Exegesis V5 Issue #11

Exegesis Volume 5 Issue #11

From: Andre Donnell
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #10

Exegesis Digest Wed, 15 Mar 2000

Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 09:58:03 +1300
From: Andre Donnell
To: Exegesis
Subject: Re: Exegesis Digest V5 #10

> I'm always reading with interest what Dennis and Bill post on the list,
> far most of value that what I can see elsewhere. Nevertheless it's a
> pity that there is no more participation and reactions from others.

True. Yet that seems to be the rhythm of this list, as has been wisely pointed out to me before. Rest assured there are many brilliant and competent minds here, and that they do "out" from time to time. I find this refreshing and culturally comfortable, compared to the frenetic pace of most lists.

For my own part, although I claim neither brilliance nor competence, I am - sadly - too busy to take part other than sparodically at present. I suspect that many here are similarly busy.

> I
> know, for instance, that the new vision of Houses I've posted here in
> Christmas seems terribly strange, and that astrologers take in
> consideration only that they have already read and recognized, even
> if you are giving good reasons.

I was in fact very interested to read your "new vision of Houses", because much the same thing occurred to me 20 years ago. At the same time I developed Placidus routines that generate cusps of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and so on. Essentially, my thinking was that the meanings of the 12 houses are a naturalistic representation of our activities (as diurnal creatures) according to the position of the sun throughout the day. Because this is a continuum, one can arbitrarily divide it in any way one pleases, much as other symbol systems such as I Ching, Tarot, Zodiac, and the Sabian Symbols arbitrarily (or variously, if not arbitrarily) divide human life. However, the choice of divisor carries with it probable *qualitative* differences: the 'first house' in an 8 house system is not likely to be merely the usual 1st house with a little of the 2nd house mixed in. This is akin to the way in which - it seems to me - the 22 major arkana cannot be directly mapped to the 64 hexagrams, and so on for the other symbol systems.

The first time I publicised this idea was on the panplanet list a year ago, to (initially) much the same reception as you received here, so I think I understand your feelings!

For example, I am wary of the exponential explosion of combinations (possible 'personality' types) that results in the birthchart each time a new planet is added to the chart. (For the mathematical, or anyone with a calculator, a sufficient approximation is [720/orb]^P, where orb is the average of one's preferred orbs and P is the number of planets. The resulting numbers are truly huge, and have several sobering implications). Hence, the idea of introducing multiple numbers of houses - let alone house systems - is not to be contemplated lightly. At least currently we all agree either that there are *12* houses, or we don't use houses at all.

More seriously if it is true, as I am inclined to think, that the houses and the zodiac can be derived as close descriptions of our solar experience (of the day and the year respectively), then what we may have is a testament to the astuteness of our ancestors as psychological observers of the (then) human condition. But unless we are possessed of some kind of 'species memory', or unless perhaps there is some subtle communication of our socially constructed experience of the day and the year to the newborn child, it does not suggest that either of these constructs have any validity with astrological bodies other than, perhaps, the Sun.