--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote:
> In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to > see anything except objections to the *causal* way > of looking at it. An Aunt Sally. >> It doesn't matter if the planets *cause* the effects >> if it's the planets that can be used to *measure* the >> effects. >> Do you get that, it's pivotal. You can claim it's got >> nothing to do with planets until you are blue in the >> face but go see an astrologer and they will cast a >> chart of the positions of the planets at the time of >> your birth. So cause or not they are interlinked in >> what should be a measurable predictable way. Even if >> it's all just happening at the same time in some >> mysterious synchronicitous way. ... >> Being familiar with another explanation doesn't remove >> the relevance of missing planets etc. But it does. On the non-causal model of astrology you can choose *any* random event to *read* the totality. If you choose some planets and ignore others (or are ignorant of others), it is irrelevant. You can read tea leaves instead if you prefer. Then we're talking "divination" rather than astrology, but I think the principle is the same. You use this phrase above: "...planets that can be used to *measure* the effects". In expressing it that way you have already ruled out synchronicity (as that is an "a-causal" principle). "Effects" are the the manifestations of causes. On the non-causal model planets form some perspective (time and place) are used as *signs* of the state of the totality. Rather like a runny nose is a sign of a cold (but not its cause). Rather like a headache and a temperature may be additional signs. If some ancient society did not have the technology to measure, say, temperature, as we do today, that doesn't invalidate their use of other signs (ditto absence of some planets from an astrological system).
