OK!  More like a major league rant -

I've been mulling the responses Sedona got when she posted that link to the astrology page lat Tuesday and the more I think about it the bothered I become

I am always surprised that so many people have such a strong need to be negative.  They find the simple statement that, “I don’t like [whatever],” insufficient and feel obliged tell us, “you shouldn’t either.”  This is particularly stunning when such statement come from people who partake of an activity that most others consider both illegal and immoral.

Case in point: Sedona, who happens to be a one of the sweetest, smartest posters on this board, offered to share something she finds useful and important in her life.   Most of the respondents had fun with it.  There were however two nay sayers on this topic who felt it not only necessary to make sure we knew they believe astrology is neither useful or important to them, but went on to make sure we knew by direct statement, implication and inference that they thought those of us who do (considering my handle, I think you can figure out my opinion) are at best foolish and at worst guilty of enticing others down a slippery slope to ruin.

I know from a PM that Sedona was a little taken aback by their responses, and if I read between the lines of her missive, a little hurt.   I’m sure she would have responded to them directly, but (at least at this writing) our two curmudgeons were the only respondents to use aliases . . . hmmm).  In fact I’d prefer to send this post to them privately, but I can’t.

I wouldn’t give a big frosty crank whether someone does or doesn’t believe in things like astrology.  I do care when people sneer at other peoples beliefs, particularly when they clearly know nothing of about the topic in question.  

I’m not going to try to convince anyone that astrology is valid.  Like anything, it comes down to paradigm and belief.   I believe things like astrology and tarot have meaning.  Other people believe that a book written almost 100 years after the fact; by people who weren’t there; in a language the didn’t learn until they were adults (and wrote poorly) is the word of the divine.  Go figure.  

But there are some other issues I see in AnotherView and YellowLedBetter’s writings that bother me enough to require comment.

I will agree with both AnotherView and YellowLedBetter that much of what people are exposed to that calls itself astrology is pretty general and borders on being “smoke and mirrors.  The one line blurbs most of us read in the newspaper every morning are just about as useful and accurate as the one line stock prognostications we read in the same papers.  I have this intuition that if Sedona was touting some stock analysts page neither of our friends would have said squat.  

While I can’t pull any direct statistics out of the air, I’m fairly sure that more people have lost more money and had more ruination enter their life by making decision based on something a financial analyst’s wrote or said than have ever lost by reading astrological articles.  

When’s the last time an astrologer was thrown in jail for destroying the pensions of 1000’s of people.  

When is the last time some one walked into an astrology salon (as opposed to a day trading office) and started shooting people because they’d lost everything the own.  

Yet no one rails against the evil’s of following stock analysts advice.  

AotherVew says “. . . all too often folks take this stuff seriously”.  He/she implies that taking [astrology] seriously is foolish or stupid and infers that we are too dumb to make up our own minds and run our own lives with out his/her guidance.  There is also the inference that Sedona, by presenting this information on the board is furthering the perpetration this fraud on our poor weak minds.  Thanks but no thanks AV.  I’m quite capable of taking care of myself and so far am doing a rather nice job of it without your help.

YellowLedBetter’s comments have the same holier than thou bent but also expose how little he/she knows about astrology. The statement that “[astrology] does not take into account the fact that stars shift in the sky just like the planets.,” is proof incontrovertible.   What the heck does he/she think the Houses of the Zodiac are?  The fact that he/she sees “Stars” and Planets” as being metaphysically different shows a basic confusion between astrology and astronomy.  

As far as astrology being  “ . . . not a valid science”.  I wouldn’t go around being so proud of valid science.  Valid scientist have told us things like: The world is flat.  There is a thing called ether that is the basic medium through which light travels (Even Einstein toyed with that one); manned flight is impossible;  Nuclear energy is a “Clean” energy source.  Cigarettes don’t kill people and aren’t addictive; Scientists decried the theory of evolution.  Until as recently as the 1960’s many physicists still thought general relativity was fantasy.

Also, I’d spend some time reading recent discoveries in the field of quantum physics and super-sting theory (also referred to as TOE or Theory of Everything) before I made such a bold statement about valid science.  The more “scientist” learn about the interaction of consciousness and quantum particles the more those same “scientists” start wondering if there isn’t something to metaphysics after all.  Some tidbits.

- There seem to be at least 10, maybe as many as 13 dimensions to space-time of which we only seem to perceive 4.   Until less than 80 years ago no one knew that things like the Weak force and the Strong force existed. More recently everyone thought that gravity was an actual attractive forces, rather than the apparent effect of matter on the shape of space time.  Who knows, in 60 years scientists might find that “metaphysical phenomena are real and the result of interactions some where down inside the other 6-9 dimensions.  They might find that they don't seem to conform to what we perceive as clear causality because like 2-dimensional Flatlanders in a 3-dimensional space, we just can't see the whole picture.

- Recent experiments have shown that causality as quantified by the effect of a conscious observation of a particular characteristic of a sub atomic particle, DOES travel faster than the speed of light. (see Chapter 11 of THE WHOLE SHEBANG by Timothy Ferris – also check out THE ELEGENAT UNIVESRE by Brian Green).  If the effect of thought can travel faster than the speed of light, who's to say magick (sic) doesn't really exist.

My point is that close mindedness is bad.  And forcing it on other people no matter how noble your intentions are, is pretentious and rude.

But then that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

there was a time, in our evolution, when banging rocks together and howling at the moon were deemed "meaningful" activities (to bring back the dead, appease angry gods, make rain, bless crops, etc)

these practices were abandoned ... why? cuz we grew as a species as our minds expanded with (real) knowledge, which then supplanted superstition

if you want to insert superstition back into YOUR life i suppose you're free to, be my guest ... i'd rather not

*

i'm reminded of Carl Sagan, who bemoaned the fact that every newspaper on the planet has a daily section devoted to Astrology (which is of no use to any intelligent person IMHO) ... yet NONE of these same papers has even a column on Astronomy (or Astrophysics) which is (potentially) of immense value to us as a species ... it may not be what the average person needs to plan their day but certainly knowing it can not be said to be a complete waste of time!

but then Carl died of "Cancer" ... on such and such day, when Uranus was in the House of Aquarius and i'm sure some astrologer somewhere will make something of it (to prove him wrong) and make a buck in the process

Well, if you analyze the data you'll see that the "science of astrology" makes perfect sense as long as the Earth is the center of the solar system and in fact the universe.

But having said that .. what kind of answer would you expect from an Aries?

I have decided that the Universe as we know it is in reality some higher being's high school biology experiment .. didn't receive a very good grade ... and the coming Armageddon will be the thunderous sound of a cosmic toilet flush.

But having said that .. what kind of answer would you expect from a Pig?

...yeah but there is still a point well made...financial analysts risk more than a belief system when they fumble millions of retirement dollars on shabby analyses that all but admit that the stock market is subject to unmeasurable variables such as the 'mood' of investors...and then there is the question of marching off to war due to evidence of WMDs with less validity than whose house Aries is in and whether Gemini is ascending---perhaps Nancy Reagan would take over Rumsfield's position!  OK, let's not go there, but I don't believe in astrology, but its strange that most people I am attracted to (who are intelligent, articulate and wonderful) do believe in it or at least read these columns regularly...sort of cosmic isn't it?

OK, I gotta respond....

First off, it was never my intention to be negative or hurtful.  If I did, then I apologize.  The purpose of my response was to be informative on a topic that so many people are confused on.  

Your paragraph that rebuts astrology not being a valid science actually proved my point to be correct.  I stated that a valid science changes in the face of new evidence.  Yes, at one time valid science believed the world to be flat, manned flight is impossible, nuclear energy is clean, but do they anymore ??  No, because new evidence proved them wrong and they re-wrote the history books.  Astrology has not changed in over 2000 years despite countless new discoveries in the stars and planets.  That's what I call close mindedness.

And your comparison of astrologers to stock analysts is not a good one.  Stock analysts look at facts to make their decision.  Yes, it's inexact,  but one that is based on hard facts.  The ones who have destroyed the pensions were the ones who committed fraud and illegal acts.  I would never defend those people.  They deserve to go to jail.

Believing in pseudo sciences can, in extreme cases, be very harmful.  Andy Kaufman sought treatment for his cancer from a witch doctor because he didn't want to go to a medical doctor, and he wound up paying with his life.  Yeah, I know, that's not what astrologers do.  No problem.  But I hope my point gets across.

I'm not trying to "force close mindedness" on anybody else.  I think you and Sedona just read into my message a little too much.

Fell free to fire away.

The way I understand it, two posters made disparaging comments about Sedona's (who I agree is one of the more intelligent and sweet posters on this board) astrology linked post and now you feel the need to label them close minded. That seems like and argument that defeats itself.

Your points of scientific fallacy and advancement of knowledge are quite on point though. However, they illustrate why a large number of people view astrology as mummery and psuedoscience. Science is about a continuous interogation of the universe to approximate truth as closely as possible. Thats why we don't still view the world as flat, and now recognize that it appears much more likely that gravity has a spacetime warping effect rather than an attractive force. The act of observation and experimentation to corroborate or invalidate theory is a conerstone of science, but absent from astrology.

So, it may be that in the future scientists will discover that metaphysics has causal effects in our universe, however, even this discovery will not make up for the fact that astrology was invented hundreds or thousands of years ago yet hasn't been tested in any kind of objective inquiry and has failed to change at all since its inception. This means that astrology has the very same chance of closely apporoximating truth as the proverbial needle in the haystack. Thus, it would hardly be considered 'close minded' by normal standards to be skeptical of its validity or to state said skepticism.

Evolution?

5000 years ago Hammurabi's Code provided for medical assistance to the poor and judicial redress for those oppressed by wealthy businessmen in the community.  Those were the same people who "banged rocks together" and worshipped several deities in ziggurats, which by the way were masterpieces of architectural design.  Prostitutes were given a position of honor in many places in the ancient world as a part of the religious worship.  Justice was more than a byword that politicans argued about -- it was a concept that people lived by.  Most ancient peoples believed in a direct link between all things that exist, that all things came from a similar source.  Maybe this is a stretch for you, but it sounds like the origins of the TOE to me.  The ancient Mayans designed one of the most intricate and accurate lunar calendars ever devised by man -- one using complex algorythms and high level linear algebra -- through an intricate study of the night sky.  They also believed in astrology.  

My point in writing this is not to support or not support the claims made by astrologists.  My point is to say that the concept of human evolution is bogus.  From the very earliest recorded human writings, from the very earliest settlements archaeologists have found, humanity has shown the same tendencies -- those being for good and for bad, for superstition and for science, for love and for hate, and for everything in between.  Our species has not changed much over the entire recorded history of our race.  We fight bloody wars for petty reasons like we always have.  We design and invent marvelous machines and engineer incredible solutions to complex problems like we always have.  Those in power do everything they can to keep it.  Those who are not in power either shrug their shoulders or pick up a gun.  Even in those ancient times there were people who decried the superstition and religiosity of their culture and others who lamented that same culture becoming too secular.  Think Jerry Falwell vs. the ACLU, and you see that things haven't changed much.  Then there are the millions of intelligent people in the middle who don't see a conflict: nuclear engineers who go to church on Sunday, orthodox Jews who are on the cutting edge of modern medicine, and Wiccans who are teaching earth science at the local college.  

This is not to say that there has not been progress technologically speaking, it is just to say that as a species we are not that different from those who "banged rocks together."  In fact in many parts of the world you would be hard pressed to see any difference at all between the current inhabitants and those who lived thousands of years ago.  

I question too your assessment of some knowledge as "real" -- this seems to me to be arrogance in the extreme.  In order to "know" that all metaphysical concepts were false, that is "unreal" knowledge, one would have to be omniscient ... a quality most reserve for deity, which I am assuming you do not believe in considering the overall nature of your post.  That may be a bad assumption on my part, and if so I apologize.  

In short, I will believe that our species has evolved when I see all people doing exactly what rjagoodwitch is suggesting: respect the beliefs of others and learn to incorporate all types of knowledge into one's understanding of the universe.

but what bothers me about astrology is the same thing that bothers me about most religions (particularly christian based ones) ... You are not the center of the universe.

Of course the heavens effect the earth (and vice-versa I suppose) but to think that there is some meaning in the heavens for you personally is a bit vain to me.  What makes man so special ?????

Perhaps the heavens are singing to the dolphins or the plants.  And here you are thinking the song is about you.

23 December 2012


Keep Dancing Everybody!                

As apposed to clapping our hands and singing choral songs?  

(wink)

Kidding aside, I think I made my points poorly (possibly due to the fact that I was enjoying the rambling nature of my rant too much) which were two-fold:

1) The need to belittle another person's belief system with pejorative phrases and words like "superstitious", "smoke and mirrors" as well as implications and inferences that persons holding those beliefs are foolish or stupid, goes beyond the needs of respectful discourse.  

2) That because one believes one's own personal paradigm is superior, there is a need to save those other poor fools from themselves.

This is particularly disappointing to me that these two behaviors be found in a context where the very reason we congregate here is because we choose a lifestyle subject to the same types of prejudicial reactions and misplaced efforts of redemption.   To me there is not much difference in my being told that my belief in astrology is superstitious and someone telling any one of us that our participation in this hobby is " immoral" or even "evil"; between the inference that because I choose this belief I am mismanaging my life and because I choose this lifestyle I am a bad person who must be punished or saved.  

An alternative interpretation of this is that since 2012 is also the astrological date of the ending of the Age of Capricorn and the beginning of the Age of Aquarius that it is simply the ending to one world system and the beginning of a new world system.

or

they just got tired of carving stones and quit.

I'm pretty sure I never used the words "science of astrology" and I'm pretty sure that I was careful to always refer to it as a belief system.

but;

According to both special and general relativity, any observer at any point in the universe IS for all intends and purposes at the center of their personal universe.

I do find the cosmic high school experiment idea appealing though  I tend to be more of a Hindu, "We're all floating around on the back of a turtle" type.  

Actually there is no reason both couldn't be true, which leads one to ponder, is the Lab on the back of the turtle or is the turtle floating in the test tube in the lab.

I'm probably not going to sleep much tonight mulling that one over.

I have no problem admitting that I read more into your response than was intended and that some of my response was due to the fact that I constantly have people lining up to save me from myself, not just because I believe in Astrology.  Because of my choice to follow a particular spiritual path I am continually bombarded by much worse accusations up to including the worship of a devil I don't even recognize as existing.

Sorry.

That being said:

1) Again I reiterate: I  haven't called astrology science.  I have referred to is as a belief system.  If this isn't true, I apologize for misspeaking/writing

2) "Astrology has not changed in over 2000 [actually astrology is over 5000 years old, but who's counting] years despite countless new discoveries in the stars and planets."  

This is absolutely wrong.  

Astrology HAS changed dramatically over the years precisely because of the discovery of new planets, asteroids and such.  In fact , like most other belief systems there is even a schism between the traditionalist and the modernist.

As far as the cancer thing.  

First, every holistic healer or "witchdoctor"  (we prefer to call them Shamanic Healers)  I know of, and I know quite a few, always tells every client that their services are not to be considered a substitute for approved medical treatments.  It is against the cannon of ethics of healers of this type to do otherwise.  

Second, I'm less enamored with the wonders of modern medicine in this instance than others.  My best friend died of cancer in 1997.  At the time of his death he was pumped so full of noxious chemicals that I'm not sure which caused him more suffering, the cancer or the side effects of all that Modern Science.  

And I apologize for being unclear.

Perhaps close minded was a poor choice of words, My concern wasn't with the fact that there was disagreement but that the disagreement was, as you put disparaging.   One does not need to disparage an opposing opinion to disagree with it.

I do take issue with your statement that, "This means that astrology has the very same chance of closely approximating truth as the proverbial needle in the haystack."   It seems inherently egocentric.    I think what you really mean is,  "From my paradigm of how the universe works, ... "  

Obviously I disagree or I wouldn't be arguing the counter point so vociferously.   By making such a general statement you infer that your truth is the only truth.

You're right there is no objective proof that astrology is "valid"  For me it is a matter of faith.   Matters of faith are inherently neither provable or disprovable.

For me, trying to prove the validity of things like astrology is like judging the quality of marshmallows by seeing how many you can shoot through a 2 inch steel plate.   The ability to penetrate steel is not a characteristic applicable to marshmallows.   The ability to be scientifically verifiable is not a characteristic applicable to my take on astrology.

I believe in Astrology and use it in my life, a life with which I am thoroughly satisfied.

You don't believe in Astrology and  don't use it in your life, a life with which you are thoroughly satisfied.

I don't need to convert you to my way of thinking.  If I've given anyone that impression, I am again guilty of being unclear

I just don't get why it seems so important for you (meant in the group sense) to convert me.

Actually if that were true there would be only one astrological forcasrt and  it would have your name on it.   (grin)

In my studies on the subject  I don't get that man is "so special" but rather that man is part of a greater system  affected by it and having effect upon it and not something standing outside the whole thhing untouched and untouchable.

Thank you all for the stimulating conversation.  I didn't quite mean to become the spokesperson for all things metaphysical, but ...

How about we all go back to talking about SEX!

Your argument that the constancy and consistency of human  endeavors and values over the last five years is evidence against the theory of evolution demonstrates that you don't have a firm grasp of the details of said theory.

According to the theory of evolution as originated with Charles Darwin and expounded upon, expanded and observed by countless others, human beings and every other living creature on earth evolved over a period of about two billion years into the species we see today. Homo sapiens, humans, first appeared perhaps as far back as two hundred thousand years ago and at least fifty thousand years ago.

So, to state that the character of humans five thousand years ago in many respects mirrors the character of humans today is not a statement for or against the theory of evolution. This is because, according to the theory, those were Homo Sapiens five thousand years ago just as we are today and thus should display similar character and intellect.

i've actually held this view and fostered it lovingly for years ... every new encounter with an astrology-believer only serves to reinforce its validity (in my mind)

*

is it any wonder that the people who believe in Astrology tend to share two other common characteristics (or so it seems in this humble observer's experience):

they also believe in God(s) ... and they are predominantly women

THINK it thru ... before you respond with a knee-jerk reaction!

--

Hint: it has to do with the "instinct" and/or faculty for logical thinking (or lack of it)

-- Modified on 11/7/2003 8:08:27 AM

Your right!

I do believe in the Divine.

I do tend to approach the world in a more intuitive fashion.

I am not female but I'll accept the inferred compliment along with the other two.

BTW if anybody's knees are jerking around here  ... Do not be the first person to cast knee jerks lest thou kick out thine own teeth . . . OK. I probably didn't get that quote exactly right, but close enough.

it comes from "astrologos" (ancient Greek) which literally translated means "discourse on stars"  ... the "logy/logical" in words like biology, psychology, pharmacology, etc  simply means a study or discourse on the root topic

*

and NOSC my dear, i stand by my own personal experience (its subjectivity being bend-over-backwardsly emphasized in my post above) that FAR GREATER number of women believe in Astrology than men and i doubt if it has anything to do with "shame" in admitting it ... more likely it has to do with that distinguishing faculty i was alluding to that prevents men from getting involved in it in the first place  

additional reasons for this topic's pronounced gender bias are best summarized by a book by a hack writer, motivational speaker, pseudo-scientist (ie. psychologist) who wrote a best-selling book book called "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus"  

The way this word is being misused in this discussion just shows your ignorance.  It does not mean paranormal or non-physics or alternative physics.  Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.  Look it up,and henceforth use words whose meaning you know.

upon this planet is not positive (I cannot fathom how the vastness of our pollution can be outweighed by any positives).  Of course, for the time being, we are a part of this system but in a parasitic capacity (if not, what is it we contribute ?).  

Our effect (in the long run) is null.  

We just exist.  

We are not important enough to justify any direct relationship between the heavens and our existence.  


Damn it ! lost again - F'n horoscope.  Where's Deion when I need her.

Actually I was referring to singleton's comment as to the social evolution of humanity, not the biological evolution of said species.  He remarked that at some point in our evolution we stopped a certain practice that I would argue many human beings have not stopped, ie religious beliefs taking precedence over science.

Since we are definitely examining the nature of reality including the relationship of mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value, I believe definitions 1 applies as well as definition 2 (see a priori definition below), and apparently, base on some of the responses I'm getting, 4 seems apropos as well

met·a·phys·ics
1-n. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

2-(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.

3-(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

4-(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

Re: "a priori". 2a,2gb & 3 below directly apply, or is this too subtle and recondite for you?

a pri·o·ri
1-adj. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.

2a-Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2b - Knowable without appeal to particular experience.

3-Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.

Thank you to Singleton, Yellowledbetter, NOSC, Gwydion, Shafty, Megapig and HGwells and almost all of the others for the stimulating conversation.  I wish we could have had it over beers some place.

Unfortunately when words like "ignorance" start getting tossed around (he was so proud of it he felt compelled to hide behind an alias too), I'm done and out.

In case my less politely worded response to Old Curmudgeon's nasty-gram doesn't make it through the moderation process, All concerned should look the words "metaphysics" and "a priori" up in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright (© 2000)  - - or use yourdictionary.com. - -  which will make it quite clear that my use of the term "metaphysics" was right on point.  

I did check a dictionary before posting, but one with only one definition for this term.  I will grant you some additional definitions and apologize for a mean-spirited post.  No opinions are going to be changed by this conservation, so best ended.