Exegesis V3 Issue #10

Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #10

From: Matthew Wilson
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #9

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8

From: Acards
Subject: Astrology and playing cards

From: John Reder
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #9

Exegesis Digest Mon, 02 Feb 1998

Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 01:23:18 -0000
From: Matthew Wilson
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #9

> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:35:55 +0000
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> To: exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8
>

>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:08:20 -0000
> From: Matthew Wilson
>
> .............................................The fact is that as a supernatural
> phenomena astrology seems to require a spiritual home to align
> itself to.
>
> This does appear to be the case. This is a tenet I suggest we are
> best served by rejecting. We cannot address effectively anything we
> cannot analyze objectively, and one of the oldest 'truths' of our
> culture is that religious and/or spiritual subjects to not permit
> definitive analysis. These are, so far, matters of a subjective
> nature only.
>

Surely Hume has demonstrated that no social study can be analysed objectively whilst Einstein seems to have confirmed the same for any scientific study. I would therefore take quarrel that 'we cannot address effectively anything'. Whilst ultimately this may be true, however on a mundane and day to day basis and for all 'effective' purposes it is not, otherwise we should all go home and go back to bed !!.

> I think the only thing we can do to further the case of astrology in
> the modern world is to assume that does *not* require a spiritual
> basis, that is, to assume that it does in fact have a basis in
> objective reality, where that basis must permit the possibility of
> discovery, measurement and analysis.
>
> It would be interesting to contemplate whether a third option may
> exist here: is it possible that astrology has a basis that is
> neither (or both) subjective and objective and so must be regarded
> from some other perspective? If so, what perspective might that be?
>

> The interest in Project Hindsight without a corresponding move to
> Platonic Pantheism or an interest in Jyotish without becoming Hindu
> seems to suggest otherwise.
>
> Thank you for mentioning Project Hindsight. Indeed there are
> isolated yet powerful efforts on behalf of astrology. Unfortunately,
> these are the exception rather than the rule.
>
> There has been significant scientific evaluation both of the
> astrologers and of astrology (note the distinction) see Cornelius
> 'Moment of Astrology' for more on this. The problem is that the
> results have not been of any sensational significance to be of
> interest to any but the theorists of which I include myself.
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to summarize some of this work.
> That would give us someplace to start.
>
>

Geoffrey Cornelius 'The Moment of Astrology' (publ Penguin Arkana) and described as the most important astrological text in the last 300 years (Patrick Curry) and 'one of the most important astrological books of our time' (Robert Hand). Cornelius examines why every major scientific analysis of astrology (as distinct from studies of astrologers) has failed: - including Gauquelin who named his results neo-astrology because they produced results contrary to traditional astrology. Cornelius argues that astrology is a method of divination and that the task of the astrologer is to turn the water of the chart into the wine of the interpretation. This provides a very plausible explanation for why 'wrong' charts often yield 'right' results, of why sidereal and tropical charts both work and why the plethora of different systems all have validity. It also provides a strong argument for a spiritual basis of astrology as a method of divination.

For myself I certainly experience astrology as providing me with evidence of the existence of the divine and of a magic at work within the universe that demonstrates the supernatural. I do however remain sufficiently open minded to accept the strong possibility that this may in fact be merely a psychological illusion.

Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 18:57:58 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8

Joanna Ashmun wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 13:45:16 -0800
> From: "Joanna M. Ashmun"
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #7
>

>
> Greetings to you long-winded sons-of-guns!
>
> If sloth had been the original sin we'd still be in paradise.
>
> I would like to see reviews of books and articles. On anything relevant
> and anything that can be made relevant.
>
> Does anybody happen to know anything about stochastic resonance? As I
> understand it, animals can sense weak signals that ought to be masked by
> ambient noise. What happens is that synchronizations of random noise
> amplify the weak signals enough to make them perceptible. There are
> thousands of Web pages on stochastic resonance, and Amazon has something
> like 600 titles, mostly breathtakingly pricy academic publications --
> feel like a US$310 paperback?
>
> Regards,
>
> Joanna
>
>
>

Like the irritating little old men of exotic ethnicity who invariably sit atop remote mountains while reluctantly addressing the meaning of life, I say the larger organization of astrological "information" reflects the psychological organization of people on the collective level; however, your topic concerning animals and the perception of signal vs noise etc., and the role of the synchronization of random noise patterns, seems a personal search for "information" whose details serve to symbolize the reflection of your own individual psychological organization and or your personal preferences for selecting "signal" from all the background noise that is human intellectual activity. As the soul of a person is intimate with the animals due to the apparent lack of any intellectual property residing in our souls, therein lies the vessel of any hope, any salvation, and the compassion afforded anyone experiencing this all-inclusive quality of our more soulful being. As to the erratic but occasionally synchronized noise in life, I think of the symbol Uranus. To me, you are addressing the opposition of Jupiter and Uranus...:) As to a more meaningful understanding, I rest on the assumption that we are all probably Narcissus and therefore studying every detail of our own reflection in any available medium...and to a Leo, like me, what could be more meaningful than at least being aware that I am dominated by mankind's collective tendency to a smilely-faced narcissusism...:) Where you expecting an echo as well in the words upon this screen...:)?

Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 16:36:48 EST
From: Acards
To: exegesis
Subject: Astrology and playing cards

I haven't been active yet, but now that I see the digest is back in action, I thought I would ask a question about a subject that I find very interesting.

Has anyone out there done any work relating astrology with the playing cards? I have been studying the work of Olney H. Richmond and his "Mystic Test Book" and have found some fascinating connections between astrology and the playing cards, such as the cards being a compact little "book" of astrological knowledge passed down through the ages.

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:56:24 -0500 (EST)
From: John Reder
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #9

>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:08:20 -0000
> From: Matthew Wilson
>
> .............................................The fact is that as a supernatural
> phenomena astrology seems to require a spiritual home to align
> itself to.
>

While in the middle of changing ISP's I missed #8. What was the basis for calling astrology "supernatural"? If the movement of the cosmos isn't natural, what is?