--- In [email protected], "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't look down my nose at them at all! Not even a little bit, I > think their achievement in mapping the heavens is amazing, I agree > the motivation is the same, the thing is science progresses, that is > the whole point, it's an ongoing attempt to explain our experience. > > And as the universe has got larger with ever greater discoveries and > our understanding of it more refined, previous innaccurate theories > have to be abandoned, that is how it works. Someone has an idea > which > is put out for criticism and it stands or falls depending on whether > it is a more accurate description of reality. > > Astrology as a "science" of human understanding fell by the wayside > a long time ago, as long ago as Copernicus in fact. It's > anthropomorphism, you say so yourself and very eloquently I thought. > I'm an incurable romantic and have often wondered how the universe > must have seemed to ancient man, imagine being at least as smart as > people these days but not actually knowing anything about how the > world is. Of course things like astrology evolved, any framework is > better than none, they just didn't have the tools to work out it > wasn't true. > > Someone else on here uses the idea that because it has been around > so long "it's stuck to the wall" it must be true. This is faulty > reasoning. Sooner or later every culture has to accept that the > earth > isn't flat, counter-intuitive though it is the weight of evidence > eventually becomes overwhelming. > > So the question is not "is astrology an accurate descritption of > reality" but "why do so many continue to believe in it?" I think it > sticks to the wall because it's such a seductive idea that we can > see the future and avoid returning karma, it can even help with > relationships and tell us how wonderful we are! I also think there > is a fear of loneliness or that we are truly responsible for > ourselves and all that happens in our lives, blame is better to > give than recieve. > > So the meme continues to propagate to every new generation. Most > people encounter astrology in some form long before they come across > physics or cosmology but they have taught us much more about the > universe and ourselves than jyotish ever could but as you say that > was the starting point.
Just to have fun riffing on your ideas, and NOT to argue, here's another way of looking at the situation. Is it possible that science is *just* as much a "seductive idea that we can see the future and avoid returning karma?" While it may be more verifiable within a certain range of states of consciousness than astrology or Godthink or those other belief systems, isn't it -- like all of the others -- somewhat of an attempt at hubris? That is, isn't the idea of science based on the assumption that we *can* "figure it out," and come up with definitive reasons why things are the way they appear to be, and thus to predict what might happen in the future, given a similar set of inputs? >From my point of view, science -- like most forms of Creation Science, Western or Eastern -- are predicated on the acceptance of how the world appears from one state of consciousness -- MMY's waking state. From that state, it appears that time is a given. But all of us here have heard talks about states of consciousness in which time is not a part of the operating system; time does not exist in those states. Science seems (to me) based on linear thinking, start and stop, cause and effect. This is merely assumed as a baseline for all other assumptions that are predicated upon it. So-called rational thinking *depends* upon time, and upon the accept- ance of cause and effect within a linear timeline. Thus the whole term "non sequitur." It "does not follow," and thus it is not rational. I guess my question is, would its findings of a "science" based on the assumption of linearity and time still be "true" when viewed from a state of consciousness -- and thus a state of reality -- in which time was no longer a factor? Just questions to play with. I agree with most of what you said above; I'm just riffing on the idea that science is that much more evolved than astrology. They're IMO both still based on the same assumption, which I don't necessarily believe is a given. I think that there is a possibility that basing one's entire world view on the assumption of linearity -- and thus the theoretical beginning and end of the universe -- may be as much of an anthropomorphization as projecting the images of Gods onto star patterns. Could it be that the projection of linearity -- of birth and death -- onto the universe is just another way of anthropomorphizing our fear of death? "Yeah, I'm gonna die, but so is the universe, so it's all Ok." :-) Just stuff to think about...not a declaration of How Things Work. I *don't know* How Things Work, and that provides as much enduring pleasure to me as trying to figure out How Things Work seems to provide for others.
