.

In the last post, I spoke at some length about process as a concept, and the idea that we could identify the existence of a process that served as a standard of reference for all others; we called this the Primary Process. I suggested that this concept is useful as the basis for an analytical general point of view, and showed some ways such usage might be effective. I observed that one could usefully suggest that it is the question of the existence of a Primary Process itself that underlies some of our current thinking about the state of the human condition and the nature of our universe (our environment).

I would point out that, as I've presented it, a Primary Process must possess archetypal attributes, as it is fundamentally conceptual in nature. The essential nature of a Primary Process is that it can serve as a standard against which all processes can be measured, and a frame of reference within which all processes can be oriented. This dual purpose mandates that these attributes be both conceptual and manifestation independent, and intrinsically related to and so expressive of manifestation in the macrocosm within which the orientation can take place. This may seem to be a trivial matter, but perhaps it is not; this dual, then, bears keeping in mind, I think.

These archetypes are fairly well understood, as they have been the subject of much discussion for millennia. Various attributes thereof are debated as to their relative place in the scheme of things, and the ways in which they can be conceived to relate to each other are long standing issues that have been addressed in one form or other of nearly every philosopher of note. I won't reinvent the wheel here, but it would seem that the context of usage within which archetypes are placed is itself a factor, such that may become one of the parametric attributes of archetypes in general.

We have defined a process as a describable complex of actions that have purpose. Before we go any further, it's probably appropriate to speak of this purpose. We are accustomed to assuming that the presence of purpose implies human involvement, and we do so on the basis of the idea that only aware, sentient beings can have (exhibit and/or recognize) purpose. I would suggest that this is a limiting usage.

I would argue that we as human beings are an integral part of our universe and do not exhibit any totally unique attribute, and so must expect to find general manifestation of any phenomena we, as a species, might exhibit. It can be argued that the primary intent of any action or judgment we might make is fundamentally oriented to promote our own survival in some manner, and thus are different from any other life form only in degree, but not in kind. It can be argued that this is an expression of the nature of life, and so not different from any action that occurs anywhere else in nature, or in the universe itself; any change that occurs is an expression of the nature of that which changes, especially as change occurs in response to outside influence is an expression of the vulnerable nature of that which is changed.

Thus, we see that purpose and intent is more a matter of recognition of the essential nature of complexes of activity: all action is a manifestation of change which produces a difference we can call a result, and purpose or intent can be conceived as expression of the result. At issue here is the concept of free will, that purpose and intent necessarily imply free will. It seems apparent that any such consideration must exist within the context of the nature of that which is assumed to have free will, that no action deemed to express free will can be other than that which expresses the fundamental nature of the actor. So we see that the issue of a special definition of purpose and/or intent as an expression of free will is limited thereby. At the level at which we consider the archetypal attributes of process, those are a specific rather than general issue.

Therefore, our view of a complex of actions for a purpose, at the archetypal level, is simply a recognition that the difference produced as a result of the changes wrought by said complex (process) is inherent in the process itself. As such, the intent or purpose that we ascribe to our own processes, is, at a fundamental level, inherent in the their nature. To describe or define an intent or purpose is to speak of a manifest, rather than an archetypal, process. At this point, then, we can simply recognize this attribute as intrinsic part of the nature of process itself, and we need not consider it further.

Having addressed the concept of purpose and intent, we can now focus on the dynamics of archetypal process. The first question we must ask is: what is it that we would seek to understand concerning any given process? This is a very important question, because it dictates how one should proceed in addressing the dimension of time. In general, the concerns here are first that of scale, and then of appropriate measure.

If the question is that of the effect of the process of interest (POI), we must seek to place it in the context in which it exists, and that means identifying the larger process of which it is a part; it is this larger process that will define the scale of interest, and with regard to the temporal metric will indicate what may be used to identify the measure appropriate to investigation of the process itself. In doing so, we must remember that the POI may or may not be primarily defined by the effect it has within the larger process, because it may also have an effect beyond that larger process as well. Accordingly, we cannot assume that the metric appropriate to the larger process is the only one relevant to the POI; indeed, there may be some number of others that are also useful, of which any of these may or may not reveal themselves as primary to the POI.

In general, we may begin by viewing the POI as a integral whole, and consider how it may be seen to be one of the complex of activities of the larger process. This allows one to identify processes other than the POI, such that might have a similar relationship to the larger process. Further, it may reveal its function in the larger process, as the POI is identified as being part of a specific complex within the larger process that is functionally defined. These directions of investigation serve to reveal the context of the POI as it is (or is not) a part of the intrinsic nature of the larger process. The result sought here is the identification of some iterative or cyclical aspect of the larger process that may appropriately provide a natural metric for the POI.

For example, let us identify the POI as an individual human being, such as ourselves. This is a special case, as I will point out, but it provides the most comprehensive and accessible means of understanding these issues, because they are part of our own experience. We can choose the species of which are a member as a larger context.

Other like processes are other people, and we can easily identify how groups of people become, as groups, intrinsic aspects of the species itself. We can see how these groups manifest as families, tribes, communities, nations, etc.. We can see that each of these groupings may or may not be a subset of a larger group and so may or may not partake of the identity thereof. We can discern that each of these groups possesses some functional or existential attribute which may provide the basis of a unique identity. All of these complexes can be identified as intrinsic aspects of the species itself. And all of these provide the context from which we can derive some description of ourselves, (here, the POI itself as a single entity). Indeed, we may observe that this context is necessary for a complete description of the POI; if this is so, then without it there is no possibility of a satisfactory definition thereof.

In this case, we can easily determine an appropriate temporal metric, one that is indigenous to both the POI and the larger context itself. That metric is the human lifetime. Although we are accustomed to defining this in terms of observable metrics of an even larger process (the solar system), that is not necessary to this particular POI. The measure, following the idea that the POI itself should suggest it, arises from its own nature. That means that we must choose the functional or existential attribute first.

This choice naturally emerges from the desire to understand some aspect of the POI as observed in its presence within the (a) larger context. For instance, we can look at the way that the presence of the POI directs change within a significantly larger process, such that the rate of the change is large relative to the human lifetime. One way is through the reproduction functions, where a succession of individuals drive change through the mechanism of their differences.

Within the context of the family or tribe, we might identify the appropriate function as that of child-bearing and so we might set the measure as that of generations. Within the context of the community or nation, we might identify this function as that of public involvement, and so set the measure in terms of public influence. These are different measures than that of the lifetime: one lifetime may see several generations, but only two more or less terms of public influence.

If the measure of the lifetime is chosen when the generational function is of interest, the measure will not directly address the subject of interest, and if this is not recognized, misleading results may easily be obtained, fostering misleading or invalid conclusions. An obvious example of this is the perennial failure to understand the dynamics of succeeding generations using the lifetime as the measure; generations have their own interactions, most of which have little to do with individual life experiences.

I mentioned that the choice of the self as the example of the POI is a special case, and it is because it can confuse the observed with the observer. Here, it is necessary to understand that the individual reader is a special manifestation of the archetypal POI, and so no subjective assumptions are implied as necessary thereto. Indeed, this is an excellent opportunity to discern the differences between how the general archetype and the specific manifestation are addressed: the discernment of these differences is a profound practicum, for the ability to do this in the general case makes so many things, especially the application of astrology, so much easier.

The conclusion of this line of thought is that there *is no* necessarily implied qualitative description of the temporal dimension. It is entirely dependent on what understanding is sought. Unless that is recognized and specified, the proper measure, indeed, even the proper metric, cannot be established. The assumption that there is a standard Primary Process that effectively provides context to everything is thus invalid, and the notion that a standard absolute measure can be dependably useful is baseless.

We addressed and disposed of an attribute (purpose) that is commonly assumed to be of primary importance, and now we have addressed an attribute that is commonly assumed to be a constant, and we have shown that it is indeed only a variable. We see, then, that the assumptions that a set of equations expressing the usefulness of that constant are generally useless, for their use leads to misleading results. Such equations, in this case, might be: General individual effects within the environment (gie) are all a function of the entire individual lifetime (eil), expressed as "gie = f(eil)". False. "gie != f(eil)". The reader is entitled to decide that the immediate foregoing is a lot of folderol, and I agree. What I am saying is that there is no rigorous way of demonstrating that a qualitative temporal description can be assumed as a constant, and therefor relevant in all cases.

This leads us to make the following assertion as a conditional axiom upon which an astrological theory may be built: There is no necessary Primary Process, and so no necessarily implied temporal metric or measure. For astrology, we can derive the statement that there is no implicitly correct or valid astrological system (temporal metric and measure). That means that one cannot determine that there is a solution to the tropical/sidereal debate, to the clash of House systems, etc., etc., etc.. In order to determine whether or not a particular system, with its metric and measures, is or is not appropriate, the object of interest must be first identified and adequately described.

What is implied here is that there is no such thing as the ability to read from any given astrological technique any insight of dependably general application. This tosses Sun Sign astrology in the trashheap, at least as an intrinsically valid practice in itself. This tosses transit patterns as a means of generating inclusive insights in the same trashheap. I leave the reader to determine what other astrological practices are relegated there as well. In short, it is not theoretically possible to cast a horoscope and make general case pronouncements. Which implies that where and when that appears to succeed, we can suspect that there are other mechanisms at work.

I think my line of reasoning here is fairly solid, and I daresay that the conclusions seem to be supported by the evidence at hand. If this has any validity at all, then the statement I proposed above should bear consideration as part of the theoretical base of astrology.

The question is, then: if there are no qualitative constants applicable to the temporal dimension of process, are there any quantitative constants? I propose that the answer is yes, and will address this in the next of this series of posts.

Comments?

wtallman