Exegesis V4 Issue #1

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #1

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #72

From: "Mark A. Melton"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #72

Exegesis Digest Mon, 04 Jan 1999

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:24:52 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #72

> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:39:29 -0800
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #70
> Message-ID:
> < snip >
>

>
> The astrologer that asserts the exclusive existence of the subjective
> astrological experience assumes that the direct mode is the only mode of
> play. The astrologer that asserts the exclusive existence of astrology as
> an objective phenomenon assumes that the indirect mode is the only mode of
> play. I assert there are both modes.
>
> Thus we can discuss astrology as we do, in the *indirect* mode, and Rog can
> assert the existence of astrology as an internal experience (in the *direct*
> mode) and we can all be correct. Both views are valid and complementary.
> But this is just sophistry!!
>
> We can perhaps be most usefully explicit here by saying that if astrology
> reflects a real objective phenomenon linking celestial and terrestrial
> realms, then as we are part of the terrestrial realm, *and* consciously
> aware of that fact, we must reasonably expect that the phenomenon astrology
> addresses is a part of our awareness. Of course we are involved! We are
> here on the ground and as subject to the phenomenon as anything else; and if
> we were not capable of being directly aware of that phenomenon, it would not
> speak highly of our vaunted capacity for consciousness, would it?
>
> The problem with Rog's stance is that it denies the possibility of a direct
> action without human involvement. I think that is a dangerous stance, in
> that there are plenty of "astrological effects" that can be cited, all
> having no human involvement.
>
> Finally, if it is *only* astrology that Rog is talking about, then it must
> be stipulated that he is correct by definition, because astrology is a human
> invention, and is only meaningful to the inventors. The effect that it
> mirrors and astrology are not the same thing, and it is the effect (I think)
> he is referencing.
> < snip >
>
> wtallman
>

William, Thanks, for the lucid, and fair, treatment of my perspective...what a gift you have for clarity and stamina...:) The *objective* component of astrological phenomena--the "indirect mode of play" as you put it, I have simply come to call "Nature" (meaning all the activities of the living cosmos). Because I am not omniscient, I suspect it is much too complicated an interweaving of *causes*, whatever, for me to properly objectify...too much to label and try to control for as in statistically defined separation of what-goes-with-what. My personal quest seems to have been a matter of finding a *direct mode* of involvement which is inclusive and not exclusive of others--and this out of sheer necessity, a means to some sense of well being that is least dependent on something arbitrarily contrived. I have always sought a perspective that is capable of tolerance, capable of moving in and out of another's symbolically organized experience and not simply being a cold, lonely, indirectly involved, outsider. I am an intrusive soul I guess but the aim here was to acquire an almost practical *appreciation* of individuals--a more direct experience of the person who is both facilitated and (as well) handicapped by the medium of his/her persona. I cannot be attracted to the distraction of *objective* astrology--this use of words does seem to be an oxymoron, but only incidentally so like "jumbo shrimp". Objective astrology is only the persona of astrology...the soul of the thing is a nameless participant in nature. Objective astrology refined to the nth degree would still be like the well defined details of mythical Olympus, which helps us to identify/organize its assembly of gods, whatever. Perhaps unfortunately for the astrological mechanists, the most objective form of astrological research will always involve the *guess my sun sign* type of challenge. Astrology's strongest expression is that of the natal chart as a kind of symbolic representation of the individual person. I believe that an appreciation of a more global version of astrological *events* is by comparison the absolute weakest form of astrology--the least likely to yield useful applications of charts. A person, however, is like the universe reduced to something almost conceivable--an existence we may experience both indirectly and sometimes very directly..."in the image of god" makes sense, to me, in this way. If astrology ever finds itself in the classroom of universities again, it will do so by this more literary, philosophical, psychological, perhaps religious, but in essence the human artistic approach--the connecting of the intuitively informed unconscious and the groping willed intellect...and rightly so, for it has always been exactly that...:)

Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 20:43:29 -0800
From: "Mark A. Melton"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #72

Metalog wrote:
>
> Exegesis Digest Mon, 21 Dec 1998 Volume 3 Issue 72
>
> Contents
>
> -----e-----
>
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #70
>
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #71
> We can perhaps be most usefully explicit here by saying that if astrology
> reflects a real objective phenomenon linking celestial and terrestrial
> realms, then as we are part of the terrestrial realm, *and* consciously
> aware of that fact, we must reasonably expect that the phenomenon astrology
> addresses is a part of our awareness. ....
> Well, in the first place I thought, demonstrate convincingly that there
> _is_ something to be investigated, so as to command the resources and
> efforts of the scientific world at large. So here I _do_ see a political
> end to direct investigation of astrology - hence my opening hmmm (!).
>
>
> What I have seen,
> though, seems to have holes big enough to fly airplanes through < grin > and
> I'm not a statistician. There are, however, on this list those who are, and
> I would heartily recommend a substantial critique done by the current peer
> group whose competency this work involves. Perhaps this should be done off
> list and the findings presented here, but maybe not. Maybe it should be
> done here and noted as such. Perhaps the list owner could suggest how this
> might be done if such a discussion develops. ...
> In addition, I recommend heartily the work done by Operation Hindsight in
> the effort to produce definitive translations of all the extant astrological
> texts of the past. This is what is needed to make it possible to do real
> scholarly research in astrology, and only that level of seriousness will be
> taken seriously by the other academically supported disciplines, I think. I
> will say this again, and again....
>
> wtallman
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V3 #71
> Message-ID:
>
> Hello all,
>
> Mark Melton says:
>
> Not so fast! I suspect that no two astrologers use the same subset of
> astrological methods or axioms. We cannot even agree on what astrology
> is all about. In 1973 I attended a lecture in San Francisco at which M.
> Gauquelin stated as emphatically as could be stated, that his work did
> not confirm astrology. To me, at the time, and to this day, I am not
> sure exactly what he meant. His "Mars Effect" is plainly stated in
> Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos so should be considered an axiom of traditional
> astrology, I should think, that has been confirmed (N.B. NOT "proven!").
>
> I can confirm your suspicions from my own experience right here on this
> list! Gauquelin was, even by that time, being hounded for his work, and it
> seems to me I recall that he was really trying to regain his professional
> reputation. He suicided in the 80's ('86?) because a) he had lost it all,
> b) he was about to be exposed as having padded his work... either/or?
> both/and? Don't know.

> Was it clear to you that he was that familiar with Ptolemy? I don't recall
> that he ever mentioned this in any of his work, and if he didn't know the
> Ptolemy citation then he would have no reason to claim any confirmation.

I have not read more than a small selection of Gauquelin's published works, and heard him speak at two conferences, both in the early 70s. He never mentioned Ptolomy's work at, so far as I can remember. He (M. G.) was supposed to be an academic and scholar, and certainly should have been aware of his antecedants. He missed making a big point, in my opinion. M.M.

> As far as proof... proof is only relevant to logic and mathematics. In any
> other discipline, one can claim a demonstration of necessity and sufficiency
> at present, or the conclusion based on all available information, or
> demonstration of principle, or such things, but never proof. Proof is only
> relevant within a closed and defined system, and the universe is no such
> thing.

Yes. Proof or demonstration is the correct term in mathematics and logic. A scientific theory cannot be proved by observation --it can only be verified by confirmed observations that are consistent with deduced consequents. Proof is not applicable because there are *always* alternative hypotheses that are also verified by any set of observations. Of course, a scientific theory can so metimes be deduced from a more fundamental theory -- the classic example is the reduction of a theory to an example of Newton's laws --the reductionist approach. This does not work in my field, geology, because we deal with patterns --outcrop patterns, field relations, cross-cutting relations, and so on-- and a pattern has no reality in Newton physics. I suspect the same holds in astrology. M.M.

> The last time I had any contact with Dale Huckeby he was almost as
> adamant that the MC was less valid as an abstract point than the
> nonagesimal. We should be capable of settling such issues by
> statistical methods.
>
> Okay, I will accept your contention. But I'll wait to see that translated
> into successful achievement.

I've thought about this point some more. I would have to define what it is we are trying to decide, and I'm not sure what that is. Is the progressed MC (I use Solar arc, but that too is a specification that needs to be tested) correlated with events that the Progressed Nonagesimal (always 90 d. behind the Progressed Ascendant) is not? Or does the Progressed Nonagesimal validly signify things different from the Progressed MC --they do not usually progress at the same rate. Without specifying questions like these, statistical tests cannot give you anything useful.. You have to ask the right damned question! (pardon my French). M.M.
>
> It would be very valuable for you to hold forth here on this subject, I
> think, so we could get a basic sense of what is worth looking at and what is
> not, for it is quite likely that, if not us, it might well be someone of the
> rather large subscription base of this list who will take on these sorts of
> tasks.

I think we must be much more specific, and modest, in our expectations of how to verify or confirm or validate .... astrological phenomena. Here are a few examples: 1. The sun comes and most people get up and go to work, or at least become more active, and eat something for nourishment. This is a common astronomical phenomenon and an almost universal response. Is it astrology? Well, I have lived for a time with the Eskimos (now the Inuit) and their daily rhythyms are more related to the actual sun-time than mine was. At 2:00 a.m. one morning in late June, they were out playing baseball while I was trying to sleep. Just a question. :-)

2. Remember the bloody clams in Kansas? they open their valves in time with the tides as if there were an ocean in Kansas. Has this been re-confirmed? Is it a fact, or merely a chance observation? If it is a fact, is it an example of astrology?

3. It takes a fairly consistent fraction of a 30-year cycle to initiate the training for a career, build experience and get the credentials, then work for success. This seems to fit in the Saturn cycle. Is this just a coincidence, or is there some genuine effect of Saturn such that, if one initiates the building of a career at the wrong point, failure is fore-ordained. Can you find an astrological effect in this? Is it really true that persons with Saturn in the 7th House fit this cycle better than those with Saturn in the 1st House (see Grant Lewi, Astrol. for the Millions). With our modern, more flexible educational system, does it matter less now than it did in 1930 when the educational system was much more rigid?

I don't want to belabor the question: I still think we have not made it clear just what sort of correlation with astronomical phenomena we would consider a manifestation of astrology. And until we have done that, we cannot test the purely observational regularities to see which ones need explaining. This was already discussed in the preceeding mailing but I think the conclusion needs more work. M.M.