Exegesis V4 Issue 59

Exegesis Volume 4 Issue #59

From: Cynthia
Subject: Re: V4 #58 (Pogo-sticks and Horary)

Exegesis Digest Sat, 17 Jul 1999

Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:56:48 -0400
From: Cynthia
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: V4 #58 (Pogo-sticks and Horary)

> >
> >This is exacerbated by the cultural habit of separating the subject
> >from the object and exploring the latter in an illusory isolation. In
> >astrology this surfaces as the horoscope being seen as containing
> >information which is to be decoded and saying something literal about
> >the individual in isolation from any consideration of that
> >individual's context. But the context has its own dynamics, and they
> >are usually complicated and non-linear in nature. Whatever it is that
> >the horoscope represents is not imposed on the client, but finds its
> >form in emerging though the client-context 'complex'. And this happens
> >to include the astrologer.
> >>>Much like transference and counter-transference in psychotherapy, wouldn't you say, Bill?
> >Thus successful astrologers will be those who take into account,
> >consciously or otherwise, their understanding of contextual dynamics
> >(which includes a degree of innate unpredictability).
> >>>Everything human is unpredictable whence the notion of free will.
> >And so to a section at the end of Bill's message.
> >
> >>The tradition of horary seems to state that the question expresses the
> >>"nature of the moment" as defined astrologically, and would suggest that
> >>these matters also somehow conform to celestial configurations. What is not
> >>at all understood is how that might be.
> >
> >>If we are inherently sensitive to the celestial sphere, then so should our
> >>activities be, and therefore what questions we might ask. And that's the
> >>traditional explanation.
> >Horary astrology really does present conundrums for those interested
> >in exploring astrological modelling. It has been problematical for
> >millennia - Ptolemy didn't like it, as it didn't fit his astrological
> >theory. One of the interesting facts about horary practice is that it
> >is not the 'moment of birth' of the question which is necessarily
> >important. It is when the astrologer decides to take the question on
> >board and do the horary work. For example, when the letter arrives, or
> >the phone conversation is happening. The question is often born in the
> >querent's mind long before the time used for the horary chart.
> >
> >Unlike natal astrology, which following Ptolemy's lead, is based on
> >the time of birth (usually inaccurate, especially before the 17th
> >century, by which time astrology was in decline) with astrologer as
> >mere translator of the code, horary highlights the central role of the
> >astrologer in the astrological process.
> >>>...although, and I'm sure Ptolemy wouldn't mind, traditional horarists still privilege ptolemaic aspects when judging a horary chart. However, there is some research currently being done that seems to contradict certain other parts of ptolemaic horary tradition, such as dignity as interpreted by William Lilly, who revised Ptolemy's tables. I read Cornelius a few years ago and was impressed with how he put the astrologer back into the equation. But he was simply equalizing things, I believe, since modern astrology, following the lead of modernist thinking, had in fact swallowed the subject-object presumption whole as well as the pattern recognition of science in its relentless quest for legitimation, and stripped itself of any subjective traits, like intuition. Cornelius' argument centered, in my opinion, on the tyranny of temporally-bound thinking whence all other facets of Father Ptolemy.
> >Instead of the usual
> >separation, there is a highly significant interface between the
> >astrologer as subject and horoscope as object in the context of the
> >question at hand.
> >>>Bill T. wrote:
> >>I have just put forth a notion that may or may not have merit, but at least
> >>involves concepts generally thought to be relevant to the astrological
> >>effect. If there exists such an explanation that we can understand, and I
> >>guess we're assuming we can, then whatever supports genethliacal can be
> >>assumed to support horary as well.
> >I'm not so sure about this. Horary practice makes clear a divinatory
> >aspect to astrology which is at odds with some of the fundamental
> >tenets of conventional astrology (in particular the emphasis on exact
> >birth times and the notion of the objective astrologer). I'm not sure
> >that either can be reduced to each other without some radical
> >rethinking about astrology's nature.
> >>>Exactly so. I'm afraid the question I was asking Dale may not have been clearly expressed, and perhaps, Bill T., you were seeking similarities between genethliacal and horary where there are none, or at least too few to constitute an overall set of assumptions, much less an argument. In rereading my question to Dale, however, I think I may have been the one trying to fit an oak tree into a flowerpot, which was the complaint of my post about the borrowed discourses which Astrology is forced to feed into. Astrologer, heal thyself (looking at myself in mirror < smile/facial tic > ).
> >Anyone interested in this topic should try to get their hands on "The
> >Moment of Astrology" by Geoffrey Cornelius. It's currently out of
> >print, but it is a very provocative read, and in my opinion, an
> >important book. Expect to feel some cognitive dissonance while being
> >glued to the page.
> >>>Yes, absolutely. I entered Exegesis under the auspices of Cornelius' book (my first post, #32)), so I am glad to see someone else on the list broach his perspective again. In fact, it was Cornelius who provided (me, anyway) a discourse for horary astrology that celebrated, rather than disdained, its inherent difference from genethliacal, and posed questions that, as you say, "present conundrums for those interested in astrological modelling." It may be horary that harbours the answers we seek exclusively in genethliacal, rather than the other way round, or rather than looking to science. It seems that until we start regarding astrology as a rebus with the concomitant freedom to turn it in all directions, we will continually return to a linear, time-determined exegesis of its mechanisms that only stymies growth, leaving us jumping in place on a pogo-stick: lots of movement but no progress. The compulsive return of the repressed? Warm Regards, Cynthia
> >All the best,
> >
> >Bill Sheeran