Exegesis V11 Issues 001 to 010

Exegesis Volume 11 Issues #001-010

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:13:39 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: [e] Ping! Patrice: Astrological Semoisis and Heidegger

Hi Patrice (if you haven't fallen off the planet Earth...:)

My astrological interest lies in the ability of the astrologist to "read"
the details of one's expressed individuality, and then "predict" the
relevant planets in aspects which we should expect to find in the natal
chart of an unidentified person. IOW, a discrete objectification of certain
astrological premises.

I am wondering if you have attempted to employ Heidegger's terms for the
purpose of deciding which planets in which aspects "cause" a mental event
which is found to be typical of a particular native. For example we can
recognize the probable role of Jupiter opposite Saturn in Charles Dickens
from the very outset of his _A tale of Two Cities_:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct
the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present
period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its
being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree
of comparison only.[...]

My question is, does it seem useful to you to try to employ Heidegger's
analytical ideas about what constitutes the (planet/aspect) "cause" for the
forms, and their purposes for being the "text" of Dickens' psychical
orientation...the Dickens recipe for what-goes-with-what, and why.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,.."

I think we can start to model the astrologically informed literary
(poetic) alchemy here by attempting to qualify astrology's "keywords" in a
manner which has, perhaps, never been done before. Because you are probably
the only one on Earth who might share my passion here, I am putting you to
task...sorry...:)

We can hypothesize the "Time" = Saturn, in one or many ways. And,
Jupiter, as the usual idea of expansion, "good", etc..

Thus, "It was the best of times..." is a case of Jupiter and Saturn
functioning, but can we differentiate the type of
functioning...individualize it...make it mean Charles Dickens is
speaking...(like that which identifies Mozart as recognizable pattern/style
of Self presentation?

Causal materialis = Saturn as "Time"

Causa formalis = 'best of times" = Jupiter conditions Saturn

Causa efficiens = 'the worst of times"= Saturn conditions "Times"

Causa finalis = the writer's purpose is to compare and contrast =
Opposition aspect

Thus Dickens = Jupiter opposite Saturn. We could guess that, if Dickens'
birth date was *not* known, we should find a date where Jupiter is opposite
Saturn.

What do you think?

Thanks,

Rog

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 1

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:01:26 +0100
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: to Roger (Exegesis 11,1)

Hi Roger,

I haven't left -- yet -- the planet Earth, but for sure, for a long
while, the ridiculous island of astrologers' "paradise".

You question me about Heidegger, & about Aristotle (the 4 modes of causation) ... I'm not sure that I
could find some help from Heidegger & from his "ways that lead nowhere" for my understanding of
astrology, but if YOU can, please do it, it could be interesting, because Heidegger and his views are.
I've used myself Aristotle's terminology for my presentation of the 4 possible views of astrology :
Causality, Synchronicity, Cyclicity, and finally Matriciality (see : http://cura.free.fr/19fabwo.html )
for trying to show what I mean by Matrix and Matriciality.

But more generally I think that astrologers have to forge their own conceptual system. The only
philosopher that can help is for me Charles Sanders Peirce, the giant of American philosophy, who did not
publish a mere book in his life, but who invented alone the new real philosophy of signs and perception.
He was a kind of fool, like astrologers, and was understanding all what he perceived as signs (dolor,
wine, women, shows, etc). His "Collected Papers" can help because what he did is really like what
astrologers are trying to do when they speak about Gemini, Venus, or Uranus.

I'm not sure that the classical analogies (i.e. Saturn = Time), and any other one, can lead somewhere.
Planets & other astrological operators are only differentiated perceptive valors (impressionals) : they
don't have any meaning in themselves.

Hope this can help. Anyway, I was pleased to hear from you, Roger.

++
Patrice

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3

Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 02:00:49 -0400
From: fgk
Subject: [e] Goodbye exegesis!

Hi folks.

It has been obvious for a few years that the list has been languishing
for lack of leadership. I have not had time for a number of years to
provide the focus that is needed to run an interesting and successful
list. I'd hoped that I'd find more time or that somebody else would
step forward to fill the void. But that has not happened.

It has been ten years since starting the list, it seemed a good time
to let go and admit that I'm unlikely to find either the time needed
nor an editor to take the role that I am unable to provide. So, I've
decided to finally shut down the list. I'll let the system run for a
bit longer for anybody who feels a need to close down the list with a
few final words.

I'll add mine here... ;-)

When I started this list I was deeply interested in astrologers and
how and why astrology could exist in the modern world. To discuss
astrology with somebody who has gone through a modern university
usually results in being the recipient of scorn, or at least sarcasm.
Yet, I've met a lot of astrologers who are among the best and
brightest intellects I've encountered, you can usually strike up an
interesting conversation with a smart astrologer on ANY subject and
learn something. And the weird thing about astrologers is that they
exist with a foot in both the modern and ancient world. They can
permit their world to include such an odd synthetic representation of
reality full of meaning to have a real influence on lives, at least
their own. How odd. How can astrology be "true" and run so counter to
so many modern intellectual streams? Where is the basis of an
astrology that can withstand attacks from the mainstream?

Those were they types of things I was concerned about ten years ago.
They no longer concern me so much. Through discussion and experience
and contemplation I've concluded that the universe is so wide and
weird and amazing that astrology can work just fine. Our perceptions
of the universe are so tiny and our hubris about how much we
understand so great. I'm not so interested in Truth, but find lots of
lesser truths just fine for me. And in that I have to say that
Cornelius' ideas about PSI in "The Moment of Astrology" are still the
best explanation I've found. Maybe someday somebody will find some
causal connection, but I'm putting my money on that connection being
mind or spirit.

Anyway. It has been fun and interesting and I've learned a whole lot.
Thank you all for playing!

Let the wake begin!

--fran

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 23:13:57 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Goodbye exegesis! (fgk)

Sorry that the time has come to close the list down, Fran, but I'm not
surprised. You've done very well to have hosted it this long, but it has
been obvious for years that astrologers collectively don't have what it
takes to do justice to the aims of the list.

I probably could have volunteered to take on the role of editor (having a
track record of more than 20 years professional experience plus a couple of
stints as unpaid editor of an astrological journal) but without contributors
willing to regularly provide suitable subject matter there'd be nothing to
do.

I always find the relationship between astrology and society interesting.
One has the dimension of the functional relation between any particular
practitioner and the community he or she serves. Another dimension is the
historical context. Another is the relation between the clientele and the
wider society, and there is also the relation to the belief system of that
society. I think the main reason the list has failed to attract committed
contributors is that the social function and belief system of astrologers
has changed substantially in the quarter century since I became one.

In those days western astrology was being enriched by a number of
high-quality authors, and the subject was performing a valuable social
function. It was enabling people to find themselves by learning about their
inner nature, and showing them how to transcend inadequacies & transform
themselves towards a new perception of their evolutionary potential. In the
society we grew up in, with its limited freedoms and choices, the new option
was both inspiring and empowering.

Nowadays the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and people are
overwhelmed by the plethora of choices. They complain of the time they must
spend constantly choosing, yet shopping is now the favourite entertainment
of many. Reading books is old-fashioned. Astrology is a passing fancy, but
merely one among many others. Most people see no special value in it.
That's fine, one could not seriously expect most people to achieve wisdom,
nor should one expect others to improve themselves by applying their
willpower and mind to the task. This is especially so in a culture
economically organised to deprive people of the time to live a fulfilling
life.

Ours is not the first culture in which astrology is seen by most as a
parlour game. This expression itself dates from the time more than a
century back, when houses did actually have parlours. But people presumably
then, when in conversation in the parlour, did actually refer to horoscopes.
Alan Leo was mass-producing and distributing these in the late 19th & early
20th century, right? So the leisure classes in Britain did actually have
something thought-provoking to put on the coffee-table. Come the 1930s and
the invention of sun-sign astrology, the depression bound people to the
treadmill for survival, so little time for deep thought about anything.
Nowadays there is also little time for most people, so entertainment is
preferred. If the astrologer performs sufficiently they can fill this slot,
but don't expect people to have to try hard to get anything deeper.

I find myself persuaded to Bill Sheeran's view, expressed here about 3 years
ago. Postmodern culture has created a collective belief system in which
astrology is just another model people use to try and make sense of their
world. Effectively then, we live in a time when the consensus is that the
truth about astrology doesn't matter. This used to bother me, inasmuch as a
collective preference for fantasy instead of reality indicates mass
psychosis. I wasn't keen to be part of such a sick society.

But there's more to it than that, I've come to realise. Truth is
essentially subjective, and that is a key feature in the paradigm shift that
has transformed western culture. So when you say, Fran, "I'm not so
interested in Truth, but find lots of lesser truths just fine for me.", you
articulate your personal take on this point. I have come to a similar
position as a result of my participation in Exegesis. I have accepted that
I must be pragmatic and concede that if astrologers cannot collectively
ascertain a deeper Truth, then one can only recognise the personal truths
subjectively perceived by individual astrologers. In a culture where
everyone agrees that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong,
the astrologer who is the victim of personal delusions is no worse than one
who is wise and helpful.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. To most people these days, astrology is
just another passing fancy. Very few perceive any deeper value in the
subject, so I'm no longer inclined to do so either. Like anyone, I try to
relate to the people I meet in such a way that the interaction is mutually
beneficial. Astrology is usually an unnecessary complication to everyday
life for them. Other astrologers seem to be stuck in a time-warp, unable to
recognise that their subject ought to be evolving and improving in order to
add value to their lives and perform a useful social function. So why
bother with them?

I think the postmodern view is most valid in relation to other cultures.
Really, this is the achilles heel of my personal stand in astrology, and I
was always surprised that other contributors to this list who argued my
position here failed to make what would have been their most valid
criticism. Being a physics graduate as a young man, I combined an intuitive
yearning to understand how the world worked, with the scientific world view.
Finding the latter inadequate I sought alternatives, and when I became an
astrologer I endeavoured to discover how that alternative belief system
provided a better view of how the world works. I quickly saw that Dane
Rudhyar's modern reformulation of astrology promised to do so, but that it
was flawed and required further work. I wrote and published "The Astrologer
and the Paradigm Shift" (1992) to show how astrology can be presented in the
philosophical context of the emerging scientific paradigm. It is still
obvious to me that astrology must be grounded in nature, because we
ourselves are. Continuing to present astrology to the public as a fossil
belief system is stupid, irresponsible, and to the ongoing detriment of all
concerned.

Nonetheless, my presentation of the subject, although an improvement,
suffers from a similar flaw to Rudhyar's: it presumes that classical
astrology was founded on a valid meta-cosmic framework (zodiac, 4 elements,
houses, etc). In postmodern culture such a prescriptive approach is
essentially politically incorrect because it implies that the form astrology
takes in other cultures is wrong. Having been politically incorrect most of
my life, this is no personal problem, but I am intrigued by the apparent
fact that these other forms of astrology seem to work for those who use
them. Here I come to an inevitable philosophical reconciliation with the
relativist contributors to Exegesis (Dale Huckeby & others) who have argued
that astrology is merely how you see it (my words, not theirs).
Correlations lie only in the eyes of the beholder.

The merit of this view of astrology is that it is pragmatic in accepting
what works on an individual basis. If someone finds a delusion satisfying,
why bother to claim that they are wrong? If they harm their clients, who
cares? The law of the market decrees that the buyer beware. If they choose
the wrong astrologer, it is none of my business, even if they get burned.
The Truth is unfashionable, and rightly so because those claiming to possess
it historically frequently did harm to others, and/or were so obviously
delusional as to discredit the entire concept. I'm as tempted as anyone
else to see it as a myth. But I have a sneaking feeling that the human race
needs collective truth, and I suspect western culture will eventually
transcend postmodernism. Subjective truth is not enough for a community.
Postmodernism relativises everyone's opinion to the extent that all are of
equal value. Your wisdom, or mine, carries no more value to society than
the rantings of a psychopath. Seems to me that common sense will always
prevail, and some people will be generally recognised as having more of an
idea of what is going on in the world around them than others. If so, the
opinion leaders of any community may include astrologers because there is
essentially no good reason why not.

So there is potential for astrologers to play an influential part in future
society. The merit of the current postmodern globalising phase of history
is that it allows the forms of astrology in various contemporary cultures to
be examined relative to each other as possible truths, or possible paths to
some personal truth. Any collective consensus about the ongoing relevance
or utility of any of these forms will inevitably be based on what seems to
work for multiple users. The excuse "well, it works for me" may be suitable
for promoting our personal perception of astrology, but the test is how many
other people it works for. Contemporary western astrology has been rather
narcissistic, but to blame the Pluto in Leo generation is to miss the point.
We grew up in a straitjacket society in which we were required to perform
merely as cogs in the social machine. We knew the human spirit could not be
unnaturally confined like that, and that people had the natural right to
happiness and personal fulfillment. We overthrew that social system to
achieve this right. It was an essential phase for western civilisation to
pass through. The narcissism was merely a manifestation of the process.

So, Fran, I'm reluctant to accept that astrology is merely divination. For
most people, it serves that purpose, and if that is all they want then I can
be pragmatic enough to recognise that astrology will continue as a niche in
the entertainment marketplace. But for the small minority who use it as a
personal development tool, its social function is more like therapy. Many
even perceive a transformation in their relationship to the cosmos. If
astrology evolves out of its current fossil form it may generate a
consensual view of how we connect to our environment, but to achieve this
result we need astrologers to pool their intellectual endeavours in forging
such a progressive outcome.

Anyway, thanks for providing Exegesis as a suitable venue for addressing
relevant issues, and thanks also to the others who contributed interesting
ideas, opinions worthy of consideration, plus intelligent commentary.

Dennis Frank
----------------------

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5

Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 13:07:38 -0400
From: rlsatterlee
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

Goodbye...sniff...:( I truly wish that I had more interest in the
"why-it-works" aspect of astrology, but I find I have so little to say
about that. All I can tell you is that I don't get involved in astrology
for the sake of gaining mystical power or social prestige from it; it
has chosen me, and I am but yet another a poor expression of its
enigmatic being.
However, the poetry of life goes on: Saturn is as close to a transiting
conjunction to my 3Leo33 Sun as it can come at present, and I actually
just got of the phone with "Mr. Death", one Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.---"Mr.
Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999) "
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/
who was kind enough to return my call requesting his birth data. I
wanted to see how his art/science of building better electric chairs and
lethal injection machines can become selected a means to one's
individualistic self expression...:)
So,Fran, as you see, I'm still into Horoscopic Expressionism up to my
elbows. Thank you for exegesis, and thanks so much for your moral
support and encouragement. I truly admire you for the effort, and wish
you all the best...:)

Rog
(If I take another solo bicycle trek across country, I'll try to stop in
just to say hello...:)

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

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:43:35 -0400
From: Rachel
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

Dear Fran, I'm sorry to see the list go. I was hoping that I could learn some more, as I don't know very much. I think astrology is a vehicle as the Kabbalah, chakra, feng shui, allopathic medicine, meditation, psychology, homeopathic medicine, and accupuncture are vehicles. But of these modalities of healing or enrichment of life, some more enligthened than others. I believe astrology is also a modality where we could learn a great deal of individual psychology. It is as much a study of the body and psyche as any of the other fields I've mentioned.
I've read some interesting and intelligent material here. And I hope that if there is another list from those who were involved here that they would kindly include me at rm8gg@aol.com.
Thank you for the time you've all given here.
kind regards,
Rachel Gobar

Tune in: Trust, you are perfection, a creative force in the Universal Mind.
Aum Tat Sat
------------------------------

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 23:37:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Pursuing Knowledge

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 Dennis Frank opined:

> Sorry that the time has come to close the list down, Fran, but I'm not
> surprised. You've done very well to have hosted it this long, but it has
> been obvious for years that astrologers collectively don't have what it
> takes to do justice to the aims of the list.

It's a specialized list, appealing especially to those of us with a
more philosophical orientation. The more successful lists are those
more oriented to chit chat (even when they have "Research" or "Meta" in
their names) and/or more accessible to the casual surfer (i.e. Yahoo
groups). But as one to whom its orientation does appeal, I could have
done more to originate or keep discussions going.

> I probably could have volunteered to take on the role of editor (having a
> track record of more than 20 years professional experience plus a couple of
> stints as unpaid editor of an astrological journal) but without contributors
> willing to regularly provide suitable subject matter there'd be nothing to
> do.

As Bill Talman's stint showed, if someone is willing to stir the pot,
others will get involved. Unfortunately, the small social base on which
Exegesis has drawn apparently hasn't contained enough instigators.

> I always find the relationship between astrology and society interesting.
> One has the dimension of the functional relation between any particular
> practitioner and the community he or she serves. Another dimension is the
> historical context. Another is the relation between the clientele and the
> wider society, and there is also the relation to the belief system of that
> society. I think the main reason the list has failed to attract committed
> contributors is that the social function and belief system of astrologers
> has changed substantially in the quarter century since I became one.

I think it's just lacked sufficient instigators.

> In those days western astrology was being enriched by a number of
> high-quality authors, and the subject was performing a valuable social
> function. It was enabling people to find themselves by learning about their
> inner nature, and showing them how to transcend inadequacies & transform
> themselves towards a new perception of their evolutionary potential. In the
> society we grew up in, with its limited freedoms and choices, the new option
> was both inspiring and empowering.
>
> Nowadays the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and people are
> overwhelmed by the plethora of choices. They complain of the time they must
> spend constantly choosing, yet shopping is now the favourite entertainment
> of many. Reading books is old-fashioned. Astrology is a passing fancy, but
> merely one among many others. Most people see no special value in it.
> That's fine, one could not seriously expect most people to achieve wisdom,
> nor should one expect others to improve themselves by applying their
> willpower and mind to the task. This is especially so in a culture
> economically organised to deprive people of the time to live a fulfilling
> life.

Your analysis is articulate, as usual, but I think you're looking too far
afield for explanations. Perhaps the kinds of people drawn to philosophical,
especially epistemological analyses of astrology tend to be introverted,
and thus not as likely to start discussions.

> snip

> I find myself persuaded to Bill Sheeran's view, expressed here about 3 years
> ago. Postmodern culture has created a collective belief system in which
> astrology is just another model people use to try and make sense of their
> world. Effectively then, we live in a time when the consensus is that the
> truth about astrology doesn't matter. This used to bother me, inasmuch as a
> collective preference for fantasy instead of reality indicates mass psychosis.
> I wasn't keen to be part of such a sick society.

I don't think the vast majority of astrologers are as intellectual about
it as you are. They're not postmodernists, tacitly or otherwise.

> But there's more to it than that, I've come to realise. Truth is
> essentially subjective, and that is a key feature in the paradigm shift that
> has transformed western culture. So when you say, Fran, "I'm not so
> interested in Truth, but find lots of lesser truths just fine for me.", you
> articulate your personal take on this point. I have come to a similar
> position as a result of my participation in Exegesis. I have accepted that
> I must be pragmatic and concede that if astrologers cannot collectively
> ascertain a deeper Truth, then one can only recognise the personal truths
> subjectively perceived by individual astrologers. In a culture where
> everyone agrees that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong,
> the astrologer who is the victim of personal delusions is no worse than one
> who is wise and helpful.

"Truth is...subjective" is an assumption of many intellectuals, one which
I think is both misleading and damaging. If astrologers as a group have
been unable to ascertain a deeper Truth or (as I would prefer) arrive at a
consensus, I think it's simply because the requisite discoveries either
haven't been made or haven't been grasped and accepted. Consensus has been
elusive in other fields prior to their becoming sciences, and achievements
capable of inspiring widespread assent, and thus consensus, such as Newton's
_Principia_, have been the historical means, the initial paradigms, that
enabled them to _become_ sciences.

> ...........Other astrologers seem to be stuck in a time-warp, unable to
> recognise that their subject ought to be evolving and improving in order to
> add value to their lives and perform a useful social function. So why
> bother with them?

That time-warp has been almost as evident on Exegesis as elsewhere. Why,
for instance, has there been almost no discussion of the epistemological
status of astrological symbolism? I've raised this issue a number of times,
arguing that symbolism is inherently flawed and on occasion explaining
why I think so, but no one has offered an articulate defense of it. How
is astrology to evolve and improve if we are impervious to critiques of
its foundations (and to proffered alternatives)?

> I think the postmodern view is most valid in relation to other cultures.
> Really, this is the achilles heel of my personal stand in astrology, and I
> was always surprised that other contributors to this list who argued my
> position here failed to make what would have been their most valid
> criticism. Being a physics graduate as a young man, I combined an intuitive
> yearning to understand how the world worked, with the scientific world view.
> Finding the latter inadequate I sought alternatives, and when I became an
> astrologer I endeavoured to discover how that alternative belief system
> provided a better view of how the world works. I quickly saw that Dane
> Rudhyar's modern reformulation of astrology promised to do so, but that it
> was flawed and required further work. I wrote and published "The Astrologer
> and the Paradigm Shift" (1992) to show how astrology can be presented in the
> philosophical context of the emerging scientific paradigm....

Rudhyar was admirably progressive in his ideas of what we ought to use
astrology _for_, as part of his general views about social and personal
evolution, but in terms of his underlying reasoning patterns, that is, his
tacit epistemology, he was an arch-traditionalist. It's not clear to me
where you differ from Rudhyar, but it seems pretty clear that there is
no difference in underlying reasoning--e.g. symbolism.

> ...........................................................It is still
> obvious to me that astrology must be grounded in nature, because we
> ourselves are. Continuing to present astrology to the public as a fossil
> belief system is stupid, irresponsible, and to the ongoing detriment of
> all concerned.

Yes, this is one thing we apparently agree on, but it's not clear to
me how an astrology in which we make connections via figurative language,
rather than simply observe consistent functional similarities, can be
assimilated to the idea that it's grounded in nature.

> Nonetheless, my presentation of the subject, although an improvement,
> suffers from a similar flaw to Rudhyar's: it presumes that classical
> astrology was founded on a valid meta-cosmic framework (zodiac, 4 elements,
> houses, etc). In postmodern culture such a prescriptive approach is
> essentially politically incorrect because it implies that the form astrology
> takes in other cultures is wrong.

Political correctness is beside the point. The presumption above is
simply wrong because, one, there are over one hundred elements, not just
four, and two, not one of air, earth, fire, or water is an element. I
would suggest that the above framework _and_ the form astrology has taken
in other cultures are wrong. Period.

> ...........................Having been politically incorrect most of
> my life, this is no personal problem, but I am intrigued by the apparent
> fact that these other forms of astrology seem to work for those who use
> them. Here I come to an inevitable philosophical reconciliation with the
> relativist contributors to Exegesis (Dale Huckeby & others) who have argued
> that astrology is merely how you see it (my words, not theirs).
> Correlations lie only in the eyes of the beholder.

As my above comments should suggest, I am not a relativist in the sense
that you have suggested. I _have_ argued, for instance, that for those who
use it symbolism seems to work, but I was only acknowledging that _they_
believed that, and trying to understand why they believed that. Since I am,
like Andre, a social constructivist, I believe that we actively create
knowledge through social processes, but like Kuhn I don't believe that we
can construct anything that all. No valid social construction is going
to discover that water drains up a mountainside rather than down. To say
that correlations lie only only in the eyes of the beholder misses the
point that some can be seen by others, perhaps most others, thus leading
to consensus, and some remain idiosyncratic. To say that the "mirror
of nature" is invalid, that true facts aren't just laying around for all
to see, like rocks on the ground, doesn't mean that intersubjectivity
is impossible. It just means the process of attaining it is more subtle
and complex than logical empiricists and positivists realized.

> The merit of this view of astrology is that it is pragmatic in accepting
> what works on an individual basis.

But its flaw is that it's uncritical.

> ...............................If someone finds a delusion satisfying,
> why bother to claim that they are wrong? If they harm their clients, who
> cares?

This argument works okay with respect to practices, but not okay with
respect to our attempts to gain better knowledge of nature. If I go
around telling people that objects in the vicinity of earth accelerate
at 34 ft per sec per sec, I presumably won't hurt anyone but I'll still
be wrong, and a field which makes no attempt to differentiate between
intersubjectively valid knowledge and bullshit will not progress.

> ......The law of the market decrees that the buyer beware. If they choose
> the wrong astrologer, it is none of my business, even if they get burned.
> The Truth is unfashionable, and rightly so because those claiming to possess
> it historically frequently did harm to others, and/or were so obviously
> delusional as to discredit the entire concept. I'm as tempted as anyone
> else to see it as a myth. But I have a sneaking feeling that the human race
> needs collective truth, and I suspect western culture will eventually
> transcend postmodernism. Subjective truth is not enough for a community.
> Postmodernism relativises everyone's opinion to the extent that all are of
> equal value. Your wisdom, or mine, carries no more value to society than
> the rantings of a psychopath. Seems to me that common sense will always
> prevail, and some people will be generally recognised as having more of an
> idea of what is going on in the world around them than others. If so, the
> opinion leaders of any community may include astrologers because there is
> essentially no good reason why not.

In important senses the possibility of intersubjectively valid knowledge
is important to our survival. If I tell you not to taste the yellow stuff,
that it's poison, and we don't mean the same thing by "yellow", you might
not survive to argue the validity of your own meaning. There are many, many
possible situations where it's important that we mean the same thing. So
yes, common sense will and should prevail, and it doesn't take Deep Thought
to realize that. But as to your last sentence, the reason why not is that
astrology has not been convincingly shown to be intersubjectively valid.
If we agreed a lot more it would be different, but we can't, as Kuhn
pointed out, just agree to agree (as Lakatos assumed when he accused Kuhn
of in effect advocating mob psychology). Someone (like Newton) has to
see something so clearly and persuasively that good faith colleagues are
almost compelled to agree, so that everyone _can_ see the same thing.

> So there is potential for astrologers to play an influential part in future
> society. The merit of the current postmodern globalising phase of history
> is that it allows the forms of astrology in various contemporary cultures to
> be examined relative to each other as possible truths, or possible paths to
> some personal truth.

To the extent that postmodernism is a synonym for open-mindedness, and
not just BS or empty-mindedness, this is so. We should consider lots
of possibilities, but we shouldn't assume that all are valid just because
each is valid for somebody or some culture.

> .......................Any collective consensus about the ongoing relevance
> or utility of any of these forms will inevitably be based on what seems to
> work for multiple users. The excuse "well, it works for me" may be suitable
> for promoting our personal perception of astrology, but the test is how many
> other people it works for.

Exactly so. And within the community of people who share interest in a
given set of phenomena, it should work for virtually everyone. Discovering
"facts" that do work for virtually everyone is historically where the
prehistory of a given science ends and science as such begins.

> ..........................Contemporary western astrology has been rather
> narcissistic, but to blame the Pluto in Leo generation is to miss the point.
> We grew up in a straitjacket society in which we were required to perform
> merely as cogs in the social machine. We knew the human spirit could not be
> unnaturally confined like that, and that people had the natural right to
> happiness and personal fulfillment. We overthrew that social system to
> achieve this right. It was an essential phase for western civilisation to
> pass through. The narcissism was merely a manifestation of the process.

The problem with astrology is not the narcissism of modern astrologers or
modern society, or any other social phase or attitude, but simply the fact
that the phenomena that astrology references are extremely complex and thus
difficult to be clear about. Astrology just hasn't reached its take-off
point, because it's a more difficult _kind_ of knowledge than the ones, like
geometry and astronomy, that achieved their first consensus in antiquity.

> So, Fran, I'm reluctant to accept that astrology is merely divination. For
> most people, it serves that purpose, and if that is all they want then I can
> be pragmatic enough to recognise that astrology will continue as a niche in
> the entertainment marketplace. But for the small minority who use it as a
> personal development tool, its social function is more like therapy. Many
> even perceive a transformation in their relationship to the cosmos. If
> astrology evolves out of its current fossil form it may generate a
> consensual view of how we connect to our environment, but to achieve this
> result we need astrologers to pool their intellectual endeavours in forging
> such a progressive outcome.

Want to talk about symbolism versus observed functional similarities
(somewhere else if not here)? And about what kinds of assumptions regarding
astrological phenomena make astrological causality approachable? (To me
symbolism is the _sine qua non_ of astrology's "current fossil form".)

> Anyway, thanks for providing Exegesis as a suitable venue for addressing
> relevant issues, and thanks also to the others who contributed interesting
> ideas, opinions worthy of consideration, plus intelligent commentary.

Ditto.

Dale
--

"In the empty spaces--lacunae, vacuums, pauses, voids, black holes--new
things begin. We are born anew from the unexplored space, the badlands,
the outlaw territory." - Sam Keen
Articles:
http://cura.free.fr/xxx/27dale.html
http://www.aplaceinspace.net/articles.html#Dale

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

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:02:29 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard <curastro@free.fr>
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3

Hi folks & friends of astrology & of exegesis mailing list,

As others, I regret the end of EXEGESIS, hoping that the archives will
stay online somewhere. It has been, for years, probably the best list
about these subjects : philosophy of astrology and interrogation about the
astrological FACT, and with valuable contributions by William Tallman,
Dennis Frank, Bill Sheeran, Roger Satterlee, Dale Huckeby, & others. I
don't think that the lack of leadership would have been the reason for the
decline of the list, but, more probably, the lack of practitioners of
astrology, insufficiently interested to investigate the basis of their
practices. The pragmatist way has been the idol among them : "it works for me ;
i have my clientele or/and i'm producing some stuff for the astrological
community : it suffices".

I thank those who have heard some of the views that I've tried to express,
but the opinions and intellectual paradigms of the leaders here are
probably too incompatible for giving a chance to work together further.

You say, Fran, that "Cornelius' ideas about PSI in The Moment of Astrology
are still the best explanation" you've found. A pity that he has not been
able or willing to participate to this list, & also some others, as Hand
or Elwell. Now, for me, Cornelius' explanation is not an explanation at
all. Mind or spirit connection are just other words for imagination, and
imagination doesn't tell why there would be a connection or not. I've
appreciated this book as the most philosophical oriented I've read in
Anglo-saxon astrological literature, but i'm at the opposite of his views,
as I've told him in London 10 years ago. Cornelius wants to save and
justify any practice of astrology, and he is, if not the responsible of
course, but the faire-valoir, of an amount of laxist, illogical, and
superstitious practices of astrology -- which are the main ones in modern
astrology today. And, alas, the situation and level of dominant astrology
at this beginning of this XXIst century are probably much lower than fifty
years ago.

I've defended the separation of astrology with divinatory arts, the
suspension of consultation, of pseudo therapeutic practices, & even of
charts and horoscopes, for doing something else with astrology : like a way
of understanding one's own psycho-mental processus to apprehend the world.

What is astrology? - A comprehensive understanding of human psyche,
perception and consciousness, and of the individual differences in psyche,
perception and consciousness.

How does it work? - By integration and interiorisation of the planetary
cycles.

What is its purpose? - To escape to the cultural and mainly occidendal
dualistic thinking and ideologies.

How should Astrology be used? - As a way of life, but chiefly as a way of
using the brain.

As some have heard it, I've suspended the main part of CURA (astrological
research), to involve myself for years in historical, bibliographical and
philological research about the main famous "astrologer" of modern times,
Michel de Nostredame (or Nostradamus). One interesting point is that,
although he has been and is always, and for years, famous as astrologer, he
is at the opposite of modern and post-modern practices and understanding
of astrology.

Dr Patrice Guinard
http://cura.free.fr

> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 02:00:49 -0400
> From: fgk
> Subject: [e] Goodbye exegesis!

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:25:11 +0200
From: Patrice Guinard
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6

> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 23:37:00 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Dale Huckeby <spock@evansville.net>
> Subject: [e] Pursuing Knowledge

> Want to talk about symbolism versus observed functional similarities
> (somewhere else if not here)? And about what kinds of assumptions regarding
> astrological phenomena make astrological causality approachable? (To me
> symbolism is the _sine qua non_ of astrology's "current fossil form".)

Agree.

And if Reason is like "a horse running towards its stables", after the Indonesian
philosopher Ranggawarsita : I would add that Symbolism in practical astrology is
like a horse running towards the stables of ... another animal.

++
Patrice

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

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 16:39:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Philosophy of Astrology

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 Patrice Guinard ecrit:

> As others, I regret the end of EXEGESIS, hoping that the archives will
> stay online somewhere. It has been, for years, probably the best list
> about these subjects : philosophy of astrology and interrogation about the
> astrological FACT...

Undoubtedly true.

> I don't think that the lack of leadership would have been the reason for
> the decline of the list, but, more probably, the lack of pratitioners of
> astrology, insufficiently interested to investigate the basis of their
> practices. The pragmatist way has been the idol here : "it works for me ;
> i have my clientele or/and i'm producing some stuff for the astrological
> community : it suffices".

Too small a pool of the kind of people the list was designed for, in
other words. "It works for me" has been a formula for mediocrity.

> I thank those who have heard some of the views that I've tried to express,
> but the opinions and intellectual paradigms of the leaders here are
> probably too incompatible for giving a chance to work together further.

Only too true. This has been a list of individualists. But yours and my
views, and Andre's and my views, overlap considerably, and it's a shame we
haven't explored those overlaps in more detail.

> You say, fran, that "Cornelius' ideas about PSI in The Moment of Astrology
> are still the best explanation" you've found. A pity that he has not been
> able or willing to participate to this list, & also some others, as Hand
> or Elwell. Now, for me, Cornelius' explanation is not an explanation at
> all. Mind or spirit connection are just another words for imagination, and
> imagination doesn't tell why there would be a connection or not.

This is one of those overlaps. What you call "words for imagination" are,
it would seem, what I call word games, the use of figurative language to
connect celestial factors with terrestrial analogues, which is the essence
of astrological symbolism. This kind of reasoning is what the sciences
have left behind. It was, during the Renaissance, very characteristic of
one of the lines of development that led to modern physics (see _Science and
the Secrets of Nature_, by William Eamon, and _Music in Renaissance Magic_,
by Gary Tomlinson). That kind of reasoning emerged during the 1470s and
80s, during the Uranus/Neptune conjunction, and was violently attacked and
supplanted one cycle later, during the 1640s and 50s, by the founders of
the Baconian sciences, part of which, one cycle further on, combined with
mathematics, became the basis for modern physics. (This latter development
occurred in the French _Ecole polytechnique_, in which for the first time
the Baconian sciences were brought cheek to jowel with the mathematical
sciences.)

> I've appreciated this book as the most philosophical oriented I've read in
> Anglo-saxon astrological literature, but i'm at the opposite of his views,
> as I've told him in London 10 years ago. Cornelius wants to save and
> justify any practice of astrology, and he is, if not the responsible of
> course, but the faire-valoir, of an amount of laxist, illogical, and
> superstitious practices of astrology -- which are the main ones in modern
> astrology today. And, alas, the situation and level of dominant astrology
> at this beginning of this XXIth century are probably much lower than fifty
> years ago.

And that is precisely the way I see Cornelius, as an apologist for a
superstitious, old-fashioned way of doing astrology, illogical and inimical
to its further progress.

> I've defended the separation of astrology with divinatory arts, the
> suspension of consultation, of pseudo therapeutic practices, & even of
> charts and horoscopes, for doing something else with astrology, as a way
> of understanding one's own psycho-mental processus to apprehend the world.

I, too, think modern astrology should be divorced from fortune-telling,
magic, and the various devinatory arts with which it is currently allied.

> What is astrology? - A comprehensive understanding of human psyche,
> perception and consciousness, and of the individual differences in psyche,
> perception and consciousness.

I see it in more dynamic terms, that the elements of the psyche are
differentiated from each other by their different periodicities, in which
each element comes to the forefront regularly at its own characteristic
interval, and recedes into the background in between. And those intervals
correspond to planetary periodicities. But we're on the same page, or
at least in the same "book". :)

> How does it work? - By integration and interiorisation of the planetary
> cycles.

And this is why the intervals correspond to planetary periodicities.
Our descriptions are virtually identical, although we presumably differ
in the details.

> What is its purpose? - To escape to the cultural and mainly occidendal
> dualistic thinking and ideologies.

I don't think of astrological knowledge itself as having a purpose,
anymore than physics has a purpose, but what it _is_ does have a bearing
on the ways it _can_ be used, and thus on what we _choose_ to do with
it.

> How should Astrology be used? - As a way of life, but chiefly as a way of
> using the brain.

As a way of life _and_, as a means to that end, as a way of grasping
how we as human beings function.

> As some have heard it, I've suspended the main part of CURA (astrological
> research), to involve myself for years in historical, bibliographical and
> philological research about the main famous "astrologer" of modern times,
> Michel de Nostredame (or Nostradamus). One interesting point is that,
> although he has been and is always and for years famous as astrologer, he
> is at the opposite of modern and post-modern practices and understanding
> of astrology.

I'm intrigued and curious about what you plan to do with your research.
I agree with your opinion. I'm apalled at how many astrologers take
him seriously and try to interpret his quatrains, oblivious to the fact
that, like symbolism, they can be made to mean whatever you want them
to, which (again, like symbolism) makes them more intelligible after the
events they "predict" than before. (But if that makes him the opposite
of modern astrology, it's a kind of modernity that hasn't asserted itself
very forcefully. Most "modern" astrologers find Nostradamus's kind of
reasoning quite congenial, since it's virtually identical to their own.)

It has been a pleasure communicating with you these past few years,
although, all too often, we have been loquacious at different times and
have failed to engage as directly and consequentially as we might have.

And thanks to you, Fran, for having provided this forum, which we can
no doubt agree was ahead of its time.

Dale

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 7

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 8

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:21:32 +0200
From: "Options"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

It's a pity to close down such a valuable list - on account of its
quietness. Lack of contribution does not mean lack of interest.

Unless there is cost or someone's time involved in keeping it open, could it
be allowed to sleep till morning comes again?

In my opinion, this is one of the more important astrology lists - with a
role to play in the future. It is regrettable that there are few who are in
a position to contribute at a meaningful level, but there are many who are
interested, and who hunger for exposure to the kind of debate offered here.

Monica Cromhout

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 8

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:39:26 -0400
From: "Charles Hillman"
Subject: [e] Exegesis List.

I have just recently started receiving posts from this list,and was wondering for a long long time,if anyone posted to the list?The main reason i joined,was to discuss Astrological Topics.So hopefully we can get some kind of discussion going. Have A Nice Day, Charles J Hillman

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

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:08:52 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 8

> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:21:32 +0200
> From: "Options"
> Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4
>
> It's a pity to close down such a valuable list - on account of its
> quietness. Lack of contribution does not mean lack of interest.

I've always wondered about that. There's never been more than 5 or 6 active
contributors at any one time, but from a couple of hundred subscribers. Are
the quiet ones just curious, or learning? I do recall my first saturn cycle
being the perennial quiet learner, and it was quite a psychological
transition to eventually feeling that I could actively contribute my
opinion. When I discovered I had natal Saturn exactly conjunct natal
Mercury in the 12th I realised why it had always felt so hard. When
everyone had to give a speech to the class when I was a young boy, I got up
there and fainted! Same again in my early teens, except I got part way
through that time! Other shy kids in the class never fainted.

> Unless there is cost or someone's time involved in keeping it open, could it
> be allowed to sleep till morning comes again?

I'd be interested in hearing from Fran on this point, but hosting memory
capacity normally costs money.

> In my opinion, this is one of the more important astrology lists - with a
> role to play in the future. It is regrettable that there are few who are in
> a position to contribute at a meaningful level, but there are many who are
> interested, and who hunger for exposure to the kind of debate offered here.

If you are right, I'm glad to hear it. Seems to me most astrologers would
rather take the subject for granted than evaluate it critically (and/or are
incapable of deep thought). But you can always find exceptions to the rule!
Back in the '90s I assumed the internet would enable easier high-quality
discussions between astrologers, but when I eventually went online Exegesis
seemed the only place that came close to regularly providing what I was
seeking.

> Monica Cromhout

So, Monica, perhaps you too are inclined toward a deeper comprehension of
the issues around astrology. Have you found anywhere else online that helps
you to engage those issues?

Dennis Frank

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

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:08:38 +1200
From: "Dennis Frank"
Subject: [e] Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6

> 1. Pursuing Knowledge (Dale Huckeby)
> 2. Re: Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 3 (Patrice Guinard)

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 23:37:00 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Dale Huckeby
> Subject: [e] Pursuing Knowledge
>
> > ...........Other astrologers seem to be stuck in a time-warp, unable to
> > recognise that their subject ought to be evolving and improving in order
to
> > add value to their lives and perform a useful social function. So why
> > bother with them?
>
> That time-warp has been almost as evident on Exegesis as elsewhere.
Why,
> for instance, has there been almost no discussion of the epistemological
> status of astrological symbolism? I've raised this issue a number of
times,
> arguing that symbolism is inherently flawed and on occasion explaining
> why I think so, but no one has offered an articulate defense of it. How
> is astrology to evolve and improve if we are impervious to critiques of
> its foundations (and to proffered alternatives)?

Indeed. I certainly didn't feel like offering such a defense! But that's
because I (partly) shared your view. You may have forgotten that I did
actually respond with comments now & then, but that's okay because I know
you sought a more comprehensive detailed response.

> Rudhyar was admirably progressive in his ideas of what we ought to use
> astrology _for_, as part of his general views about social and personal
> evolution, but in terms of his underlying reasoning patterns, that is, his
> tacit epistemology, he was an arch-traditionalist. It's not clear to me
> where you differ from Rudhyar, but it seems pretty clear that there is
> no difference in underlying reasoning--e.g. symbolism.

That's cool, I'm aware I seem pretty similar to Rudhyar from where you &
Patrice stand (not that I'm implying you both stand in the same place). To
me, Rudhyar always seemed enlightened and profound, but still a
traditionalist. I don't believe he had an intuitive perception of
archetypes as a distinct metaphysical category. Jung was more perceptive in
that regard. The fact that Rudhyar never saw the invalidity of rulerships
reveals that either he failed to study the historical development of
astrology or that he was a committed esotericist (possibly both).

> > ...........................................................It is still
> > obvious to me that astrology must be grounded in nature, because we
> > ourselves are. Continuing to present astrology to the public as a
fossil
> > belief system is stupid, irresponsible, and to the ongoing detriment of
> > all concerned.
>
> Yes, this is one thing we apparently agree on, but it's not clear to
> me how an astrology in which we make connections via figurative language,
> rather than simply observe consistent functional similarities, can be
> assimilated to the idea that it's grounded in nature.

Fair enough too. For me, if an intuitive perception of the archetype is
mediated to others via keywords, then those keywords form the skeleton of
the language of astrology. The validity of the keywords is measured by
their social currency, from the point of view of the general user. If users
resonate to the archetype, those keywords will catalyse the resonance. That
said, those of us with highly-developed critical and perceptive faculties
can readily spot a community of users habitually recycling keywords that do
not actually capture and convey the essence of the archetype. That kind of
sloppiness sure has characterised the western astrological community in
recent decades. The behaviour is usually compounded by a combination of
ancestor-worship, me-tooism & intellectual laziness. Maybe this behaviour
is what you refer to when you target astrological symbolism, but to me the
problem lies in the incompetence of those users, not in the symbolism
itself.

> > Nonetheless, my presentation of the subject, although an improvement,
> > suffers from a similar flaw to Rudhyar's: it presumes that classical
> > astrology was founded on a valid meta-cosmic framework (zodiac, 4
elements,
> > houses, etc). In postmodern culture such a prescriptive approach is
> > essentially politically incorrect because it implies that the form
astrology
> > takes in other cultures is wrong.
>
> Political correctness is beside the point. The presumption above is
> simply wrong because, one, there are over one hundred elements, not just
> four, and two, not one of air, earth, fire, or water is an element. I
> would suggest that the above framework _and_ the form astrology has taken
> in other cultures are wrong. Period.

The word `element' has a different meaning to scientists. It is a technical
term in science. Those of us educated in science were led to believe that
the scientific meaning ought to be the only one valid in modern society.
This is blatant cultural imperialism. Western philosophical traditions have
always recognised and transmitted ancient and classical beliefs and belief
systems, and we ought to give them due consideration. The ancient view of
elements is equivalent to the four states of matter in traditional science.
Solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air, plasma/fire.

As to your second point, it's too much of an extreme position for me. To
accept is to assume that astrologers throughout history have been operating
on a totally delusional basis. I'm more inclined to believe that
collectively-generated models of the world have some basis in reality. The
human race does seem to have a collective capacity for forming a consensus
view, and this happens in a natural organic manner. That said, we are right
to critique aspects of that view that seem contrived rather than
appropriate. History proves that delusional belief systems afflict people
en masse, not just individually.

> As my above comments should suggest, I am not a relativist in the sense
> that you have suggested. I _have_ argued, for instance, that for those
who
> use it symbolism seems to work, but I was only acknowledging that _they_
> believed that, and trying to understand why they believed that. Since I
am,
> like Andre, a social constructivist, I believe that we actively create
> knowledge through social processes, but like Kuhn I don't believe that we
> can construct anything that all. No valid social construction is going
> to discover that water drains up a mountainside rather than down. To say
> that correlations lie only only in the eyes of the beholder misses the
> point that some can be seen by others, perhaps most others, thus leading
> to consensus, and some remain idiosyncratic. To say that the "mirror
> of nature" is invalid, that true facts aren't just laying around for all
> to see, like rocks on the ground, doesn't mean that intersubjectivity
> is impossible. It just means the process of attaining it is more subtle
> and complex than logical empiricists and positivists realized.

Yes, quite. A similar point to me above, but more fully made.

> The problem with astrology is not the narcissism of modern astrologers
or
> modern society, or any other social phase or attitude, but simply the fact
> that the phenomena that astrology references are extremely complex and
thus
> difficult to be clear about. Astrology just hasn't reached its take-off
> point, because it's a more difficult _kind_ of knowledge than the ones,
like
> geometry and astronomy, that achieved their first consensus in antiquity.

Yeah, good point.

> Want to talk about symbolism versus observed functional similarities
> (somewhere else if not here)? And about what kinds of assumptions
regarding
> astrological phenomena make astrological causality approachable? (To me
> symbolism is the _sine qua non_ of astrology's "current fossil form".)

Sure. Where?

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:02:29 +0200
> From: Patrice Guinard

I came to the same opinion, Patrice. By the way, your command of the
English language seems greatly improved. If you didn't use a translator to
write that, congratulations!

> as I've told him in London 10 years ago. Cornelius wants to save and
> justify any practice of astrology, and he is, if not the responsible of
> course, but the faire-valoir, of an amount of laxist, illogical, and
> superstitious practices of astrology -- which are the main ones in modern
> astrology today. And, alas, the situation and level of dominant astrology
> at this beginning of this XXIth century are probably much lower than fifty
> years ago.

True, he is merely a traditionalist. Funny that he is so perceptive, yet
with no capacity of improvement, or even recognition of the need. English
society has been mind-numbingly conservative the past century, so perhaps
they get bred with blinkers (apparently French society is even worse ;) ).

> What is astrology? - A comprehensive understanding of human psyche,
> perception and consciousness, and of the individual differences in psyche,
> perception and consciousness.

For me, not just of the psyche. The microcosm is any moment, not just one
of human birth.

> How does it work? - By integration and interiorisation of the planetary
> cycles.

Agreed.

> What is its purpose? - To escape to the cultural and mainly occidendal
> dualistic thinking and ideologies.

You mean `escape from', but I agree that it liberates people from out-moded
limiting beliefs. I only disagree inasmuch as I see its purpose as more
than just that; to help people learn about their inner nature and
potential, to assist with psychological healing, and to help them evolve.
The result is self-improvement.

> How should Astrology be used? - As a way of life, but chiefly as a way of
> using the brain.

Not really disagreeing here, but I see the use being best described as a
guide to development. Like a weather-map, but more complex.

Hope it is a productive project, Patrice. It is really only in recent years
that it became clear how endemic was the historical use of encrypted
communication, so that we see that why it was politically necessary for him
to deliberately obscure what he was trying to say in his published verses.
I used to think he was just being perverse!! I think it was the best-seller
by the mathematician Simon Singh "The Code Book" that changed my opinion.
Skip the maths, as I did, and one important lesson comes through various
stories from different periods. Intelligence is of extreme value to people
competing for power, particularly when they can secure an advantage by
monopolising it. Encoding the intelligence protects the monopoly, thus the
sanctity, but it seems Nostradamus did it too well. All we ever get are
competing misinterpretations, a veritable industry of disinformation!

Dennis Frank
------------------------------

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 9

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

Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 08:28:55 +1000
From: "Robert Tulip"
Subject: [e] Christian Astrology

I hope Exegesis will continue, as I value its discussions. There is
such an emerging level of related interest, eg with Richard Tarnas'
recently published Cosmos and Psyche http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/

My own thinking seeks to reconcile astrology with Christianity, built
around the idea of Christ as the alpha and omega of the great year - see
for example my essay on precessional code in the Bible at
http://www.geocities.com/rtulip2005/Theology/Twelve_Jewels.htm

I would welcome anyone able to engage with this material.

Robert Tulip

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

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:56:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dale Huckeby
Subject: [e] Symbolism, mostly

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 Dennis Frank responded to Dale:

>>> ...........Other astrologers seem to be stuck in a time-warp, unable to
>>> recognise that their subject ought to be evolving and improving in order
>>> to add value to their lives and perform a useful social function. So why
>>> bother with them?
>>
>> That time-warp has been almost as evident on Exegesis as elsewhere.
>> Why, for instance, has there been almost no discussion of the epistemological
>> status of astrological symbolism? I've raised this issue a number of times,
>> arguing that symbolism is inherently flawed and on occasion explaining
>> why I think so, but no one has offered an articulate defense of it. How
>> is astrology to evolve and improve if we are impervious to critiques of
>> its foundations (and to proffered alternatives)?
>
> Indeed. I certainly didn't feel like offering such a defense! But that's
> because I (partly) shared your view. You may have forgotten that I did
> actually respond with comments now & then, but that's okay because I know
> you sought a more comprehensive detailed response.

It has seemed to me that your actual practices, when you _do_ astrology,
don't reflect that partial agreement, but rather illustrate the problems
that I associate with symbolism. Your _theoretical_ observations, on the
other hand, have often been cogent.

> To me, Rudhyar always seemed enlightened and profound, but still a
> traditionalist.

Enlightened in his social views, a traditionalist methodologically is
the way I see it. It appears we more or less agree on this point.

> I don't believe he had an intuitive perception of archetypes as a
> distinct metaphysical category. Jung was more perceptive in that
> regard. The fact that Rudhyar never saw the invalidity of rulerships
> reveals that either he failed to study the historical development of
> astrology or that he was a committed esotericist (possibly both).

Okay, we agree on the invalidity of rulerships. But archetypes as
you've tried to explain them I've never been able to make sense of.
I think I may have mentioned him before, but the only person who has
written about archetypes in a way that makes sense to me is Anthony
Stevens. Have you read his book _Archetypes_?

>>> ......................................................It is still
>>> obvious to me that astrology must be grounded in nature, because we
>>> ourselves are. Continuing to present astrology to the public as a
>>> fossil belief system is stupid, irresponsible, and to the ongoing
>>> detriment of all concerned.
>>
>> Yes, this is one thing we apparently agree on, but it's not clear to
>> me how an astrology in which we make connections via figurative language,
>> rather than simply observe consistent functional similarities, can be
>> assimilated to the idea that it's grounded in nature.
>
> Fair enough too. For me, if an intuitive perception of the archetype is
> mediated to others via keywords, then those keywords form the skeleton of
> the language of astrology. The validity of the keywords is measured by
> their social currency, from the point of view of the general user. If users
> resonate to the archetype, those keywords will catalyse the resonance. That
> said, those of us with highly-developed critical and perceptive faculties
> can readily spot a community of users habitually recycling keywords that do
> not actually capture and convey the essence of the archetype. That kind of
> sloppiness sure has characterised the western astrological community in
> recent decades. The behaviour is usually compounded by a combination of
> ancestor-worship, me-tooism & intellectual laziness. Maybe this behaviour
> is what you refer to when you target astrological symbolism, but to me the
> problem lies in the incompetence of those users, not in the symbolism
> itself.

The problem with symbolism is the slipperiness of those keywords, and
that slipperiness is due to figurative usage. For example, "ambition" has
come to be associated with Saturn, thanks to the _observations_ of Grant
Lewi. When his descriptions (_not_ interpretations) of configurations are
taken in their entirety, in the context of his writings as a whole, it's
clear that by "ambition" he means career success. Yet "ambition can be
and has been used to refer to sex drive ("sexual ambition") and could in
principle be used to refer to gluttony (an "ambitious eater"), in which
case the term has no meaning because it can be used to mean anything.

That doesn't mean figurative language is inherently bad or dispensable.
In studying the Uranus/Neptune cycle I looked for similar conditions
recurring at 171-year intervals. Among the things I claim to have seen
is "cultural efflorescences". One dictionary defines efflorescence
as "a period of flowering." Another refers to "the period of geatest
prosperity or productivity." Because my observations were by their
very nature imprecise I had to use imprecise, figurative language, but
I think my intent was clear: these were high points. High points are,
by definition, not the norm. There have to be lower points in between
in order for peaks to stand out. For "cultural efflorescence" to be
meaningful it has to be a condition that isn't true at all times, but
only briefly, at intervals, ideally coincident with an astrological
factor which is itself in effect briefly at intervals.

Symbolism can't meet this requirement. Imagine if I had done my
research with a symbolistic orientation. I would have first searched
for Uranus/Neptune conjunction periods, and then looked within each
period for events that fit the symbolisms of Uranus and Neptune, and
perhaps also of the conjunction and the sign in which it occurred.
I would surely have found plenty, at least in part because in wording
the description of each event I would have tended to word it to fit
the symbolism (and vice versa).

There are, however, two problems with this scenario. One, events
that fit the symbolism in one conjunction period won't necessarily
resemble events that fit the symbolism in other conjunction periods.
Completely different kinds of events can fit the same symbolism,
with fitting the same symbolism being the _only_ thing they have in
common. Knowing what happened in one Uranus/Neptune conjunction
period, from a symbolistic perspective, tells us nothing about what
other conjunction periods will be like. Two, symbolism doesn't
enable us to differentiate between the conjunction periods and the
periods in which Uranus and Neptune aren't conjunct. Events from
randomly chosen periods can be made to fit the symbolism as easily
as events from the "right" periods.

Keywords are not helpful, because we associate each with a given
factor _regardless_ of how it (the word) is used and regardless
of what it's thereby made to mean. What is helpful is to observe
what _regularly_ coincides with a given factor, and if something
does _that's_ what the factor reliably predicts. It doesn't matter
which words are used to convey what that something is. Different
words can be used to describe the same thing, which is more useful
than the same word being used to refer to things that are not at
all alike and therefore not predictively meaningful.

>>> Nonetheless, my presentation of the subject, although an improvement,
>>> suffers from a similar flaw to Rudhyar's: it presumes that classical
>>> astrology was founded on a valid meta-cosmic framework (zodiac, 4
>>> elements, houses, etc). In postmodern culture such a prescriptive
>>> approach is essentially politically incorrect because it implies that
>>> the form astrolog takes in other cultures is wrong.
>>
>> Political correctness is beside the point. The presumption above is
>> simply wrong because, one, there are over one hundred elements, not just
>> four, and two, not one of air, earth, fire, or water is an element. I
>> would suggest that the above framework _and_ the form astrology has taken
>> in other cultures are wrong. Period.
>
> The word `element' has a different meaning to scientists. It is a technical
> term in science. Those of us educated in science were led to believe that
> the scientific meaning ought to be the only one valid in modern society.
> This is blatant cultural imperialism. Western philosophical traditions have
> always recognised and transmitted ancient and classical beliefs and belief
> systems, and we ought to give them due consideration. The ancient view of
> elements is equivalent to the four states of matter in traditional science.
> Solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air, plasma/fire.

Fire and plasma aren't the same. Fire is the heat and light produced by
oxidation. It's not a state of matter per se. Plasma is an ionized gas
in which a significant number of electrons have been stripped from atomic
nuclei and are free to move about. "When enough atoms are ionized to
significantly affect the electrical characteristics of the gas, it is a
plasma." <http://www.plasmacoalition.org/what.htm> But not bad. Of
course, this doesn't explain the means by which the ancients discovered
that signs correspond to different states of matter, the ways in which
the correspondence works, or indeed the supposed fact that signs are
themselves valid and have meanings, so the main thing these interlocking
concepts share is a lack of evidence.

> As to your second point, it's too much of an extreme position for me.
> To accept is to assume that astrologers throughout history have been
> operating on a totally delusional basis. I'm more inclined to believe
> that collectively-generated models of the world have some basis in
> reality. The human race does seem to have a collective capacity for
> forming a consensus view, and this happens in a natural organic manner.
> That said, we are right to critique aspects of that view that seem
> contrived rather than appropriate. History proves that delusional
> belief systems afflict people en masse, not just individually.

I'm assuming that any belief system that has remained unchanged for
a long period of time, which hasn't incorporated subsequent insights and
discoveries, and which is based on no visible empirical foundations is,
_ipso facto_, largely invalid and ineffective. It might once have seemed
valid and been reasonable. Ptolemy wasn't deluded in thinking that the
sun circled the earth. At that time it was reasonable to think so. But
given what we know now, both in terms of facts and in terms of how to
reason about facts, his astronomy is neither valid nor reasonable, ditto
for his astrology (and that of other traditions which haven't changed
with the times.)

>> Want to talk about symbolism versus observed functional similarities
>> (somewhere else if not here)? And about what kinds of assumptions
>> regarding astrological phenomena make astrological causality approachable?
>> (To me symbolism is the _sine qua non_ of astrology's "current fossil form".)
>
> Sure. Where?

Right here until Fran turns out the lights and locks the door. When that
happens, we can then discuss where else to go. You have my address and I
have yours.

And Frank said to Patrice:

> ...It is really only in recent years that it became clear how endemic
> was the historical use of encrypted communication, so that we see that why
> it was politically necessary for [Nostradamus] to deliberately obscure what
> he was trying to say in his published verses. I used to think he was just
> being perverse!!...Intelligence is of extreme value to people competing
> for power, particularly when they can secure an advantage by monopolising
> it. Encoding the intelligence protects the monopoly, thus the sanctity,
> but it seems Nostradamus did it too well. All we ever get are competing
> misinterpretations, a veritable industry of disinformation!

It's always intrigued me that so many people take Nostradamus seriously.
Whatever he knew or thought he knew, either via astrology or far more
likely via a shrewd sense of which way the political winds were blowing,
you are probably right in that it wouldn't have been politically wise
to predict that the Duke of Lombardy was going to get conked next spring.
But his ambiguity was not only expedient but a reflection of his lack
of specific knowledge. His approach was not really different from that
of a modern mundane prognosticator. Write so figuratively and ambiguously
that anything that happens will seem to fit, and then you can claim, or
your intellectual descendents/admirers can claim for you, that that's
what you meant. What's ironic is that he was probably writing about the
_near_ future, a few months or at most a few years down the line, but
he did it so well that probably in AD 3750 some gullible soul will note
that quatrain so and so obviously refers to the kidnapping of the Doge
of Venus by the Lunar Captain, which set off the Second Interstellar
War, which is amazing. How did he _know_ these things? But of course
what he was doing was symbolism personified, which is probably why so
many astrologers are so mesmerized by his writings. What it comes down
to is this. Astrologers haven't outgrown that kind of reasoning, and
astrology won't take its place in the world as an effective discipline
until enough (a critical mass?) do.

Yr fthful srvnt (and boatrocker),
Dale

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

End of Exegesis Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

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