Signs & more

[Guest guest]

Hello Juan:

 

It is a real pleasure to read your posting.

 

I would like to share some personal experiences with the Group regarding

this topic, if I may (it is very near and dear to my heart). I have

been blessed to be able to study the Laws of Nature through two

different (but parallel) pathways. My involvements with astrology have

been a serious compliment to my research in the area of the healing

arts. But onto the nature of things . . .

 

Earlier, like many, I had my mind firmly planted in one opinion

concerning how my thoughts and actions interplayed with creation.

Having the benefit of being able to do manual muscle testing and the

other tools of AK (http://www.kinesiology.net/), has allowed me to

literally have dialog with my patients' nervous systems. This has

provided an immediate bypass of belief and opinion - as long as I can

remain neutral in the process.

 

What I have found is that there are structures which can be accessed

within the matrix of Nature. These structures exist in fact. However,

when one goes to access them, one finds they are instantly moving into a

communicative relationship framework with very finely articulated

interconnections and intra-connections. As with computer software

programs, if one wishes to access and query a certain area of logic, one

must hook into the entrance to that particular logic. As an example,

one may not ask a general question when seeking a specific answer. All

pathways are two way streets, so to speak. And as with normal

conversations, how we frame our questions to a large extent determines

how the answer is given to us. Further, the images and expectations we

hold in our minds and how we hold them, condition what we get back from

Nature.

 

I find that life is a massively complex structure of dichotomies. We

do not ask: Hot or cold? We understand that the structure of life gives

us both. In my experience, 'both' is the answer to most questions we

ask that we hope will come down to a single and comfortable answer. I

suspect that is the case here, where we naturally wish for the

comfortable " either/or " .

 

I hope this makes sense. We are running out the door on our way to

Argentina (and I am making us late) . . . Time To Tango.

 

Warmly, John

====================================================

 

Juan Revilla wrote:

>>I happen to believe that the universe is not a place with things in

it, but

>>consists of thought. It's a mind at work, and that mind is either the

>>mind of God, or the collective mind of

>>humanity, or maybe both. That's the only model which fits what I'm

>>finding. We

>>(collectively) may be assigning meanings to segments of the sky, and by

>>doing so, may actually be creating their effects.

>-----------

 

-----------------

>So (if I understand correctly) you're saying that it's our thoughts that

>have " created " what we observe to be signs of the zodiac? Our thoughts

have

>created sign polarity, the triplicities, etc?? If the earth had no human

>beings, those meanings wouldn't be there? Are you saying that the

thoughts

>of Alan Leo and Charles Carter were so powerful that the ecliptic itself

>responded by attaching meanings to the divisions of signs? (Because prior

>to that many of today's sign meanings didn't exist or at least we didn't

>know about them.)

 

It is not " the ecliptic itself " that attaches meaning to its parts.

" Meanings " are a human creation. The expression " we are creating the

effects " means that we are projecting these meanings on the reality we

perceive and mistakenly call them " effects " . These humanly created

meanings are a-priori conventions or assumptions that in practice work

as a classification system: the signs of the zodiac is a system of

categories, a mental grid that we superimpose on reality in order to

classify it and interpret it, i.e., they are a tool or aid used in the

mental process of establishing or creating meaning in the reality we

perceive. Astrologers do not deal with the possible effects of the

zodiac or of the stars on earth or on human nature, what they do is USE

the astrological code --consisting of a system of conventions-- as A

TOOL through which reality is classified, analyzed, and interpreted. The

" meanings " of the zodiacal signs are a simple convention, like the

categories of a language, they ere not out there in nature and are not

" an effect " , they are a human creation.

 

Juan

 

 

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

database 4970 (20100324) __________

 

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

>Earlier, like many, I had my mind firmly planted in one opinion concerning how

my thoughts and actions interplayed with creation. Having the benefit of being

able to do manual muscle testing and the other tools of AK, has allowed me to

literally have dialog with my patients' nervous systems. This has provided an

immediate bypass of belief and opinion - as long as I can remain neutral in the

process.

>What I have found is that there are structures which can be accessed within the

matrix of Nature. These structures exist in fact. However, when one goes to

access them, one finds they are instantly moving into a communicative

relationship framework with very finely articulated interconnections and

intra-connections.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking. What you say is very

similar to Goethe's " organic thinking " and Rudolf Steiner's " living thinking " . I

will tell you how I think Astrology fits into this.

 

I do believe, like you that any object of study or observation can be accessed

directly by this kind of dialogue, if one first re-educates oneself and learns

to listen to the thoughts that are coming to us from the object, instead of

throwing at the object our beliefs and opinions. The structures you mention are

living and dynamic, and you form your thoughts in response of your direct dialog

with them, i.e., these living structures are shaping your thoughts, they are

" telling you " , in their own language, an language that one never ceases to

learn.

 

But I don't think astrologers work that way. Astrological structures are

mathematical constructions that have a pre-assigned meaning, they are

aprioristic and abstract, and cannot be found in nature. For example: the zodiac

gives you 30 degrees of water next to 30 degrees of fire next to 30 degrees of

earth next to 30 degrees of air. Nothing like this exists in nature or in the

sky. In nature the elements are all found together in the same physical space.

This means that the zodiac and its meanings is very similar to a clock or a

calendar: they are spatial idealized abstractions (the hands of the clock, the

leafs of a calendar...), and we use them as a grid thanks to which we can look

at phenomena in an orderly, organized way, by separating reality into analytical

categories.

 

These categories are not the same as the living structures you see in you work.

These structures --I think-- appear in your mind as a result of direct

experience and observation, they are concrete, fluid, alive, always transforming

themselves, and they are found everywhere. The zodiacal signs, however, are an

analytical and semantic structure: they are used to de-construct reality and

reduce it to an easily handled number of components, by means of completely

artificial or arbitrary rules or protocols (sign rulerships, conventional

meanings, abstract unidimensional charts made of mathematical points called

" planets " , transits, etc.).

 

In Science this is known as a " model " . Models are maps: artificial, abstract,

mathematical, " heuristic " constructions that are useful tools to analyze,

interpret, and predict any type of reality or phenomenon. The clock and the

calendar are models. But these astrological structures can never be models of

" celestial influences " because it is not possible to make a model of what nobody

knows what it is or how it works, rather, astrological structures are something

of a far bigger scope: they are models useful to de-construct *any* reality to

which we decide to apply them, including the living structures that you have

learned to perceive, or celestial influences, but they are neither the

structures nor the influences themselves, like the hand of a clock is not the

plastic or metal of which it is made, but a model of the passage of time.

 

Juan