"Hi, I'm Roger."
[ the enthusiastically supportive members of cherry pickers anonymous sing out in chorus ]
"Hello, Roger."
"And, I'm a Cherry Picker!" [ head held high, curiously flaunting an obvious heresy without shame. ]
--------------------
From Wikipedia (...eh, its faster):
[..]Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[..]
[..]Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.[..]
But more to the point, the acceptable form of cherry picking can be fundamental to any idea's *defense*:
[..]When a person is assigned to advocate a particular position, then cherry picking might be seen as entirely appropriate. For example, defense lawyers are free to present any evidence supporting the innocence of their client.[..]
"Pick not the rotten or unripe cherries, and claim that they are as fit as any cherry more *likely* to be picked. This indefensible act is but shameless sophistry." - Pedantus Pontificus
<....sorry. just couldn't leave the ol' frother sitting on some park bench.>
Horoscopic Expressionism, as with other forms of astrological communications, has a (currently fuzzy) type of grammar and vocabulary. It's task is to show, rather than merely 'tell,' how to find a more one to one relationship between natal charts and individual persons. It's strategy is to discover parallels of symbolism and a web of inter-symbol functions, which serve the purpose of exhibiting some representational symmetry, some mirroring of charts and persons.
People develop both strategies and various levels of tactical prowess operating within those strategies when confronted with the unavoidable challenge of being their own 'person' representative. In this case, representing oneself in terms being actively 'present'--a 'being there' quality as an entity in a given social realm--a recognized or at least, recognizable, individual (not a just role playing stereotype). Nothing short of one's very existence seems at stake . To fail at presenting/rendering oneself in symbolic ways, effectively, and then one's Individuality is understandably in question--it means nothing short of failing to be social being with acknowledged 'potential' (whomever may be the incidental beneficiary of that social currency).
What's worse, far too many very intelligent social circles still suffer from group-think and thus politically distorted beliefs about Individuality, or that it doesn't even exist! So, to examine how well some persons can present Individuality, from and astrological perspective ( specifically, not as Sun signs, etc.) I continue to suggest that, first, a person must be clearly be able to communicate some form of *specific* relatively singular behavior, and secondly, that astrology must show a more objective than subjective means of being equatable to that target instance of Self-expression....preferably in the form of a recognizable astrological expression--a certain pattern found almost exclusively in one's particular natal chart. As in algebra, both events ( one a specific behavior pattern, the other a more singular planet/aspect/sign/house identifier) should exist as terms that are equally comfortable residing on either side of the equal sign in an equation--it should work *both* ways. If natal chart patterns of planets in aspects (angles), signs, and houses cannot be at least partially deduced from the ('artistic'--creatively coded) expressions of Individuality, then no equation actually can be claimed to exist. (What a bummer, huh? )
I further suggest, that to reject this reciprocating theoretical relationship--to claim things don't work both ways, is to reject any physical reality as to whatever astrology may be altogether. There is no way to execute the hanging of natal astrology, separately, and not also suspect that all of its implications, like co-conspirators, will surely be hung together--their once pedestal-ed feet pathetically dangling in the wind for all time. No physical correlation between the two--Individuality and astrological chart signifier, means no existing astrology.
And, if one is firmly convinced that society creates the presence of Individualism by 'writing' on a persons presumed "blank slate" mind, in the first place, then one probably has no business even commenting on astrology's basic birth chart premise--that it indirectly signifies a hypothetical, particular, innate patterning of individuals occurring (somehow) at birth. This because one has to first at least concede that Individuality may actually exist! Horoscopic Expressionism, then, takes two controversial premises and puts them both to work at a mutually gratifying exercise. They can simply proceed to create each others 'presence' in a limited but more objective seeming manner. We here attempt to employ the powers inherent to art (arts in general) to partially (but significantly, I think ) promote a cooperative exhibitionism which allows two faint ideas to simply superimpose --one fuzzy mental image upon another makes symbiotic details pop out of the admitted incompleteness of both original mental 'images'.
The result is that, wherein these 'images' are found to be coincidentally occupying and sharing some theoretically identified points in mental space, we see that the effects of overlapping materials from each idea make the products of their sandwiched translucent layers a little more opaque--more observable. However, to be fair, some notions we expect to find because they are or were previously presumed to be observable--long standing traditions of associations (and cultural biases), may conversely become more transparent, so as to be 'clearly' not there at all. The latter case probaby threatens some widely popular traditions of astrological beliefs which may be found lacking any persistent art-based structure to support them. To explain, I suggest that not all revelations are testable, therefore not demonstrable hypotheses. These will of course suffer no demise in what is popularly known as astrology, but they will not be relevant to the more objective observational experiences of the more limited realm of Horoscopic Expressionism. So, one by-product of such research may be a status change for many a heart felt notion (if one actually enters the new paradigm, I mean). The more likely to be invalid astrological ideas (of which we all are certain only exist in 'other' people) may be seen to dissipate, and that is understandably a great fear of personal loss for many astrologers who cling to their individually operant perceptions by sheer force of religious-like convictions. (This, I'm certain is not something to put on a recruiting poster intended to promote Horoscopic Expressionism).
How to frame the actual experience of observing Horoscopic Expressionism, how comparison's can actually be accomplished, of course seems rather windy for single post to a newsgroup; so, to the annoyance of many, I promise that examples and explanatory notes ( these often only implied or only very roughly alluded to in past posts) will keep inundating you with words wrenched from the unfathomable machinery of a intermittently functional dyslectic.
Rog
http://pedantus.blogspot.com/
http://horoscopicexpressionism.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment