Exegesis V3 Issue #14

Exegesis Volume 3 Issue #14

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #10

From: "William D. Tallman"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

From: skyweasel
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

Exegesis Digest Mon, 09 Feb 1998

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 12:26:49 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis Cc: jreder
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

John Reder wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 22:07:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: John Reder
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #8
>

>
> snip
> < > I don't think astrology needs to have a guru or a master. You don't
> need to raise up a leader because he know how to do logarithms. Most things
> that are mystified are done so for the sake of gaining power over others
> with the illusion of divine knowledge.
> What hurts the study of astrology, tarot, whatever, is the people
> that try to form a religion or a philosophy of divine anointing out of it
> for their own power trip. The study of astrology should be about passing on
> the ability to use it and not proselytization of a philosophy. It is far
> more important to pass on "HOW" it works instead of "WHY".
> Which is something this list could do a bit more of. It's all
> philosophy and no technique. A little more sharing of technical detail
> would be far more instructive.
>
>
> _\|/_
> (o o)
>

Rog comments: What I gather from John's appeal seems like a sentiment I once shared when the personal search for more generic "facts" seemed the path to a more inclusive state of being with my fellow human beings--a search for common denominators which allow all people to be compared by their likenesses. Over time it has occurred to me that individuals exhibit a balance in nature by remaining at least as different as they are alike. The rather annoying sense of separateness which has its basis in our personal differences seems the basis for our "religious" endeavors...this seems true no matter what technique we seem to prefer concerning the bridging of the inevitable gulf between even the most earnest of souls. If there is a path toward a more comprehensive appreciation of those who seem at variance with our personal standards of methodological excellence, or correctness, etc., it seems that a lowering of the threshold of our ability to detect our more mutual and binding universal qualities is more desirable than the raising of our threshold of "fact" perception. A personal regimen of less discrimination of personal "truths" seems a more enlightening practice. Our observations of our fellows and their reported thoughts should perhaps be characterized by our unlimited generosity--our best effort at an open minded acceptance of the reported experience of others. Perhaps we all remain as true to ourselves as a child graciously introducing an invisible playmate. My attempts at self-therapy, so to speak, my search for a mental practice which de-emphasized the requirements I arbitrarily placed on others, lead to an acceptance of a more generous proposition than I previously thought myself capable. The possibility that individuals are in fact doing their level best to express 'their' natal potential now seems a given, and, as such, a standard by which I should judge the veracity of another's 'facts'--the "how" and "why" of the individual's perceptions as expressed by the native. If ever I find that there a nagging nonsequitur concerning the logic of a person and the astro-logic of their own natal potential, it is then I accept the burden of learning why I am mistaken as an astrologer, and not why another is mistaken as a unenlightened person. Having said all that, I find that I am usually limited in my quest for understanding by a certain inexplicable reluctance of astrologists at large to share their birth data as readily as they would any other individualizing handle. It has been my experience that persons in general are most comfortable when en robed in their well laundered beliefs and most spend a good deal of time in front of a mirror--obsessively engaged in picking the lint from their favorite mental apparel. Such persons more often speak to me from over their shoulder so as not to be distracted from what is really important...:)

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 02:34:03 +0000
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #10

El Nino has finally arrived. I am without electricity for extended and unpredictable periods of time, as I live on the California coast in the redwoods (generators are unacceptably *noisy*!). My responses on this list will therefore be unpredictably delayed, so I beg your collective indulgence...

> 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 !!.

Well, in my view, Einstein did not confirm that objective analysis was not possible for any given scientific study. The whole idea of science is to establish objective knowledge, that is, knowledge of an object in its own terms. What we may make of this knowledge easily exceeds the bounds of science and so may not submit to objective understanding.

What I'm suggesting is that we refrain from putting deliberate mystification in the path we would tread to reach understanding of the essence of astrology. When we speak of spiritual matters, we are effectively specifying that the only relevancies are personal experience and personal opinion, for there *is* nothing else in these regards. We may cite this or that school of philosophy or line of thought, but in the end all we are doing is buttressing our arguments with others most likely better crafted than our own.

This will not provide what is needed for astrology to gain acceptance on a peer basis with the substance of academia; it will not get astrology well enough regarded to be included in what is deemed worthy to be taught to our descendents. And if we can't at least move in that direction, astrology will eventually disappear when the principles it treats are discovered independently.

> 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?
>
> Magical or Spiritual or Divine ??

Magic, spirit and divinity are objectifications of a subjective reality, at least so far. If we can get a handle on any of these qualities (?) perhaps we can see how to coax them to unfold their own objective nature, but as far as I know, this hasn't happened.

> 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)

> provides a strong argument for a spiritual basis of astrology as a
> method of divination.

Thank you. I've located Cornelius again and am rereading him. I recall (I think) that I thought Cornelius had marshalled arguments and declared them conclusive without adequate support. It seemed to me that he left some significant holes in the foundations of his conclusions, but I want to have them at hand before I say more. Clearly, Cornelius is well regarded and we should address his work.

> 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.

And something of this sort is exactly what we *must* explore and as thoroughly as we can if we are to gain any credibility, I think. I tend to think that we will find this to be, in fact, the case, but it will not be a illusion (at least as we understand it). I think it may well involve or be involved in a profound breakthrough of our understanding of ourselves and our universe.

That sounds pretentious and dramatic (at least it does to me....) but I can only call it as I see it.....

> 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.

It is generally thought, as I understand it, that the playing cards are variations of Tarot Cards. A.E. Waite, who designed on of the more popular Tarot decks in current use, made an explicit correspondence between Tarot and astrology. Any book on Tarot will give at least some of this information,

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 02:34:03 +0000
From: "William D. Tallman"
To: exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

> Now that I have seen Issue #8, I see what this "supernatural"
> thing was all about. This isn't about natural vs supernatural, this is
> about showing the natives the "magic fire stick" and getting into a
> position of power, because you know how to make magic.

> This kind of religion is 99% power politics and 1% spirituality.
> This is using knowledge to foster a superior class and making the
> masses subservient.

Unfortunately, western religion tends to be militaristic, regardless of how it is packaged nowadays. It is interesting to contemplate our assumption that what we call religion is equivalent to the spiritual and theological aspects of cultures other than our own. Perhaps that assumption isn't as valid as we might like to think. If so, then maybe we would be well served to find another word, implying another concept.

> I don't think astrology needs to have a guru or a master.
> You don't need to raise up a leader because he know how to do logarithms.
> Most things that are mystified are done so for the sake of gaining
> power over others with the illusion of divine knowledge.

I agree, in principle. I would hesitate to specify this in the current discussions, though. The "illusion of divine knowledge" is called elsewhere "revealed knowledge" and is usually considered unacceptable in discussions of this type. If that is so in this case, perhaps we can dispense with notions of theological or institutionally spiritual nature with regard to the theoretical or philosophical discussions carried on here.

> What hurts the study of astrology, tarot, whatever, is the
> people that try to form a religion or a philosophy of divine anointing out
> of it for their own power trip.

This is a little presumptive, I think; on the other hand, after reading some of the books on the "Astrology Section" shelves, perhaps not more than a little, though.

> ...................................................The study of astrology should be
> about passing on the ability to use it and not proselytization of a
> philosophy. It is far more important to pass on "HOW" it works
> instead of "WHY".

How about this: Maybe we should start out looking at *how* so that we have a better chance of understanding *why*. Both of these things are important, and they are not mutually exclusive. When we do things, we can stipulate the *why* if we are at liberty to do so, and then focus on the *how*. It often turns out that our choices of the *how* belie the assumption that we even really know the *why*, but it is the *why* for which we must accept responsibility. Ultimately, we can't separate them entirely.

> Which is something this list could do a bit more of. It's
> all philosophy and no technique. A little more sharing of technical
> detail would be far more instructive.

What sort of technical detail is relevant at this point? The purpose of this list, as I understand it, is to explore what we don't know, not what we do know.

If we are to build a bridge, we need to start looking at the depths out there where we are going to have to start laying the foundations for the pilings and piers on which that bridge will eventually be built. To me, that would seem to be the purpose of this list.

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 19:57:25 -0600 (CST)
From: skyweasel
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #13

Which is something this list could do a bit more of. It's all philosophy and no technique. A little more sharing of technical detail would be far more instructive.

My recollection is that the list was established to facilitate philosophical discussion of astrology. I know that lists for more down-to-earth discussion do exist, though I personally have not subscribed to any for a long time due to the coarse bickering that tends to take over and poison most of the wells, so to speak. The lack of traffic here and repetition of the same general complaint about said lack of traffic may be due to there not being that many people who are willing, interested, or able to discuss astrology in the terms originally set by Fran for this list. This is just a guess on my part, however.

My observation has been that all astrology lists as well as public forums like alt.astrology, seem to devolve rapidly into flaming argument. Perhaps it is just the nature of the beast; astrology today is a smorgasboard of psychology, psychic ability (or lack thereof), fundamentalism of many stripes (sidereal vs. tropical, ancient vs. modern, Hindu vs. Western, etc.), amateurism, lack of fundamentals, a few bright geniuses who mostly don't participate online/in public since they are busy making cash elsewhere... well don't take this the wrong way, I'm not complaining just calling it as I see it. The profession, or rather, the craft, is such a grab-bag of styles, concepts, opinions, misinformation or ignorance, that finding common ground is very difficult. Squabbling over fundamentals seems endemic to many areas of study in our era and astrology is apparently no different.

A definite problem is the lack of any sort of codified astrological knowledge; because astrology is practiced in a very independent fashion by nearly all of its practitioners, and is practiced in so many forms, a high resistance to this sort of unified scholarship exists. Lack of serious interest from mainstream academia probably plays a role here but exactly how would be a lengthy discussion of its own. While astrologers can get a piece of paper from certain independent organizations such as NCGR, attesting to the fact that they can evidence a certain knowledge of a particular form of astrology, astrologers are in fact pretty far out to sea when it comes to standing as a group and saying, "this is what we know for certain."

To be completely Libran about it, this uncertainty is not a bad thing in the context of human insight; many a good intuitive/sensitive has been able to use astrology as a pretext to bring comfort, insight or understanding to others, and said persons might never pass a multiple choice test or be able to explain the difference between equatorial and ecliptic coordinate systems. So I am not an advocate of "astrology central", handing down dictates and excommunicating heathens.

Personally I would like to see some sort of collective or collaborative research organization arise, dedicated to a non-dogmatic examination of any and all astrological techniques. My feeling is that testing and training can be good things but the sympathetic art takes many years of application to truly master (with the exception of a few gifted geniuses one may occasionally encounter) and will remain a highly individual discipline, in my humble opine.

We don't have much choice but to be tolerant of our many different approaches, philosophies, etc.; my hope is as I stated above, that some collaborative scholarship, perhaps similar to Hindsight or that proposed by the Kepler College, will arise to take us into an era of greater understanding and greater agreement, which in turn might portend a wider acceptance of astrology and greater benefit to society in general from its application. I sound like Grant Lewi :)

__________sss k k y y w w eee a sss eee l __________ _________ss kk yy www ee aaa ss ee l _________ _______sss k k y w w eee a a sss eee llll________ duncan