Exegesis V4 Issue #21

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #21

From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #19

Exegesis Digest Sat, 13 Mar 1999

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 10:43:54 -0500
From: "Roger L. Satterlee"
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #19

>
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:33:26 -0800
> From: "William D. Tallman"
> To: Exegesis
> Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V4 #18
> Message-ID:

< snip >
>
> So, intuition does obviously play an important part in astrological
> practice, but it is not a substitute for the technical aspects of
> astrological prediction. It does not establish the existence of what is
> potential (from the astrological point of view) but it does allow one to
> recognize what is already or is likely to become manifest. Intuition is an
> important aspect of astrological practice, but it is not primary. If it
> were, the practice would not be astrology. And it is astrology that we are
> attempting to investigate in this forum.
>
> Comments?
>
> wtallman
>
> ------------------------------

William, I don't have any idea what the formal definition of "intuition" is, but I considerate intuition not as being some extrasensory phenomenon--not some immeasurable, magical, outside influence like the supposed experience of "received" telepathic communications (whatever). I see intuition more as the binary-like operation of one's total "memory" (both individual and racial/genetic types of data stored in one's physical being--the result of both nature and experience). The fact that intuitive *thinking* occurs in a manner that is impossible to symbolize, I mean impossible to code like language, (for god only knows what my red blood cells or bone cells are *remembering* for me at any given moment) ...the fact that I cannot speak intelligently about that form of "knowing" does not mean that is does not exist. It is my contention that all are insights (or foresights) are but the resultant of our ability to simply "know" some things. The act of employing astrology to attempt a coding of this "knowing" is an *apparently better* method of tapping this accumulated information or nebulous impression which are like imageless thoughts with unique *flavors*--our store of impressions--our indescribable notions of recognizable patterns. This soul activity (for whatever should I call it) is the basis for any non-rational cogitation as far as I can imagine such things. I feel in my bones that the dullest of human beings *do astrology* without any astrology being present in there store of symbols. Why we get better results when predicting (if we actually do get better results than the average park bench wino/sage) when using these symbols is probably due to the experience factor...the organized activity allows a quicker translation of *intuition* to *cognition*. The other factor I suggest adds to an astrologers ability to predict is the emotionally based talent for exhibiting faith in our assessment of a situation. The ability to *believe* we know what we are talking about is enhanced by our appreciation of the orderliness or dependability of the solar system and its regulated ephemeral movements. However is true that I cannot see Leos walking down the street until I know the birthdays of the those persons...this is a fact...all else is a belief which is more like a religious belief than actual perception of identifying, significant details, and or the logical result well sorted categories of perceptual and cognitive experiences. The fact is that we have to accept that all subjective experience *is only accidentally or incidentally* objectively correct, and then so at unpredictable times. There is no fact based proof of anything else, an astrologer's beloved "mechanism" does not exist as a mechanism but as a supposed grouping of probabilities...it exists like the effects of genes exist...it operates the ways genes are said operate, I.e., more often no one gene is responsible for a given quality or trait...any behavior is so complex that it may require perhaps hundreds of genes to be tapped as *the mechanism*. That is as it is, and that is all right by me. I need only be honest with myself when being subjective in my judgment...to be *correct*, or *in the zone*, or "on target", etc, is merely a boost to my pragmatic designs on life...not proof that astrology itself has any observable, quantifiable, *parts*--whether these nouns (fill in the blank here with the whole of your favorite list) be theoretical or otherwise. What we call astrology is simply an advanced form of pigeon-body-English...:)