Exegesis V09 Issues 041 to 050

Exegesis Volume 09 Issues #041-050

exegesis Digest Sun, 01 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 041

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #40
#2: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest V9 #36
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #40
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 13:31:42 -0400

nip ibbob.elad.ay ees,captain howdy.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Huckeby <spock@evansville.net>
Subject: [e] Re: the easiest way to prove the validity of astrology

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

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 12:57:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest V9 #36

In [9:35] I wrote:
>> If you have points to make, can you make them less ambiguously?

In [9:36] "Kevin v" responded:
> The ambiguity of my points is perhaps due to the yardstick you hold in
> your hand. The difficulty lies at bottom with your attempt to master the
> Contingency. It is not masterable without the power of narrative. If you
> find this statement ambiguous, to me it is simply philosophical. All are
> writing narratives, even you. I wish you luck on your better lens, but
> what are you going to do with what you see?

Phrases like "master the Contingency" and "power of narrative" are
shorthand. The ideas they stand for can be spelled out if the writer
is willing to make the effort. In a list which purports to examine
the foundations of astrology, in which case disagreement is a distinct
possibility, making points using figurative language and refusing to
elaborate is unhelpful. I seriously doubt that most philosophers, who
go to great lengths to define what they mean, would agree that making
points by speaking figuratively is "simply philosophical".

About using what we see, don't we have to have the knowledge before
we can know how it can be used? But I do have some thoughts on the
matter. I once worked at a mental institution, and was struck at how
agitated many of the patients became during the full moon. I had
the strong feeling that these were windows of opportunity, that the
patient was more susceptible to change, for good or ill, at these
times. If I was a mental health professional I would focus my efforts
on these periods and on other potential transition periods. For the
person interested in personal development, knowing the issues he'll be
preoccupied with in his late 20s, and the possible outcomes of some
of the initiatives he might take, is surely not irrelevant.

As for wishing me luck on a better lens, I appreciate the thought
but think I've already discovered it. It's just a matter of persuading
others, which is why I try so hard to communicate clearly, so as not
to be misunderstood. It cuts way down on how much I write, because of
the sometimes exhausting effort it requires, but I prefer quality to
quantity anyway.

Dale
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #41

exegesis Digest Mon, 02 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 042

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41

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

From: "Kevin v" <kvdi@earthlink.net>
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 07:46:03 -0400

Dale wrote: Phrases like "master the Contingency" and "power of
narrative" are
shorthand. The ideas they stand for can be spelled out if the writer
is willing to make the effort. =20

Do you know what the word noun "contingency" means? Do you know what the
verb "to master" is? I will not spoon feed you. I am not plumbing the
foundations of astrology but describing the essential role of narrative
in the human understanding, which astrology is only a part. Every thing
you see through your "better lens" is then subject to valuation. The
"betterness" of a lens is established by its "telos", its purpose. There
is no "better" without intention or goal. Telos implies Arche. The eye
of a hawk, despite it's incredible powers is not "better" than the eye
of a mouse. Your "better" lens implies a whole regalia of valuations,
which it drags along behind it. You still have not told me what it is
you plan to do with the things you see with your "better" lens...

Kevin
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #42

exegesis Digest Wed, 04 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 043

In This Issue:
#1: From: Andre
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41, 42

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

From: Andre
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41, 42
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:47:39 +1200

In exegesis Digest V9 #41

Charles Hillman wrote:

> nip ibbob.elad.ay ees,captain howdy.

A warm welcome Charles.

Few members may realise that Charles is a precocious four-year old, who
is allowed to play on his daddy's computer sometimes.

It is good to know the next generation of Exegesis is well in hand.

pique.a.boo.charles
=================

In exegesis Digest V9 #42

Now we move from the infantile to the merely childish.

Kevin wrote - well, several things:

> I am describing the essential role of narrative

My dear fellow, why didn't you say so before!

But in that case, is:

> Your "better" lens implies a whole regalia of valuations,
> which it drags along behind it.

an attempt at irony (in that case, ha ha ha), or have you not yet
grasped the reflexive nature of discourse in Narrative 101?

This is even more evident when you seem to think there is a universal
(nomothetic) meaning to words like "contingency" and "to master" which
Dale ought to understand right away.

That seems at odds with your pretension of being engaged in narrative
analysis. Are you a constructionist, or are you not? Is discourse
(language) socially, culturally and historically located or not? Do
these terms and your texts and Dale's texts require explication or not?

Speaking of constructionism, your attempt to 'construct' Dale as a child
("spoon feed" him indeed) is laughable to anyone aware of his history.

What is rather more clear is that in your most recent exchanges with
Dale you first sought refuge in abstraction and ambiguity, and now have
moved to ad hominem sarcasm. In the third year _undergraduate_ course I
lecture, we recognise such rhetorical moves as the refuge of the
intellectually weak.

> I am not plumbing the foundations of astrology

But Dale is, and as a matter of fact Exegesis was set up by Fran for
this very purpose, among others.

Kevin, your narrative journey is welcome here, but I find it hard to
discern that your engagement with Dale is leading anywhere useful.

Perhaps you mean your exchanges to be deconstructive, but in that case I
suggest the purpose would be better served if you matched Dale's efforts
to sincerely and clearly explain himself with parallel efforts of your
own. Instead you seem bent on positioning yourself on some sort of
superior cliff-top (the image is deliberate) and to be engaged in some
type of crusade. I presume you are familiar with Foucault. The
analytical instruments cut both ways.

In this case, unfortunately, the 'Emperor and his new clothes' springs
to mind.

Andre.
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #43

exegesis Digest Wed, 04 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 044

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #43
#2: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #43

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

From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #43
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:50:52 -0400

at least i do not think that i am a walking encyclopedia,like some
people.although these so called legends in their own minds,were kicked out
of kindergarden because they would not shave. ees ay,namllih c

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

From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #43
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:25:25 -0400

Andre,

Writing as one of the intellectually weak, may I defer to you well-oiled
intellectual physique. Yet somehow as you roughhoused over the
construction or lack thereof of my argument, you missed the essential
point - which is incredible considering how hard you seem to have looked
at it. Flex as you wish, -and you must be godlike to your
undergraduates- the valuations behind Dales' lens remain undeclared, and
until they are declared my argument cannot proceed beyond generalized
discussion. After we have identified his valuations then you can
pleasure yourself pre-formed criticisms. But as long as Dale is assuming
a seamless reality to which he can establish a better and better truth,
all of your Constructionist and Deconstructionist formulations are
better served being directed against his propositions....

So if you would be so kind to allow me my faint declarations. Despite
the stated lofty purpose of Exegesis, the philosophical foundations of
astrology are very seldom discussed here and are largely subsumed under
wide uncritical statements. I was, I thought, responding at the
corresponding level of the philosophical ambiguity of statements
otherwise presented. I have encountered no treatise here, but only the
vague thinking that Dale is somehow improving astrology by making it
more "scientific", which has been rhetorically condensed between us in
the metaphor of the "better lens". If my formulations have appeared
vague or even poetic it is because they are only doorways to another
level of discussion which was not occurring. Pretensions to the
"scientific" nature of astrology in my view are conditioned by the
thought-form of "scientificity" and the valuation that form of
information holds within the dominate Ideology. In my mind, astrological
pretensions to the "scientific" are largely operating under a morphology
of Truth and to a large extent in astrology there is a good deal of
reasoning by homology as people cast information into apparently
"scientific" thought-forms, seeking to acquire the form of truth.
Through the use of metaphors and borrowed vocabulary from other
acknowledged "scientific" disciplines, (such as "case history" from
psychology, "marker" from genetics, references to the Heisenberg's
"Uncertainty Principle", "fractal geometry", etc.), when some in
astrology appeal to the "scientific", in my view, they are simply
attempting to attach to their results the valuation of what is
"scientific" in our Ideology. A sheep in wolf's clothing. You can keep
all of your Constructionist counterviews. If you want to analyze this
valuation of Dale's when he finally declares it, with Foucault, Lacan or
even Weber it does not matter, for this is a different question. There
is a much more direct path to my point and if he had simply answered my
question we would already be there. I know that it is beyond the scope
of Academic reasoning, whereby one gets paid by the brand name of
thought you wear, but the either/or of your decon/con-stuction divide
does not apply to this level of questioning, for if those arguments
apply to my discourse then they apply to his, and you will have
accomplished for me what I am attempting to do, to reformulate the
question. When and if he answers my question we will probably realize by
the things he intends to do with the things he sees in his "better"
lens, the complete picture of his valuations, the telos of his lens,
that his intensions are different than mine. But the difference is not
cast in the question of accuracy but in comparable valuations. At that
point no longer will his lens be "better" than my lens or another's
lens, but its telos will be contrasted to others. Then each from the
position of our own identity and meaning, our own realized purpose in
life, a hermetic sphere of meaning we cannot escape, we can best decide
on the nature of the lens we should use and how "scientific" it should
be. At no time do I suggest that my position is the correct one, but
only that lenses are comparable at the level of valuation and not of
Truth.=20

Sincerely, Kevin

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

End of exegesis Digest V9 #44

exegesis Digest Thu, 05 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 045

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Recent level of discourse
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Recent level of discourse
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 03:21:02 -0700

Jupiter squares Pluto and opposes Asbolus (one of the apparently
astrological Centaurs). The empty point is in Gemini.

This is what passes for deconstruction in astrology, and like literary
deconstruction is of limited value. At least astrological patterns disolve.
That's why they are called ephemeral.

As astrologers, we will know better than to apologize when Jupiter slides
into Libra. Silence will be golden.

Jane Axtell
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #45

exegesis Digest Sat, 07 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 046

In This Issue:
#1: From: "tom"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41

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

From: "tom"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 15:10:45 +0300

Dear Dale,

if you noticed the title of my E-mail, it says "THE EASIEST" way to prove
the validity of astrology, the easiest, not the best!

I do not understand how you call "a subjective judgement" the obvious
similarity of two faces. Do you think that human faces are like those
psychological tests where one sees a butterfly and the other a dark cloud?

If you have already imput your Sun, Moon. Asc. signs and got dissimilar
faces to yours, did it occur to you that faces in this site are very few and
we should support it by sending as many faces as we can, of people we
absolutely know their birth data (and perhaps specialize the site even more,
by putting there not only Ascendants but planets in the First house as well,
that do make the difference).

As for your last comment: "It merely suggests that astrologers are not
knowledgeable about what
constitutes proof." I can tell that I stand on the land that gave birth to
science and scientific astrology. And I am scientific as hell!

Thomas Gazis
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #46

exegesis Digest Sun, 08 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 047

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #46
#2: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest V9 #46

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

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #46
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 07:40:31 -0400

----- Original Message -----
> From: "tom" <tomgemin@otenet.gr>
> Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #41
>
>
> Dear Dale,
>
> if you noticed the title of my E-mail, it says "THE EASIEST" way to prove
> the validity of astrology, the easiest, not the best!
>
> I do not understand how you call "a subjective judgement" the obvious
> similarity of two faces. Do you think that human faces are like those
> psychological tests where one sees a butterfly and the other a dark cloud?

Yes, they very well can be. So, to objectify the measurement of possible
similarity, I think one would have to rely on a technology similar to the
facial recognition routines used by security systems. There's really is no
objectivity without objective measurements. As to the faces on that site
representing my Leo/Capricorn/Aries mix, I can say without a doubt they look
as gloomy and grouchy as me...:)

>
> If you have already imput your Sun, Moon. Asc. signs and got dissimilar
> faces to yours, did it occur to you that faces in this site are very few
and
> we should support it by sending as many faces as we can, of people we
> absolutely know their birth data (and perhaps specialize the site even
more,
> by putting there not only Ascendants but planets in the First house as
well,
> that do make the difference).
>
> As for your last comment: "It merely suggests that astrologers are not
> knowledgeable about what
> constitutes proof." I can tell that I stand on the land that gave birth
to
> science and scientific astrology. And I am scientific as hell!

Astrology did not give birth to science; but it could be a kind of wet
nurse, it did pay the bills for astronomers like Kepler.

Rog

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

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:23:06 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest V9 #46

In [9:46] Thomas Gazis wrote:
> if you noticed the title of my E-mail, it says "THE EASIEST" way to
> prove the validity of astrology, the easiest, not the best!

And if you noticed the _content_, it says "best" in two places. At
any rate, even if you had said only the easiest, it can only be the
easiest if it's _one_ of the ways of proving astrology's validity.
My point is that it isn't.

> I do not understand how you call "a subjective judgement" the obvious
> similarity of two faces. Do you think that human faces are like those
> psychological tests where one sees a butterfly and the other a dark
> cloud?

Up to a point, yes. I've seen someone that I thought looked
exactly like some noted person, a friend saw only a mild resemblance.
And vice versa. I've had others say, don't you think she looks just
like so and so, and I can kind of see why they think so, but the
resemblance doesn't look that strong to me. Obvious is in the eyes
of the beholder. That's _why_ it's a subjective judgment.

> If you have already imput your Sun, Moon. Asc. signs and got dissimilar
> faces to yours, did it occur to you that faces in this site are very few
> and we should support it by sending as many faces as we can, of people
> we absolutely know their birth data (and perhaps specialize the site
> even more, by putting there not only Ascendants but planets in the First
> house as well, that do make the difference).

It occurs to me that you are changing your tune in midstream. First it
was the easiest way to prove astrology. Now it needs more work and, thanks
to my negative experience, I supposedly should have realized that and done
my bit to bolster the database.

> As for your last comment: "It merely suggests that astrologers are not
> knowledgeable about what constitutes proof." I can tell that I stand on
> the land that gave birth to science and scientific astrology. And I am
> scientific as hell!

I can't add anything to that. :)

Puckishly,
Dale

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

End of exegesis Digest V9 #47

exegesis Digest Sun, 08 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 048

In This Issue:
#1: From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Case Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 12:34:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Case Studies

Kevin [9:34] said to Jane:
> Your description of the use of 'case study' seems to fit better perhaps
> the phrase 'personal experience' or even 'personal analysis'. When the
> terms are conflated the tinge of scientific fact appears to come to your
> conclusions. These studies are not so large, nor their techniques of
> examination uniform enough to warrant the sense that fact has been
> arrived at.

I agree. That's why I argued [9:35], perhaps too tersely, "We should
_not_ trust each other that way," in response to Jane's [9:33]

> . . . astrologers find that removing names from case studies is not
> a sufficient protection for confidentiality. Thus we are driven
> to trust each other when we say that our cases do or do not confirm
> the pattern up for discussion.

A major part of what makes a "case study", at least in my use of the
term, is public accessibility to the data and its source. Another astrologer,
confronted with the same data, might interpret it differently. Someone else,
reading other biographies of the same person, might come upo with a different
set of facts to interpret. When the astrologer reports only that her cases
do or don't confirm "the pattern up for discussion", that makes them personal
experiences, not public cases. However, I agree with Jane and disagree with
Kevin when he adds:

> . . . . . . . Secondarily, when you present the brief results of 'case
> study' you seem only to state what they don't reveal, i.e. the marker of
> addiction, homosexuality, the presence of the wounded healer. What the
> archetypes of Neptune or Chiron will not do is 'mark' a certain state,
> because that is working the equation from the wrong direction.

If by that Kevin means that there is nothing that corresponds to Neptune
or another planet, that means astrology has nothing legitimate to say.
If correspondences do exist they must be observable for us to know about
them, and once we do we know what goes with that planet and don't need
to reason it out.

> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They will
> illumine that state when it is discernable. When dealing with an addict,
> understanding the nature of the 12th house, Pisces and Neptune in
> general and by examining their placements, one can understand the deeper
> project that this person is attempting by getting high or gamboling, and
> will be able to, with hope, redirect these energies towards their more
> effective completion. When one encounters a 'wounded healer', Chiron
> most definitely will open a portal and explanation for these powers and
> give context and focus to this state, - at least by my interaction with
> this archetype I can say this is so.

With fluid word meanings, a necessity if traditional astrology is to be
"right", you can prove anything with any factor. Using wordgames to account
for the details from client feedback offers the illusion of going deeper
but is actually an illustration of symbolistic astrology's ability to cover
all possibilities in advance and thus _seem_ to always have the answers.

> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is not to say that it can do
> the opposite and find shaman by simply scanning the data of charts. The
> 'case study' that has attempted to establish markers changes the
> direction of Time's arrow. When we encounter a person, this is a wave
> breaking on the beach. When we examine the natal chart we are staring
> into a swell rising from the deep, and despite the illusion of precision
> -acutely defined angles, degrees measured to the second, the
> predictability of periodic cycles- these are still images taking shape,
> governed by the vectors of their origin, but in no way determined by
> them. In the end it is always in the person of the astrologer that these
> images become synthesized into a truth.

Ah. So even predictable periodic cycles are just "images taking shape"
until our intrepid astrologer _makes up_ an interpretation using word magic.
I say ---> figurative word usage = the emperor's new clothes. Ditto for
"reasoning out" what things ought to mean, via the apparent logic of word
meanings, rather than looking for observable patterns.

Dale
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #48

exegesis Digest Mon, 09 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 049

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #48
#2: From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: Case Studies

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

From: "Kevin v"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #48
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:18:08 -0400

Dales,

Instead of complaining of the vagaries of others, simply present your
method of "filtering out errors and self-deluding bullshit", as you put
it. Follow the scientific method if you wish to do some more than
"appear" scientific. At the heart of the scientific method is the
"falsifiable theory", produce one. Until then you are simply weaving
words. And while you have joined all of us among words, please answer my
now four-time repeated question, "What do you plan to do with the things
that you see in your "better" lens?"

Kevin

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

From: "Janie Axtell"
Subject: [e] Re: Case Studies
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:34:38 -0700

By case study I intended to describe a detailed personal history taken
without any prior astrological interpretation. People who had seen other
astrologers were excluded from the small group where studies could be
considered useful.

Some really unexpected and consistent oddities appeared that were not
"disproofs" in any sense. However, case studies by any individual astrologer
cannot prove any hypothesis as I understand proof. They can suggest
possibilities for other, more difficult studies.

For instance I have three cases with the third decan of Taurus rising. In
each of these situations there was a life threatening defect at birth.
(These defects were managed or they would not have shown up in apparent
health as adults.) Further, I have two cases where the person had mercury
retrograde in this decan where there were communication problems which
cleared up when the pattern disappeared from progressions. I have no
counter-cases. What does this prove? Nothing.

I've never found a "wounded healer" effect from Chiron in case studies, yet
including Chiron has made prediction more effective and reliable.

Years ago when i had a newspaper column i was able to collect narratives
about "synastry" readings -- what the astrologer expected versus what
happened. A number of uninterpreted situation descriptions also were
collected. These stories came in from both practicing astrologers and from
clients -- sometimes both versions of the same situation. There were several
patterns which produced marraiges, but none of these was a reliable
predictor of "success" defined as a duration more than five years. We had
ten examples of marraiges which had lasted 20 to 45 years. In these long
unions "happiness" varied over time as one would expect from the array of
events which can occur. What the long unions had in common was that each
partner had planets occupying otherwise untenanted midpoints. Apparently
they literally turned on capacities represented by these midpoints for each
other. This was rewarding whether or not conventional happiness was present.
(We called people up and let them talk to us. After they ran down we asked a
question or two sometimes. First they would have contacted us by mail.)

There is lots to disagree with here: The implied definition of astrology
itself. The method. The nature of the opportunity.

Abstracted "biographies" as displayed in AstroDatabank or magazine articles
tend to be full of omissions and opinions. Events and behaviors described
often do not support the keywords attached to the chart. Either the keyword
makers were using additional undisclosed information or very unusual
definitions. [Specialized definitions "for the purpose of this study" are
considered acceptable but only if clearly noted and substantiated.]

My point in sharing these comments is not to be "right" or to make a proof
of astrology, but rather to share how some methods worked or did not work
and what happened. Perhaps someone of you will devise better ways to learn.
(I'm 68. Transit Uranus has made it's last sextile to it's natal for me.
Astrology is less engrossing than it once was. I'm pretty much past career
building.)

My general take is that astrology works in a general way to enable or
suppress patterns of events and behavior. Specific individuals may be
unusually resistant to these general effects or unusually open to them. The
birthchart gives some guidance but only helps us with known trends. Surely
you have gone to work or some other group setting where every person has
some oddity to relate and these oddities are nearly identical. That we can't
always attach these patterns to the astrological background suggests we have
more to learn -- either as individuals or as a field of study.

I apologize for the scattered nature of this post. Hopefully the rest of you
are clever enough to make sense of it -- if not, I will attempt
clarification where possible.

Jane Axtell
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #49

exegesis Digest Tue, 10 Aug 2004 Volume: 09 Issue: 050

In This Issue:
#1: From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #49
#2: From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #49

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

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #49
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:33:04 +0000

-- Unable to decode HTML file!! --
-----------------------------

From: "Jan Sar"
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V9 #49
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:50:42 +0000

-- Unable to decode HTML file!! --
------------------------------

End of exegesis Digest V9 #50

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