such response. You insult yourself and
more than that, you insult this list as well as the people taking part in it.
wishing you and yours visons of greatness,
Rachel

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #47
 

exegesis Digest Wed, 17 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 048

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Rachel
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #47
 #2: From: "Dennis Frank"
  Subject: [e] postmodernism in relation to astrology

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rachel
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 02:04:01 EDT
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #47
 

I have just noticed that I did not receive V8 #46 and I am unable to locate
it in the archives. Dennis, would you kindly fwd it to me or tell me how I
might be able to find it directly at your web site?
thank you
Rachel

------------------------------

From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] postmodernism in relation to astrology
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:00:25 +1200

Bill Sheeran wrote (Exegesis V8#9):
> I think to date the influence of postmodernism on astrology has been
> fairly superficial.

True, but the influence on astrologers has been substantial.  Seems like a
contradiction?  Well, it ain't necessarily so.

What I mean is that the term astrology is normally understood to be the
generally-held belief system.  This, like all paradigms, persists in the
realm of culture due to its innate inertia.  Philosophical fashion-trends
such as postmodernism may eddy around it, but will have minimal impact on
the internal content (traditional modes of practice & structure of theory).

Astrologers, on the other hand, evidence the impact of postmodernism by
their habit of attending conferences in which various looney-tunes are sung
by competing ego-driven practitioners.  Each theoretical exposition tends to
be a) novel, b) idiosyncratic, c) unsupported by persuasive case-study
evidence, and d) mutually incompatible with all the others.  Yet the
audience of their peers sits there happily allowing each histrionic
performance to go in one ear and out the other, experiencing minimal
interaction with the grey matter in between.  The proof of this is in the
observation of the utter lack of any difference to the beliefs and practice
of each practitioner in the audience thereafter.

Such open-minded consideration of all views is the product of postmodernism,
in conformity with its central tenet that no authority figure can possibly
be correct, so one must consider all options.  Garbage in produces garbage
out.  Astrologers exhibit their conversion to postmodernism likewise by
publishing in the astromedia explanations of how astrology works for them
that differ from all the others.  The tacit consensus is that nobody really
knows how it ought to work for everyone.  Such total pluralism is postmodern
heaven.  Anything goes.

Now if the tradition had a core of reliable substance, it would be
identifiable as doctrine.  Fundamentalist astrologers would be observed
fighting to defend the purity of this doctrine against the polluting inroads
made by the postmodern philistines.  Instances of this are hard to find in
my experience (23 years).  The closest such would be the most reactionary
niche in the ecosystem;  horary.  The fundamentalists therein continue to
argue about which traditional exponents of the craft were right, in a vain
attempt to discern which of the rules of method laid down by the various
traditional authority figures are `true'.

> One quirky and ironically postmodern reaction to this has been the
> emergence of
> a kind of neo-traditionalism which seeks to either defend or resurrect
> certainties by appealing to perspectives from earlier eras. As far as
> astrology
> is concerned, I think the re-emergence of traditional horary astrology
> and the re-visiting of classical Greek astrology is symptomatic of this.

There, you said it yourself in the very next paragraph.  I disagree that
neo-traditionalism is part of any "postmodern reaction".  I bet those
involved would be horrified at the very suggestion!

> This is especially true if one is trying to explain how astrology 'works'
>  by focusing on its outward form. It would seem to me that if one
> acknowledges an
> astrological pluralism, the first implication of this is that one needs to
> downgrade the significance previously attached to the outward form if one
>  wants to understand astrology's nature.

Which is why the postmodern astrologer tacitly discounts traditional
astrology (while using much of it).

> Secondarily, one has to jettison the notion
> that astrology can be understood by focusing one's intellect on its tools
>  and techniques. The emphasis shifts away from structure and
> mechanism towards process and function.

Quite right.

> As soon as one makes this shift in emphasis, the astrologer begins to
> loom large. To me this is a crucial point. The astrological process
emerges
> from within the relationship between the astrologer and the contextual
> environment.
> The contextual environment is coloured by cultural factors and also
> includes the experience of the natural world. Astrology is not and was not
discovered by
> astrologers as an objective feature of reality, but is and was constructed
out
> of experience, evolving through use and the vagaries of cultural dynamics
>  for better or worse.

Indeed.

> Despite the variation, there is common ground. This is to be found for
example
> in a common sense of purpose. Astrology arises from the instinct to
recognise or
> map order in the experience of change. On another level, the significance
of
> cultural and temporal variables which underlie the differentiation of
> astrology's outward forms is diminished when one considers the celestial
sphere.
> The effectively unchanging periodicities of the heavenly motions are
shared and
> also constitute common ground. Significantly, some of these periodicities
> determine the way we calibrate our sense of duration and map order onto
our
> temporal experience.

Yes, which is why I have always advocated reformulating astrology on the
basis of our common experience of natural time cycles.

> in our language indicate the way we reify it. Time is an object resource.
>  Thus we say "I don't have much time"; "I can give you five minutes";
"don't
> waste my time" and so on. Time is also considered metaphorically in terms
of a container.
> "It all happened in 15 minutes"; "I was born in the 1930s", etc. Thus
> events and change are considered to occur *in* time.

Yes, our collective description of time renders it objective.  It became a
collective frame of reference, used as such in physics.

> One might expect a degree of overlap between the root meanings
> attributed to planetary symbols within different cultures, though this
might
> diminish as the symbol's field of meaning is differentiated in ways that
> reflect the cultural milieu.

I originally did expect that, and the general failure to identify any such
commonality remains the most powerful argument against the planetary
archetype hypothesis.  It always puzzled me when astrologers contributing to
this list who were critical of my espousal of archetypes didn't use that
objection.

> Another important aspect of commonality is the fact that astrologies have
> emerged from the same species of animal. This may seem a trite
> observation, but
> it is intended to focus attention on a species specific (!) cognitive
capacity.
> We are symbol-using animals. Does this have a survival value, and if so
> what is
> the relationship between the symbol generating function of our cognitive
> capacity and the environment to which we are cognitively coupled? Is
> there a selection pressure which favours the survival of symbol system
> constructions
> which for some reason produce useful insights within the coupled domain?
> Is this a product of a self-organising dynamic within that domain? What
are our
> non-rational faculties for? How important is meaning and how is it
generated?

Well, exactly.  Meaningful identification of environmental features is
obviously a talent enabling survival of the fittest.  Astrology (not as we
know it) originated with the lunar (hunters) zodiac, when herd migrations
were observed to correlate with particular lunations (mainly via full moon).
Even then the solar frame of reference was implicit, since these were locked
into particular seasons.

Temporal correlation of symbols with natural phenomena is the basis of
culture, I would suggest, and not just of astrology.

> more than minimal thinking. I don't think that astrologers have taken to
> postmodernism, least of all because it is an easy option. I think they
> have a
> very passive relationship with it and find it easy enough to assimilate
> the notion of astrological pluralism as a token postmodern gesture.

I suppose so.  You can always rely on astrologers to collectively take the
easy way out.  Intellectual endeavour is okay if a vehicle for
self-promotion, but not for the common interest.  Typical participants in
the competitive capitalist economy, not a breed apart at all!

> Postmodern ways of thinking are completely subversive
> when it comes to considering conventional astrological wisdom. The
> fragile 'grand narrative' of astrology comes under the spotlight for
> deconstruction -
> it's not enough to settle for a wider set of 'local narratives' and simply
carry
> on. This is aside from the chronic and in some respects misleading
> deconstructive influence of mainstream scientific thinking which has
> dogged the
> subject for centuries. I think a small number of astrologers (that I am
> aware of) have made some important contributions with regard to this
process of
> deconstruction and re-framing. Juan Revilla comes to mind. I also think

Being a latecomer to the notions of postmodernism & deconstruction, I now
suspect that my approach to traditional astrology has always been
deconstructive & somewhat reconstructive.  That aside, I have not come
across any persuasive evidence of a new synthesis.  The key feature of a
paradigm is that it is a collective entity.  Solo efforts are irrelevant,
unless they originate a subscription of like-minded adherents.  Rudhyar is
the only contender thus far, and his contribution was insufficiently
deconstructive.

> The astrology which eventually emerges when modernity equilibrates in the
>  wake of this postmodern phase will be conceived of quite differently from
the
> fragmented and somewhat chaotic animal lounging around at present.

You mean no longer a parlour game?  Such optimism!
 

Dennis
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #48
 

exegesis Digest Wed, 17 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 049

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Bill Sheeran
  Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #48

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Sheeran
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V8 #48
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:50:52 +0100

Hi Dennis,
A few comments in response to yours.

>What I mean is that the term astrology is normally understood to be the
>generally-held belief system.  This, like all paradigms, persists in the
>realm of culture due to its innate inertia.  Philosophical =
fashion-trends
>such as postmodernism may eddy around it, but will have minimal impact
on
>the internal content (traditional modes of practice & structure of
theory).

Astrology is in an odd position as it is still doing battle with
modernism (which for the sake of this conversation I'll define as the
consequences of the paradigm shift which occurred between the 17trh
and first half of the 20th century). Rather than seeing postmodern
perspectives as a challenge, they tend to be seen perversely as a
source of relief. I would see them as demanding a radical
re-visualising of the way astrology is conceived.

Such a reappraisal of astrology within the context of an alternative
paradigm will not happen as a direct consequence of argument. I agree
with Max Planck, who suggested that paradigm shifts occur when those
in positions of power who defend the old perspectives die out. Newer
perspectives on astrology which emerge from within contemporary
culture will eventually be assimilated because they make sense within
that culture's intellectual sensibility. If astrology doesn't go
extinct in the meantime, it will be the younger afficionados who pick
up on creative developments in this respect. However, this obviously
depends on those creative ideas being made available for perusal, even
though they are likely to be initially ignored or rejected.
>
>Astrologers, on the other hand, evidence the impact of postmodernism by
>their habit of attending conferences in which various looney-tunes are
sung
>by competing ego-driven practitioners.

Well, I think that for the most part, those conferences are social
events and maybe an opportunity for a show of solidarity. They are
also naturally enough commercial ventures which brings its own set of
priorities. As regards those conferences I've attended, the only
speaker that I can think of who actually made a difference to my
relationship with astrology was Geoffery Cornelius.

=46or a good while I have felt the need for a different kind of meeting
of astrologers, more in line with a think tank. The main problem is
sponsorship. Locking 10 - 15 astrologers and others away in a suitably
comfortable location to present points, brainstorm and so on with the
goal of re-conceiving astrology and drawing order out of the chaos.

The model in my mind is the collection of scientists and thinkers who
met on three separate occasions to "formulate some skeleton of
concepts and methods around which Theoretical Biology can grow". It
was prompted by the increasing recognition that biological processes
could not be reduced down to the Theoretical Physics level of
explanation in any meaningful way and still make sense. This series of
meetings began in 1968, and the outcome was a four volume set of books
entitled "Towards a Theoretical Biology".  They were edited by
C.H.Waddington, whose 'Tools for Thought' is still one of the most
accessible books when it comes to grappling with the implications of
non-linearity in dynamic systems. Many of the ideas discussed at those
meetings are now mainstream.

The Internet can play a part in this regard, but I think that real
time communication and exchange in the physical plane would be more
productive.
>
>Such open-minded consideration of all views is the product of
postmodernism,
>in conformity with its central tenet that no authority figure can
possibly
>be correct, so one must consider all options.

That is just the first step. To remain there is a severe sign of
intellectual laziness. It is perfectly valid to question the nature of
truth, correctness, facts, knowledge and so on. The truths of the
future will have the same potency as earlier truths. The only
difference is that they won't be considered as absolute. Order always
emerges from chaos.

>Astrologers exhibit their conversion to postmodernism likewise by
>publishing in the astromedia explanations of how astrology works for
them
>that differ from all the others.  The tacit consensus is that nobody
really
>knows how it ought to work for everyone.  Such total pluralism is
postmodern
>heaven.  Anything goes.

Total pluralism is an unsustainable position and is just as warped in
that respect as absolute certainty. It is actually the condition of
postmodern hell.

>Now if the tradition had a core of reliable substance, it would be
>identifiable as doctrine.

As far as I can see, the nearest thing approaching a doctrine in
astrology is the implicit acknowledgement and dependence on a doctrine
of correspondences. Whether or not one sees this as having a 'core of
reliable substance' depends on one's judgement criteria. But it does
seem to have had a longevity in one form or another from astrology's
beginnings up until the present.

>I disagree that
>neo-traditionalism is part of any "postmodern reaction".  I bet those
>involved would be horrified at the very suggestion!

In my view, there are two types of traditionalist. Those who
resolutely espouse the pre-modern astrological perspective and who
reject the influence of modernism and postmodernism on astrology (for
example, the late Olivia Barclay and the English 'Lilly school').
Secondly, there are those who have no bones to pick in principle with
the influence of modernism on contemporary astrology, but who adopt a
postmodern attitude by acknowledging the value of earlier knowledge
traditions. Modernism is characterised by the notion of linear
progress and the inherent inferiority of conceptualisations from the
past. Postmodernism challenges this assumption.

Individuals like Robert Hand and Robert Schmidt fall into this
postmodern group due to their revisiting of older astrologies with a
view to clarifying the astrology of the present. I call them
neo-traditionalists to separate them from the traditionalists who
emphatically park their tents in the pre-modern conceptual field. In
Schmidt's case, he's almost inventing a new astrology based on his
translations of Greek texts.

>> Postmodern ways of thinking are completely subversive
>> when it comes to considering conventional astrological wisdom. The
>> fragile 'grand narrative' of astrology comes under the spotlight for
>> deconstruction - it's not enough to settle for a wider set of 'local
>>narratives' and simply carry on. I think a small number of astrologers
>>(that I am aware of) have made some important contributions with
>>regard to this process of deconstruction and re-framing. Juan
>>Revilla comes to mind.
>
> I have not come
>across any persuasive evidence of a new synthesis.  The key feature of a
>paradigm is that it is a collective entity.  Solo efforts are
irrelevant,
>unless they originate a subscription of like-minded adherents.  Rudhyar
is
>the only contender thus far, and his contribution was insufficiently
>deconstructive.

Solo efforts may usually be irrelevant, but at the same time, if the
solo efforts aren't made, there are no hooks there to catch potential
supporters of the views arising from those efforts.

There is no new synthesis because there is still a lot of dismantling
to be done. It's difficult to do this in a way that overcomes the
impact of astrologers' inferiority complex. Sceptics and critics of
astrology are doing a fairly effective job in certain areas, despite
their (in my view) erroneous preconceptions of astrology's nature.
However, they have no urge to engage in reconstruction strategies and
just want to knock the thing on the head once and for all.

Obviously this is not very constructive for astrology. Also, because
of the total lack of support for astrology which emerges from the "500
published investigations", astrologers are on the defensive and with
their backs against the wall. This isn't a great climate for getting
across a more sympathetic deconstruction which is motivated by the
perceived need to re-visualise astrology for its own good.

The challenge for astrologers is to let go of the heavens with all
their uniformity and linearity for long enough to contemplate the
extent of the subjectivity involved in the astrological process.
Astrology will never make sense just by looking to the stars and
assuming that astrological 'effects' come from 'out there'.

The fact that there is so much diversity in astrology, much of it
mutually exclusive, suggests one of two things. Either astrology is a
load of bullshit. Or the most important component in the astrological
process is the astrologer. In the latter case, the fact of the
diversity in terms of tools, techniques, reference frameworks,
symbolically empowered bodies and so on is irrelevant. What counts is
that the astrologer is engaged in a cognitively based subjective
mapping process and uses the tools being used as a matter of
preference and choice.

On the face of it, this means one has to accept the argumentative
weakness associated with the "it works for me" defence gambit. But
this is only a problem if one assumes astrology has to be explained in
terms of external mechanisms which directly connect the heavens to
worldly affairs.

It is in this respect that I believe astrology needs to be completely
reframed. Certainly, if one places the astrologer at the centre of the
astrological process and works outwards from there, the focus of
attention rapidly moves to areas such as epistemology, semiotics,
cognitive science and consciousness studies. From this perspective,
and that of general cultural studies, the diversity we see in
astrology is no longer a major problem. Which is not to say that it
never requires weeding or reasoned debate. But the nature of the
diversity problem has to be kept in proportion.

Naturally, other problems emerge when one jettisons the causative
framing of astrology. For example, where do the rhythmic patterns come
from if not the planetary cycles which are seen to match them? I don't
know!
>
>>The astrology which eventually emerges when modernity equilibrates in
the
>>wake of this postmodern phase will be conceived of quite differently
from
>>the fragmented and somewhat chaotic animal lounging around at present.
>
>You mean no longer a parlour game?  Such optimism!

Yes, I am an optimist. I think that in the long run astrology will be
reconstructed according to modern (i.e. future contemporary)
sensibilities. That it will recover from the profoundly disturbing
impact of Cartesian thinking, materialism, rationalism, scientism and
so on. The reason I remain optimistic is because I don't doubt
astrology's functional value, which doesn't even depend on it being
objectively 'true'. I believe the astrological process generates
insights and added information about system dynamics.

This may take rather a long time, as the conditions for this evolution
are far from ideal. There aren't many astrologers interested in
working in this territory, and those that are remain isolated from
each other with little access to useful resources. Dialogue with those
working in relevant peripheral fields (such as semiotics) is hard to
establish for any number of reasons.

If I won the lottery, I would set up a think tank which met
periodically (maybe on a yearly basis) for a week or two in a nice
place. I'd make sure that the group contained individuals from fields
other than astrology. The first meetings would be more mutual
education sessions than anything else, but they would sow seeds and
cross fertilisation would occur. Eventually some creative thinking
would emerge.

This is unlikely to happen though, as I don't buy lottery tickets.

All the best,

Bill

http://www.radical-astrology.com

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #49
 
 

exegesis Digest Thu, 18 Sep 2003 Volume: 08  Issue: 050

In This Issue:
 #1: From: Peter Nielsen
  Subject: [e] Astrological reformism

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 20:00:24 +1000
From: Peter Nielsen
Subject: [e] Astrological reformism

Once upon a midnight dreary, as I pondered weak and weary ... I found this
website.

www.lunarplanner.com/harmonics/planetary-harmonics.html

An engineer, like myself, could easily build a transmitter for these
frequencies or combinations thereof.

Anyone out there not happy with their chart? How about a planet in your
living room?

Is electronics the future of astrology?

Peter Nielsen
 

------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V8 #50
 

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

Unless otherwise indicated, articles and submissions above are copyright © 1996-2003 their respective authors.