[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
Patañjali seems to agree with Feynman on this? YS IV 31 tadA sarvAvaraNamalApetasya j~nAnasyAnantyAjj~neyamalpam. tada sarva-aavaraNa-mala-apetasya j~naanasya-anantyaat; j~neyam alpam. [HA]: Then On Account Of The Infinitude Of Knowledge, Freed From The Cover Of All Impurities, The Knowables Appear As Few. [IT]: Then, in consequence of the removal of all obscuration and impurities, that which can be known (through the mind) is but little in comparison with the infinity of knowledge (obtained in Enlightenment). [VH]: [BM]: [SS]: Then all the coverings and impurities of knowledge are totally removed. Because of the infinity of this knowledge, what remains to be known is almost nothing. [SP]: [30] Then the whole universe, with all its objects of sense-knowledge, becomes as nothing in comparison to that infinite knowledge which is free from all obstructions and impurities. [SV]: [VN 4.30] Then knowledge, bereft of covering and impurities, becoming infinite, the knowable becomes small. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
(Salyavin, see my response to you below my comments to Barry.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: (snip) I like your style. A gauntlet tossed effortlessly to the ground, Yes, those gauntlets are so huge and heavy that being able to toss them to the ground effortlessly is a truly impressive feat. (guffaw) challenging the person who has only one post left to a duel. Uh, Barry, I challenged *him* (and Xeno). (Don'cha just love the mental image of Barry obsessively counting my posts, even as late as Thursday? He's done it every single week for *years*.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... You know, they really do not *want* to learn anything about the actual principles of astrology. Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. Did you not read what PaliGap wrote? They want to be able to cast it as a simplistic and patently ridiculous pseudoscience, because then they can make arrogant, mocking criticisms of both the system and its adherents. And they enjoy that; it lets them feel all superior. Arrogant? I think not, it's all rather good humoured actually. Maybe you're just a bad loser? No, see, you and the other arrogant, ignorant critics are the losers. And I'm not even a proponent of the validity of astrology. It's not that astrology is immune to criticism on the basis of its actual principles; it's that it takes more thought and isn't nearly as much fun. You mean it takes more invention? More invention than your criticisms involve? To make them, you've invented a whole system of astrology that has nothing to do with the real one. Good post. It won't help, though. It won't help because it doesn't answer any questions. Well, yes, it does. It obviates the points you've been making about fields and causation and the fact that astrology doesn't reflect the actual physical solar system, as well as your focus on requiring predictive accuracy. It just tries to invoke another way of accounting for something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It doesn't account for the system of astrology that you've invented, that's for sure. The concept PaliGap describes--As above, so below-- is ancient, BTW, not some modern rationalization. From a later post to PaliGap: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: (snip) You can claim it's got nothing to do with planets until you are blue in the face Nobody's claiming that. You've misunderstood something. Of course it has to do with planets. (snip) As I say in a post to Ravi, you may not want to make predictions but if the position of planets indicates (by whatever mechanism or metaphysics) a predisposition for a particular illness then you should be able to predict that illness in others with a similar planetary arrangement in their chart. Simple enough. Simple enough in the simplistic system of astrology you've invented for the purpose of arrogant criticism. But this would absolutely not be the case in *real* astrology. A similar planetary arrangement might mean quite different things in different charts. (For that matter, most Western astrologers, at least, would not predict a predisposition for a *particular* illness but rather for an illness related to a specific body system--e.g., digestion--or body part--e.g., eyes. And it would likely be characterized as a *weakness* in that area or system of the body.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: (Salyavin, see my response to you below my comments to Barry.) Simple enough in the simplistic system of astrology you've invented for the purpose of arrogant criticism. But this would absolutely not be the case in *real* astrology. A similar planetary arrangement might mean quite different things in different charts. LOL, do please tell me what *real* astrologers think, other than the ones I've got my ideas from, like the TMO jyotishees, western astrology books and readings and all the failed attempts at proving scientifically that there is something happening by the great many astrologers that have actually *tried* to prove they have a system based on planetary positions at birth that can make predictions about personality and life chances and timing of life events. All of whom failed I repeat. That you accuse me of making up other peoples claims is bizarre, I'm just responding to what other people think is true. That you realise the original and persistent ideas of astrology are untenable is pleasing to me but you seem to have replaced it something that has the same effect but an even more esoteric mechanism that you have so far refused to share. Come on Jude, the world wants to know! That you accuse me of arrogance is interesting, I'm just pointing out that you need a signal to measure and a mechanism to explain it. Neither exists that we know of. It's a surreal idea you have that it's got nothing to do with planets because the very first thing *any* astrologer does is make a chart of planetary positions at the time of your birth. As I tried to explain to Paligap it doesn't matter if the planets are or aren't exerting a force or if the whole solar system is evolving like a clockwork synchronicty machine, if you have no signal - no direct hits beyond that you would get from chance - then you have no mechanism either so why quibble about terms? (For that matter, most Western astrologers, at least, would not predict a predisposition for a *particular* illness but rather for an illness related to a specific body system--e.g., digestion--or body part--e.g., eyes. And it would likely be characterized as a *weakness* in that area or system of the body.) Ah yes, the vague approach. We can claim we had a hit if he dies but claim that other planetary influences saved him if he survives. Clever, don't ever pin yourself down. You should maybe examine your motives in why you want to spend so much time defending this nonsense. My guess is you had a flattering chart done that promises all sorts of good things to come. Don't worry, we all get that one.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: (Salyavin, see my response to you below my comments to Barry.) Simple enough in the simplistic system of astrology you've invented for the purpose of arrogant criticism. But this would absolutely not be the case in *real* astrology. A similar planetary arrangement might mean quite different things in different charts. Oh, hmm, you snipped what I was responding to, leaving it without context. It was clever of you to conceal your boo-boo like that; I see you've carried that effort through your whole post. LOL, do please tell me what *real* astrologers think, Please refer back to PaliGap's post, where he explained it to you very clearly. other than the ones I've got my ideas from, like the TMO jyotishees, western astrology books and readings and all the failed attempts at proving scientifically that there is something happening by the great many astrologers that have actually *tried* to prove they have a system based on planetary positions at birth that can make predictions about personality and life chances and timing of life events. All of whom failed I repeat. You do realize this is all a non sequitur, right? I haven't disputed the lack of scientific proof. I find myself hoping you know you're in trouble but are figuring a lot of arrogant bluff and bluster will make it appear otherwise. I don't want to think you're so dull-minded you don't realize what's going on. That you accuse me of making up other peoples claims is bizarre, I'm just responding to what other people think is true. Don't know who these other people are. They sure have weird ideas about what astrology is. That you realise the original and persistent ideas of astrology are untenable is pleasing to me but you seem to have replaced it something that has the same effect but an even more esoteric mechanism that you have so far refused to share. Ooopsie, you don't seem to be reading what I write. As above, so below is an ancient idea. The phrase is attributed to Hermes Trismegistus. I know you're hoping it's a modern rationalization, but alas, it isn't. Come on Jude, the world wants to know! I don't believe even Jung ever claimed to know how synchronicity worked. That you accuse me of arrogance is interesting, I'm just pointing out that you need a signal to measure and a mechanism to explain it. Neither exists that we know of. Your arrogance is in assuming you understand the principles of astrology. It's a surreal idea you have that it's got nothing to do with planets Here's what's surreal. This is what you're responding to: salyavin: You can claim it's got nothing to do with planets until you are blue in the face Judy: Nobody's claiming that. You've misunderstood something. Of course it has to do with planets. Of course you *snipped* this so nobody would see this boo-boo either. I guess your arrogance here is in assuming I would just meekly submit to your putting words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I *actually* said. because the very first thing *any* astrologer does is make a chart of planetary positions at the time of your birth. *duh* As I tried to explain to Paligap it doesn't matter if the planets are or aren't exerting a force or if the whole solar system is evolving like a clockwork synchronicty machine, if you have no signal - no direct hits beyond that you would get from chance - then you have no mechanism either so why quibble about terms? Jung called synchronicity (As above, so below) an acausal connecting principle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity *I* could do a better job of criticizing the synchronicity idea than you have. You really do not have a head for this kind of thing. (For that matter, most Western astrologers, at least, would not predict a predisposition for a *particular* illness but rather for an illness related to a specific body system--e.g., digestion--or body part--e.g., eyes. And it would likely be characterized as a *weakness* in that area or system of the body.) Ah yes, the vague approach. We can claim we had a hit if he dies but claim that other planetary influences saved him if he survives. Clever, don't ever pin yourself down. Did you read the paragraph you quote? I don't see anything in it that refers to dying (or surviving, for that matter). I was correcting another of your boo-boos (also deleted by you). You should maybe examine your motives in why you want to spend so much time defending this nonsense. My guess is you had a flattering chart done that promises all sorts of good things to come. Don't worry, we all get that one. Actually I've only ever had one chart done, by a professional Western astrologer around 30 years ago (my sister gave it to me as a birthday gift). I don't now recall any of the specifics, but I do
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your misunderstandings of astrology (not for defending it as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, because it gets in the way of determining what's really going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit it. And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers they are still measuring planetary positions and birth dates. And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit would be a starting point. That's how science works. And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology *really* is because I wouldn't understand, or do you just accept that the term a-causal must be right because it obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if you think it would. I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology readings, but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due to my disgraceful arrogance. Which is handy for you. I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't change how we might find out the validity of birth chart predictions. I actually don't care how you find my brand of thinking, until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless belief system. S/N first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your misunderstandings of astrology (not for defending it as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, because it gets in the way of determining what's really going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit it. And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers they are still measuring planetary positions and birth dates. And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit would be a starting point. That's how science works. And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology *really* is because I wouldn't understand, or do you just accept that the term a-causal must be right because it obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if you think it would. I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology readings, but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due to my disgraceful arrogance. Which is handy for you. I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't change how we might find out the validity of birth chart predictions. I actually don't care how you find my brand of thinking, until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless belief system. S/N first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your misunderstandings of astrology (not for defending it as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, because it gets in the way of determining what's really going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit it. And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers they are still measuring planetary positions and birth dates. See what I mean? You just DO NOT TAKE IN what you read. Instead, you make stuff up that you can refute. Yes, Jung understood the ancient As above, so below principle of astrology. But why on *earth* would you think that principle was somehow inconpatible with measuring planetary positions on birth dates? And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit would be a starting point. That's how science works. *giggle* I just got done telling you I'm not *disputing* the lack of scientific evidence for astrology. And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology *really* is because I wouldn't understand PaliGap already explained it. You're smart enough to understand it. It's vulnerable to criticism. But you'd rather keep kicking your straw men. or do you just accept that the term a-causal must be right because it obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if you think it would. Huh? Where did I suggest such a thing? Again, you've *made that up* instead of taking in what I *have* said. I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology readings, Regarding how *what* affects astrology readings? (BTW, if we were to discuss Jung's ideas about astrology, we'd have to talk about Wolfgang Pauli's too.) but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due to my disgraceful arrogance. I have? Who am I talking to now? Which is handy for you. Smack! Another straw man, deader'n a doornail! I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't change how we might find out the validity of birth chart predictions. Right. Did somebody say it would? I actually don't care how you find my brand of thinking, until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless belief system. S/N first. It's quite amazing, but you still aren't getting it. I'm tempted to embarrass you by quoting your initial posts in this thread, about how if you know the physical facts of the solar system you can't put any stock in astrology. Not to mention all the *other* knee-slappers you've chalked up since then because you're not taking in what you've been told. The point, once again, is that if you're going to do a proper job of debunking a claim, you need to debunk what is actually claimed rather than a claim you've made up. My favorite is your notion that I had said astrology doesn't use planets, a notion you *reiterated* in response to my saying that *of course* it uses planets. Which whopping blooper, of course, you've deleted without acknowledging it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card cardemaister@... wrote: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman Here's another: I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. One more: I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. Most pertinent. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: I know exactly what my motives are for correcting your misunderstandings of astrology (not for defending it as a valid system; as I've said, I'm highly dubious of it). I find your brand of arrogant ignorance disgraceful, because it gets in the way of determining what's really going on. It's actually *anti-scientific*. So you don't believe it either? You just like arguing, admit it. And you seem to have decided Jungs ideas are the *real* astrology? You should tell the all the other astrologers they are still measuring planetary positions and birth dates. And of course I'm anti-scientific for thinking about it but I notice you still can't point me in the direction of a study that shows a measurable signal, any positive hit would be a starting point. That's how science works. And of course, you aren't going to explain what astrology *really* is because I wouldn't understand, or do you just accept that the term a-causal must be right because it obviates the need for testing? Because you are wrong if you think it would. I suspect you just don't want to get into discussing Jung too deeply. Especially regarding how it affects astrology readings, but you've decided I'm not worth talking to due to my disgraceful arrogance. Which is handy for you. I read synchronicity yonks ago. It's one of those things you either believe or you don't and for every hit there is a miss, I've told you what I think of it. It really doesn't change how we might find out the validity of birth chart predictions. I actually don't care how you find my brand of thinking, until you, or anyone, comes up with some evidence to the contrary I will continue to think that astrology is a baseless belief system. S/N first.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- 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).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@... wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... Have you heard of/considered/understood (delete as appropriate) Jung's concept of synchronicity? I know that as a naive positivist it may be anathema - but do you understand it? The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm If there is something to astrology (if), then it is *not* about causation, or about the *correctness* or *completeness* of any particular astronomical system. It is about the possibility that the *quality* of any *significant* moment can potentially reveal information about the state of the totality. It could be dividing some yarrow stalks, reading some tea leaves, tossing some coins, looking at something significant at the point of birth...whatever. You chose. Note the word: It is about the *Quality* of the moment (in a Hegelian sense) that is chosen. It is an art, not a science. As one of the recent threads on FFL has been delving into the pseudoscience of astrology, I have been spending my time reading sections of a blog written by a sociopath, which is rather interesting reading, it kind of just slides right in with the psychotic nature of FFL and the 'neuro typical' and 'empath' population here, to use some names for most of us from the creative folk in sociopath land (there are some extraordinarliy intelligrnt sociopaths out there, and you probably know some without being aware that they are not like you). There seems to be some specific crossovers between sociopaths and enlightenment as far as mental states of experience. Perhaps I will start a thread on that later on. To get back to astrology. As scientifically astrology basically has zero predictive properties (except in the minds of its practitioners), I thought it might be better to introduce dwarf planet astrology, and chuck the original systems, both Western and Eastern. Unfortunately my idea is not original. Others have already jumped into the fray. The current locations of dwarf planets and dwarf planet candidates [the candidates are marked '(a)' from officially named dwarfs]: (the '#709;' symbol means 'subscript' if it gets through Yahoo's alphanumeric-symbol, character-entity translation software, otherwise whatever shows up on your computer should be an inverted carat [cheers Share ÂÂÂ]) Ceres Gemini HaumeaBootes Makemake ComaBerenices Eris Cetus Pluto-Charon Sagittarius Sedna (a) Taurus Varuna (a)Gemini Quaoar (a)Serpens Cauda Orcus (a) Sextans Ixion (a) Ophiuchus 2002 TC#709;302 (a) Aries 2007 OR#709;10 (a) Aries Since size and distance of those little pointy lights in the sky make no difference in astrology, it certainly is possible that these tiny dim pointy lights could have a VAST influence on humanity and our little world. At least there are some that think so. For example: --- 2007 OR10 and 2002 TC302 astrology 'Perhaps the striking news is that the newly discovered 2007 OR10 , near in size to Pluto, seems to has a strong astrological effect, at least derived by mundane astrology observations.' 'The fact is that in the recent millenia, 2007 OR10 has been orbiting near Eris, just beyond it, with a similar orbital period, and therefore makes things a little bit confusing to distinguish.' 'I see that every time 2007 OR10 has entered Aries a whole lot of global changes have happened: this was circa 150-50 BC, 350-450 AC, 1000 AC, 1470-1520 AC and now 1990-2040.' '2007 OR10 will enter the mid degrees of Aries in the years ahead, as it did in 1490, the years of the discovery (and conquests) of America, or approximately during the fall of Rome circa 350-410, or during the Roman conquests of the Greece and Egypt, two powerful and influencing civilizations. It enters the critical 10-11º Aries in 2010-2014, (like in 1492) then stays during the more intense Aries energy until 2047 (like in 1520).' 'Therefore, we predict a new unfolding wave of discoveries, 'conquests' and societal reconstruction, a civilization shift in balance.' 'It's still too soon to assert its astrological meaning. But judging by several chart readings, it seems that 2007 OR10 is full of positive energy, vibrant and a strong creative and ever-flowing energy (but it is in Aries too).' --- At least Western astrology, with its positioning flaws, is investigating new information unlike Vedic astrology, which remains in the Iron Age. If we had Vedic physics, we perhaps could allow atoms, but eschew sub-atomic particles as not being
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... You know, they really do not *want* to learn anything about the actual principles of astrology. They want to be able to cast it as a simplistic and patently ridiculous pseudoscience, because then they can make arrogant, mocking criticisms of both the system and its adherents. And they enjoy that; it lets them feel all superior. It's not that astrology is immune to criticism on the basis of its actual principles; it's that it takes more thought and isn't nearly as much fun. Good post. It won't help, though. Have you heard of/considered/understood (delete as appropriate) Jung's concept of synchronicity? I know that as a naive positivist it may be anathema - but do you understand it? The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm If there is something to astrology (if), then it is *not* about causation, or about the *correctness* or *completeness* of any particular astronomical system. It is about the possibility that the *quality* of any *significant* moment can potentially reveal information about the state of the totality. It could be dividing some yarrow stalks, reading some tea leaves, tossing some coins, looking at something significant at the point of birth...whatever. You chose. Note the word: It is about the *Quality* of the moment (in a Hegelian sense) that is chosen. It is an art, not a science.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... Have you heard of/considered/understood (delete as appropriate) Jung's concept of synchronicity? I know that as a naive positivist it may be anathema - but do you understand it? The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm If there is something to astrology (if), then it is *not* about causation, or about the *correctness* or *completeness* of any particular astronomical system. It is about the possibility that the *quality* of any *significant* moment can potentially reveal information about the state of the totality. It could be dividing some yarrow stalks, reading some tea leaves, tossing some coins, looking at something significant at the point of birth...whatever. You chose. Note the word: It is about the *Quality* of the moment (in a Hegelian sense) that is chosen. It is an art, not a science. Well, I do experience the moment as a completeness. It is my intellect that tinkers with the idea that things have a cause or an effect. That is the way it apportions the experience of change, by creating 'influences'. There is a certain fun in the posits of astrology in spite of its lack of robust prediction. Dr. John Fagan once said jyotish has too many degrees of freedom. That is a statistical measure of variables. It allows astrology to have the ability to match any situation post hoc, but that same flexibility means it cannot do the same prior to an event. To land a spacecraft on another planet, say the landing of the probe on Saturn's moon Titan, requires very few degrees of freedom, very tightly controlled, as it is the equivalent of hitting a dust spot on a marble thousands of miles away. Astrology is thus extremely general and vague, but it can be a blast to bask in the description of what you think you are. The mind connects with apparent similarities much better than divergences. Like the mind readers who call out 'I'm getting a 'B', and someone in the audience pipes up, 'Oh, my wife Betty just passed on!', and yet the mind reader did not give any information, was just fishing for a response. But for the person who does not think things through, it seems miraculous. Thus in astrology we have 'You will see some trouble ahead, but then there are good things that will happen later on' rather than 'On January 16, 2014 you will be in a horrible accident in Columbus Ohio, and lose your left arm below the elbow, but on March 22, 2016, you will receive an insurance settlement from Prudential for $2,415,000'. Art is for enjoyment and expansion of experience. Science is for practicality and prediction and expansion of experience, but different aspects of the mind are employed in each of these ways. When the mind desires an explanation for something, it will fish for it even if there is no explanation. One of the laudable 'goals' of spirituality is to get to a place where you do not need to have an explanation, you can just let whatever is happening ride it out, without knowing or expecting a particular resolution. It is odd, people want to know what they are like and where that is going for them, but really a person is both nothing and everything all at once, and if you recognise that, particulars are usually not all that interesting, though that creaky old human body does have certain preferences. It is fun though, to watch astrologers trying to predict something precisely based on just the chart without any feedback in an ex ante test, where the result is known, but hidden from the astrologer. The same could be done using specific events in the person's life *and* the chart or charts, and then asking the astrologer what will happen on a certain date. For example, if you had 100 accurate charts for persons deceased, can the astrologer predict the date of death for all of them beyond a level of chance. I am sure they would be able to find the signs in the charts - if they had the date of death already - but before?, I doubt it. A monument to self deception, but probably our lives are full of self deception anyway, so why would a little more decption hurt more than it already does? As one of the recent threads on FFL has been delving into the pseudoscience of astrology, I have been spending my time reading sections of a blog written by a sociopath, which is rather interesting reading, it kind of just slides right in with the psychotic nature of FFL and the 'neuro typical' and 'empath' population here, to use some names for most of
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... Have you heard of/considered/understood (delete as appropriate) Jung's concept of synchronicity? I know that as a naive positivist it may be anathema - but do you understand it? The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm So if you are offering this as a mechanism shouldn't it be a bit more obvious that astrology works? It isn't like we have an unmistakable, unaccountable phenomena that we just require an explanation for is it? The examples always given for coincidence being more than just us noticing something important *to us* don't take into account the amount of times we read something, for instance, and *don't* have a mysterious experience afterwards. If synchronicity was real - as in a shared mystical unconsciousness spanning space and time - wouldn't these coincidences that the theory was formed from happen more often? Wouldn't it have some sort of evolutionary advantage and leave us capable of exploiting it? Seems like a weird thing to be part of without noticing it. More questions than answers - always a bad sign for a theory. Synchronicity is another nice idea but like astrology it seems to lack a reason for existence or mechanism that isn't more easily explained in other ways and it also requires too many other good ideas being thrown out on scant evidence, also like astrology. If there is something to astrology (if), then it is *not* about causation, or about the *correctness* or *completeness* of any particular astronomical system. It is about the possibility that the *quality* of any *significant* moment can potentially reveal information about the state of the totality. Which would amount to the same thing as being able to make predictions from planetary positions. Why would some things have an effect and not others? And surely the more complete the system is the more accurate it will be? We need answers! It could be dividing some yarrow stalks, reading some tea leaves, tossing some coins, looking at something significant at the point of birth...whatever. You chose. Note the word: It is about the *Quality* of the moment (in a Hegelian sense) that is chosen. It is an art, not a science. If astrology exists then it will work from all objects not just ones we like or can see. And if it is as accurate and predictable as this implies I'm sure it would be more obvious. What is the quality of the moment if it isn't simply what is happening at the time. Why can't you get scientific about that? Or does astrology depend on feelings? As one of the recent threads on FFL has been delving into the pseudoscience of astrology, I have been spending my time reading sections of a blog written by a sociopath, which is rather interesting reading, it kind of just slides right in with the psychotic nature of FFL and the 'neuro typical' and 'empath' population here, to use some names for most of us from the creative folk in sociopath land (there are some extraordinarliy intelligrnt sociopaths out there, and you probably know some without being aware that they are not like you). There seems to be some specific crossovers between sociopaths and enlightenment as far as mental states of experience. Perhaps I will start a thread on that later on. To get back to astrology. As scientifically astrology basically has zero predictive properties (except in the minds of its practitioners), I thought it might be better to introduce dwarf planet astrology, and chuck the original systems, both Western and Eastern. Unfortunately my idea is not original. Others have already jumped into the fray. The current locations of dwarf planets and dwarf planet candidates [the candidates are marked '(a)' from officially named dwarfs]: (the '#709;' symbol means 'subscript' if it gets through Yahoo's alphanumeric-symbol, character-entity translation software, otherwise whatever shows up on your computer should be an inverted carat [cheers Share ÂÂÂ]) Ceres Gemini Haumea Bootes MakemakeComaBerenices ErisCetus Pluto-CharonSagittarius Sedna (a) Taurus Varuna (a) Gemini Quaoar (a) Serpens Cauda Orcus (a) Sextans Ixion (a) Ophiuchus 2002 TC#709;302 (a)Aries 2007 OR#709;10 (a) Aries Since size and distance of those little pointy lights in the sky make no difference in astrology, it certainly is possible that these tiny dim pointy
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... You know, they really do not *want* to learn anything about the actual principles of astrology. Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. They want to be able to cast it as a simplistic and patently ridiculous pseudoscience, because then they can make arrogant, mocking criticisms of both the system and its adherents. And they enjoy that; it lets them feel all superior. Arrogant? I think not, it's all rather good humoured actually. Maybe you're just a bad loser? It's not that astrology is immune to criticism on the basis of its actual principles; it's that it takes more thought and isn't nearly as much fun. You mean it takes more invention? Good post. It won't help, though. It won't help because it doesn't answer any questions. It just tries to invoke another way of accounting for something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend authfriend@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... You know, they really do not *want* to learn anything about the actual principles of astrology. Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. They want to be able to cast it as a simplistic and patently ridiculous pseudoscience, because then they can make arrogant, mocking criticisms of both the system and its adherents. And they enjoy that; it lets them feel all superior. Arrogant? I think not, it's all rather good humoured actually. Maybe you're just a bad loser? It's not that astrology is immune to criticism on the basis of its actual principles; it's that it takes more thought and isn't nearly as much fun. You mean it takes more invention? Good post. It won't help, though. It won't help because it doesn't answer any questions. It just tries to invoke another way of accounting for something that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I like your style. A gauntlet tossed effortlessly to the ground, challenging the person who has only one post left to a duel. Can she handle such a challenge in *one* duel, *one* post, or are we going to see reruns of this well into next week? Only time will tell. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. That's been done already hasn't it? To repeat: The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to see anything except objections to the *causal* way of looking at it. An Aunt Sally. My impression is that you are *not* familiar with the synchronicity approach. Or are you? If you are, what has all the wittering on about missing planets, bronze age astronomy and the like got to do with it? (By the same token, this also addresses the issue of induced birth I would have thought). I am suggesting that astrology subscribes to a metaphysics of the World as a totality. It *is* a metaphysics (but then so is your naturalism). But quite an appealing one. FWIW, my experience of astrology is that I have been convinced that there is something going on. But its practical use may be zero.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
On 06/13/2013 11:17 AM, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartaxius@ wrote: Dwarf Planet Astrology Regarding your *devastating* critique of astrology... You know, they really do not *want* to learn anything about the actual principles of astrology. They want to be able to cast it as a simplistic and patently ridiculous pseudoscience, because then they can make arrogant, mocking criticisms of both the system and its adherents. And they enjoy that; it lets them feel all superior. It's not that astrology is immune to criticism on the basis of its actual principles; it's that it takes more thought and isn't nearly as much fun. Good post. It won't help, though. And they're not worth wasting posts on because they'll never learn. They think you can get exact forecasts. I guess must expect the local weatherman saying that it will rain at exactly 4:15 PM this afternoon. They are probably the same souls who argued the world was flat 400 years ago. :-D PS: they must all be billionaires too because they have free will. After all what would stop them from living the good life?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. That's been done already hasn't it? To repeat: The positions of the heavens at a particular moment in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, also reflect the qualities of anything born at that moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are synchronous, and mirror each other. http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to see anything except objections to the *causal* way of looking at it. An Aunt Sally. Are you sure you've been reading them? 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. My impression is that you are *not* familiar with the synchronicity approach. Or are you? If you are, what has all the wittering on about missing planets, bronze age astronomy and the like got to do with it? Ooooh, wittering on is it? Being familiar with another explanation doesn't remove the relevance of missing planets etc. Remember point one above. (By the same token, this also addresses the issue of induced birth I would have thought). I am suggesting that astrology subscribes to a metaphysics of the World as a totality. It *is* a metaphysics (but then so is your naturalism). But quite an appealing one. It's an appealing view of the world for sure but the fact the world may be a totality in this way does not contradict the ability of someone within that system to make predictions using that total oneness. As I say in a post to Ravi, you may not want to make predictions but if the position of planets indicates (by whatever mechanism or metaphysics) a predisposition for a particular illness then you should be able to predict that illness in others with a similar planetary arrangement in their chart. Simple enough. Either that or you want a unique planetary synchronicity for everyone, but that isn't what Jung was postulating. He thought we shared at some sort of level beyond matter that minds were connected. I always thought he was the closest any western philosopher ever got to the vedic viewpoint espoused by Marshy. I'd sit and tell you my amazing synchronicity experiences as they are most interesting and made me stop and think for a while about the fundamental nature of reality and mind and how they might intersect, but there is a programme about alien abductions on channel 4 at 9 tonight so as a Fortean I feel duty bound to sit and watch. FWIW, my experience of astrology is that I have been convinced that there is something going on. But its practical use may be zero. Which is another way of saying it's all in the mind.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Dwarf Planet Astrology
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't understood in all these years reading about it. That's been done already hasn't it? No it hasn't. Not by a long chalk. I want a mechanism, statements like as above so below are not mechanisms. A mechanism would be something like gravity pulling the water around the brain around which might affect mood and behaviour at certain times. See, it has physical principles behind it but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as gravity is incredibly weak and a bus going past your house affects your brain more than Jupiter ever could. You may think that the quality of the moment allegedly being an art and not a science (as if anything can avoid being both) absolves it of the need for a physical mechanism but you'd be wrong because you are implying connection or communication, therefore there has to be a way disparate objects are connected. Even with synchronicity there would have to be a dependable principle, though it would also have to explain why it's so unexplainably erratic. This connection or communication has to be part of the principle of being able to make predictions from inside the system I mentioned in my previous post. If it isn't, you've got some explaining to do on what evasion you are falling back on.
