--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote:
> MJ:
> Why doesn't astrology consider outer planets?
> Judy has already explained that astrology is not trying to represent the 
> solar system.

Damn, I missed that post. Shame - I like a good laugh.
> An example would help clarify - why is love associated with Heart? According 
> to Wikipedia - "The heart is a hollow muscle that pumps blood throughout the 
> blood vessels by repeated, rhythmic contractions". Scientists say that When 
> you catch sight of your beloved and your heart starts racing, that's because 
> of an adrenaline rush.
> Anyway it's accepted by everyone that love is associated to the heart, no one 
> questions it. I know when my love was rejected I felt pain in my heart though 
> it wasn't physical. The language of Urdu has many words for this "emotional 
> heart" - for example "Dil" - Dil means heart - one that feels, and is not 
> connected to the physical organ called heart.
> In a similar way the planets are not really planets of the solar system. 
> Though apparently they are used for calculations. The planets in Jyotish are 
> "Grahas" - animated beings, a certain intelligence attached to each planet. 
> Such as Sun for soul, Moon for emotions, Mercury for intellect.
> Hope this helps.

It helps underline what complete nonsense it all is. How can the
planets be used for calculations but not *be* the planets of astrology, what 
sort of universe are we living in? Is it a 
coincidence then that these alleged predictable influences
correspond with the movements of planets? 

Sounds to me like someone is trying to distance themselves 
from the demolition of astrology that an understanding of 
astronomy brings by inventing another unprovable theory that 
permits planetary influences without having to endure the embarrassment that 
the revised map of geocentrism brings to
any system that depends on fields. Namely that fields diminish
in strength by the reverse square of the distance. Ipso -
astrology cannot work. So, just invent something untestable
that uses the same markers but without having any inconvenient
physics to bring it crashing down. Brilliant!

Anyone care to propose a mechanism to account for how it all 
works even though it doesn't seem to be very good except for 
John to tell us astoundingly accurate things after the event?

Go on, this is fun.

Reply via email to