--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective > science" in his book "Eye to Eye." > > Thanks, I put it on hold at the library. (I love free books and > internet access!) > > Why is the > > shift away from values and toward measurement a Good > > Thing, necessarily? Why can't there be both? > > If there is a connection between the planets, as Vedic astrology > claims, it could be tested with all the rigor science can muster. > Western astrology seems to rely on a language form. One that > allows a person to see their own personality traits in the vague, > subjective language.
It can be. It can also, in the hands of a serious astrologer, be as specific as any analysis by a trained psychologist. (There's a trend in Western astrology, in fact, for astrologers to take intensive professional-level training in psychology.) > It is a science of linguistics more than a > statement about the relationship between the planetary positions > and man. The same technique used by many psychics. My sense of astrology (and any system of divination) is that the system is a tool for focusing the intuition of the astrologer. I don't have time to get into it, but it's the *system* that's important, the way it's structured and organized, not the supposed correlations with the actual physical motions of the planets. With a skilled astrologer with highly developed intuition, the system would work even if it existed in a vacuum. I think we may be saying something roughly similar, except that I don't know whether you put much stock in intuition. > But in principle I agree with your point. Values was a poor choice > of words on my part. Values are not so subject to measurement nor > probably should they be. That is where your point about the value > of subjective experience makes sense to me. The world is bigger > than what we are measuring. But many claims (western astrology) > are not bigger, they are just winging it mascaraing as a system. > That hurts the cause of legitimate areas of thought not yet being > measured and being missed. I agree, when astrology is poorly done. But I do think that serious and dedicated astrologers have more to offer than that. The thing with people like Kurtz, I suspect, is that his predisposition to dismiss astrology (and other such endeavors) has kept him from examining what *good* astrology looks like. In effect, at least partly, he's dismissing a straw man. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
