Dear salyavin, Let me clarify my points because you seem to have missed it completely.
I don't offer any predictions - I have never have. I stated that clearly - astrology doesn't legislate reality, cannot provide any clues into reality. I have read the bible of Jyotish - Brihat Parasara Hora Shastra and it doesn't talk about any predictions. I have compared it to Psychology, a soft science - offering an ability to provide insights into the individual and use it as a tool for self-knowledge, self-freedom. Of course I have seen psychology used by people to limit themselves, constraint themselves - psychology being tainted by the subjectivity of practitioner. So then there's no evidence as in physical sciences, the evidence is from the individual who benefits. What evidence can I give of heart and love? The neurotransmitters supposedly fire causing heart to beat faster. I didn't necessarily feel my heart beating faster but my love was real - my pain, suffering too. But I can't provide any evidence. Neither have I any emotional investment in providing you any evidence. You don't even believe in consciousness but you definitely have lot of emotional investment in arguing against all these. Why bother - if you believe in the reductionist physicalism? You are right on one thing - it was *me*. You are contradicting your reductionist physicalism here. I never thought anyone could legislate reality even if I spent 16 years in Amma's cult. This is my argument against her. I never got any astrology reading, I never spent a dime on any readings, yagyas, gems, mantras, meditation. I never thought anyone was infallible, omniscient or had some special insight into reality. My approach has been the same towards all these. I was concerned about myself - my awareness, my growth, my potential. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM, salyavin808 <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > > > > > --- In [email protected], Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> > wrote: > > > > Oh dear scientific salyavin, > > > > I am the only one who's doing the heavy lifting in favor of astrology > here and I wasn't even too interested in the first place. I have clearly > articulated the scope, parameters of how I use astrology and the goals I > have. Considering the limitations of astrology and the reputation of > astrology I have a very scientific approach that you should be proud of > salyavin !!! > > > > You surely missed the generous compliments Ann, raunchy, Share, Steve, > Jim, LG, empty bill and others (non-active posters) offline have directed > my way. Surely this is not some dumb, naive audience I'm dealing with here. > > Generous compliments mean nothing as far as whether astrology has any > actual reality outside of you saying nice things about people you've > been interacting with for *years* on a chat forum. That people believe > it is no surprise to me, people still believe in god etc. People can > be weird in how they chose to see the world. Approval, eternal life > and predictability are going to feature pretty high on most people > wish list of things they'd like to be true. > > That you may have a handle on personality analysis says nothing > about the working of horoscopes as they are open to interpretation. > > As I say, to convince a sceptic like moi you need to make predictions > so we can see how it fares against the randomness of reality. What > was the one I suggested the other day? > > > > You must suffer from some Oppositional defiance disorder? > > I "suffer" from Inability to suspend disbelief due to lack of > evidence order. The more I look into it the less convinced I am. > > > > > > As Barry would say - what purpose does it solve? Whose suffering are you > helping to resolve? > > > > John will come across as stupid with his predictions. No one can > legislate reality, no one has an insight into reality. That's what happens > studying with that idiot Sanjay. > > "no one has an insight into reality" Ah, here's something we agree on. > > > > > > I said I don't know how astrology was cognized, I don't care how it > works - it does, but your arguments are irrelevant. > > Not if you want to understand how it works. "Cognized" is a great word, I > love how it supplants "worked out" in the minds of new agers. > No more do we have to test hypotheses against heavily checked data, > someone has "cognized" the truth! > > But I shouldn't be harsh, ideas can come from anywhere, all science > starts with a guess, but ideas have to be tested against reality > and this is where astrology fails as you yourself admit. > > Remember, the plural of anecdote is *not* data. People believing > things is *not* evidence. Double blind testing is the only way > to work out what is from what isn't and it's been done hilariously > with astrology many times. People can't pick out their horoscopes > from other peoples. In one test loads of people were given the same > reading and asked how accurate it was, guess what? They all rated > it as highly accurate. Simple psychology, we see what we want to > see and fill in the cracks without realising. > > Astrology is people thinking about people. It's anthropomorphism > taken to it's ultimate conclusion and includes actual planets > and stars - except they are really avatars acting in the same way! > Good dodge whoever thought of that ;-) > > > > > > They assigned certain inner qualities on to planets and yes they use the > actual mathematical calculations and astronomy. Apparently it has some > validity, no one has ever been disappointed with my interpretations. > > No, of course they haven't. But it isn't a proof that astrology > is a science based on positions of stars and planets. It's *you* Ravi. > > > As Richard would say - go figure, LoL! > > I'm trying but it doesn't work. Must be my mahadashum do you think? > > >
