--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey! FF-Lifers ...
> > > 
> > > Wake up and clarify yer data. Tula lagna or Libra rising? Western 
> > > or Jyotish charts?
> > 
> > When I was born there were some stars a long, long way off and
> > some planets in the same place they always are, just going
> > round the sun, same for you and me and everyone that ever lived.
> > 
> > But it's OK to pretend the Earth is the centre of the solar
> > system and the stars are actually connected in some way in their
> > constellations and that astrological "houses" are real and that 
> > it all means something (*anything*) to our lives depending on 
> > what time we were born.
> > 
> > But then I've got "my" moon in capricorn so I'm bound to be
> > sceptical....
> I have my moon in Fresno and gall rising, so I guess
> that accounts for me, too.  :-)
> Seriously, the reason I made my snippy phrenology 
> comment is that THAT is how this whole discussion
> strikes me. Really. 
> I bailed from the TMO *long* before Jyotish or any
> other form of astrology got the "thumbs up" from the
> Rish. Therefore I never invested more than a few
> minutes of my time in examining it as if it were
> a rational system. 
> I honestly believe that -- to some extent - the
> degree to which people defend astrology (of any form)
> on this forum depends to some extent on that very
> *investment* I mention above. They were told it was
> meaningful, and so they dived into it and learned
> about it (as much as one *can* learn about a total
> pseudoscience), and the more time and energy they
> invested in it, the more they became "defenders"
> of astrology. 
> In other words, it's the same phenomenon we see in
> TMers who still defend Maharishi. 
> "*I* spent a lot of time and energy on this, and *I* 
> could not possibly have been wrong or deluded or 
> taken in, so therefore it *has* to have merit."
> Astrology strikes me now -- and always has -- as a 
> pseudoscience aimed at those who believe that the
> infinite complexity of human behavior can be explained
> by a simplistic system. 
> I give humans -- and Nature -- far more credit than to
> be able to believe that.

I'm pretty good with what you're saying here. While astrology is an interesting 
concept I don't think it is a science because I don't think anything is 
provable. And I certainly wouldn't base who I was going to marry or not marry 
based on some astrological chart. I wouldn't use an astrological chart to 
determine where I should move and when. I don't think I would use any 
astrological data to make ANY decisions nor would I spend the time to learn how 
to read people's charts. But it is interesting to see how some are really 
believers and actually take this stuff into consideration when making 
life-altering decisions. But I did really appreciate Ravi taking the effort and 
time to give me a reading.

Reply via email to