BIG Astrological Event Today. !-31-03

[Mats Olsson.]

Tell me about the planets. According to astrology, what kind of different impact does each solar planet have on us ? /Mats

[Uh Clem]

Oh, I didn't mean to offend and do not feel offended either. I couldn't take any of this seriously enough for that. ;) Just another "nothing to do with music" playtime post to josh about in... I do have to say though, that if anyone found that prediction afforded them with enough information to avoid a serious mishap, then I'm glad for their good fortune. I, however, felt it pretty well charaterized the last 3 yrs, at least, and that trying to take cautionary action around those statements would be tantamount to dodging raindrops in Seattle. Heads up? Kind of an understatement, no? Life can be mysterious and dangerous. Yes it can - is that news to anyone?

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: [b]Tell me about the planets. According to astrology, what kind of different impact does each solar planet have on us ? /Mats[/b][/quote]Hey Mats, I am a student of astrology, not a teacher. There are a bunch of great resources on the web. You might want to check out this site for some basics. Good luck. http://www.elysian.co.uk/basicastrology.htm

[Dave Pierce]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Maybe you need to re-read this thread. Astrology is from the east, and it is very intertwined with much eastern philosophy and thought. But you knew that right? :) [/b][/quote]And Eastern philosophy "in general" is ever so much more than mere astrology. But of course, I haven't spent the last 30 years sequestered in an Ashram, so it's terribly presumptious of me to share what little I do know. Shame. --Dave

[Jotown]

[quote]And Eastern philosophy "in general" is ever so much more than mere astrology.[/quote]It most certainly is. Dave, I don't want to argue with you, or anyone else about astrology. You made your point, and you are entitled to your opinion. I respect your point of view. I was trying to be helpful and I am sorry that my attempt was misconstrued. Any questions that you have posted have been answered in this thread. Peace.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] To dismiss eastern philosohers and eastern scientific thought in general, before one has truly studied it, is a pretty empty argument against it.[/b][/quote]I'm not a practitioner of Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Sufism, Zen Buddhism, or Shintoism, but I don't necessarily dismiss any of them. In fact, I have read books about several of these and have admired their ability to distill timeless wisdom into stirring and unforgettable passages. I've read a few horoscopes, too. They didn't give me the same sense of legitimacy. As far as a comparison of religion vs. astrology, that's like comparing synth programming to snow boarding. They're vastly different. Religion offers possible explanations for things that cannot be discerned - where life originate, where the soul goes after death, what happened before the beginning of the universe, global definitions of morality, etc. Astrology concerns itself with predictions of what may unfold in day to day life. Astrology and religion could not be farther apart in their respective spheres of influence.

[Jotown]

I ran across this list and I thought I would share it with all of you. I am certain that these quotes will mean nothing to some of you, who are obviously smarter than any of these fellows. Pay particular attention to the first one. [b]Famous Astrology Quotes:[/b] I have studied the matter, you sir, have not -Sir Issac Newton to Edmund Halley Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind. - ALBERT EINSTEIN A physician without a knowledge of astrology has no right to call himself a physician ... There is one common flow, one common breathing, all things are in sympathy. - Hippocrates, Fifth Century B.C. Astrology is assured of recognition from psychology, without further restrictions, because astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity. - C.G. Jung A most unfailing experience ... of the excitement of sublunary (that is, human) natures by the conjunctions and aspects of the planets has instructed and compelled my unwilling belief. - Johann Kepler, Larousse Encyclopedia Astrology. It is clearly evident that most events of a widespread nature draw their causes from the enveloping heavens. - Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos The celestial bodies are the cause of all that takes place in the sublunar world. - Thomas Aquinas A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual", find out how he feels about astrology. - Robert Heinlein The cosmos is a vast living body, of which we are still parts. The sun is a great heart whose tremors run through our smallest veins. The moon is a great nerve-center from which we quiver forever. Who knows the power that Saturn has over us, or Venus? But it is a vital power, rippling exquisitely through us all the time. - D. H. Lawrence, Apocalypse The controls of life are structured as forms and nuclear arrangements, in a relation with the motions of the universe. - Louis Pasteur Courteous Reader, Astrology is one of the most ancient Sciences, held in high esteem of old, by the Wise and the Great. Formerly, no Prince would make War or Peace, nor any General fight in Battle, in short, no important affair was undertaken without first consulting an Astrologer. - Benjamin Franklin It's common knowledge that a large percentage of Wall Street brokers use astrology. - Donald Regan That we can now think of no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong. - Carl Sagan The question of all questions for humanity, the problem which lies behind all others and is more interesting than any of them, is that of the determination of man's place in nature and his relation to the cosmos. - T.H. Huxley Men should take their knowledge from the Sun, the Moon and the Stars. - Emerson Millionaires don't have astrologers, billionaires do. - J.P. Morgan (This is the correct quotation, according to Norman Winski, curator and owner of the Evangeline Adams Library, who was J.P. Morgan's Astrologer) There shall be signs in the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. - Jesus Christ, Luke 21:25

[Chip McDonald]

How about this: if any of those esteemed people in your list "believed" in the *reality* of "astrology", it had no detrimental impact on their accomplishments. Let's see one who says it *did*. Not that it proves anything - because it doesn't. The bottom line is that to presume another person should believe something because someone else "says it's so" is irrational. I say there is not a causal connection between the geometry of the earth and the stars and planets that determines *anything* in the fate of individuals on this planet in regards to when someone was born. That there are geophysical stresses on the planet related to gravity has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHEN YOU WERE BORN molding your present fate, nothing to do with ANYTHING outside of gravitational forces. I am vehment on this because this reminds me of another situation similar to this I encountered approximately 18 years ago. 18 years ago the metal guitar scene was at it's peak. Punk had already happened, wasn't mainstream. But there was a swelling underground "progressive" scene of alt-rock music. Part of this scene was a strong ethic of anti-musicianship. At the time I thought it was amusing. I thought it so irrational that I could comfortably regard it as an amusing aside to "modern music". Of course now, 18 years later, we're entering a musical dark ages, people think playing an instrument is something akin to learning a new video game cartridge, music has been put in the back seat to hype. Maybe lost. SO - the irrational "philosophy" of the past few years I've noticed has crept up into the mainstream. Younger people do not realize how utterly peculiar it is that "Miss Cleo" gained such absurd popularist acceptance on television; and now it's accepted that some people go along with such things. In conjunction with this we've seen an increase in televangelism, all sorts of things that are a STEP BACKWARD from being intelligent human beings, aware of one's surroundings. I can see where this is going: one day maybe it's taught in school, given equal time with "Creationism Science" and more such bs. The more such irrational behaviors are embraced, the more likely people will cease being intellectually inquisitive about the nature of reality. Society is moving in reverse, becoming more and more irrational, and I for one will not sit idly by. Astrology is bunk, it can't be proven otherwise. I say that waiting to be disproven, at which point I will make a retraction. At least most common religions acknowledge one's "faith" usually can't be proven; astrology attempts to cross the boundary of the supernatural to the natural, without any empirical evidence demonstrating it's legitimacy. Where's the beef?

[Wrave]

I gotta go with Jo. I don't believe it is prudent to discount the mystical. There are too many unexplained events to simply say, "It ain't so." For those of you that say science requires proof and that is what separates truth from mysticism, I ask you to consider some of today's theorhetical mathematics. Much of that work is unproven and yet mathematicians work ahead, indeed, base their careers, on assumptions that have, as yet, no proof. Attempting to deny that many great and powerful human beings gained knowledge from the astrological craft is like an ostrich with it's head in the sand. They did and many contimue to do so even in these modern times. Advanced mathematics is pure thought. Did black holes exist before some mystical mathematician conceived of a physical relationship that was beyond the bounds of accepted science? Yes? No? Prove it! There is a saying, "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve." Common cosmological theory often refers to the "big bang". While it is generally accepted that this was the formation of our space time continuum, it does not automatically rule out that this event may have indeed been brought about by a Creator. If you choose to put your feet into the concrete block of science, you may as well give up attempting to create...anything! Likewise, if you should base your entire life on mystical instincts and practices, you may well see your creativity become impertinent to life. I prefer to reside somewhere in the middle and enjoy the benefits of both science and mysticism. Listen to the wind, it's trying to tell you something...but be careful it doesn't blow that tree over on top of you! :) When I was about 21 years old a friend had a girlfriend that was reputed to be "gifted" in astrology. I asked her to read my chart and among other things, she told me I'd be affluent before I was 30. Three years later I hit the lottery for a prize of 200K. Can every astrologer be accurate in their interpretation of the charts? No. Not everyone is gifted. But, I believe she had the gift. There is a difference between the truely gifted and the charlatain. Don't confuse the two.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] To dismiss eastern philosohers and eastern scientific thought in general, before one has truly studied it, is a pretty empty argument against it.[/b][/quote]I'm not a practitioner of Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Sufism, Zen Buddhism, or Shintoism, but I don't necessarily dismiss any of them. In fact, I have read books about several of these and have admired their ability to distill timeless wisdom into stirring and unforgettable passages. I've read a few horoscopes, too. They didn't give me the same sense of legitimacy. As far as a comparison of religion vs. astrology, that's like comparing synth programming to snow boarding. They're vastly different. Religion offers possible explanations for things that cannot be discerned - where life originate, where the soul goes after death, what happened before the beginning of the universe, global definitions of morality, etc. Astrology concerns itself with predictions of what may unfold in day to day life. Astrology and religion could not be farther apart in their respective spheres of influence.[/b][/quote]They both require faith from the devotee. OK, astrology is not a bona fide 'belief system' but both astrology and religion exist to give answers to the questions asked by the faithful, and also to afford some measure of comfort. What I am saying is that the origins and driving forces behind the two are quite similar. I'd also bet that many of the people who jumped and astrology and attacked it are religious - and I didn't need a reading to give that prediction ;)

[Mats Olsson.]

Ok, astrology can give some comfort and some pretty vague ansvers. But predictions by astrologers are still not better than chance. Am I wrong? Show some credible evidents! /Mats

[Rog]

Originally posted by Mats_Olsson: "Ok, astrology can give some comfort and some pretty vague ansvers. But predictions by astrologers are still not better than chance. Am I wrong? Show some credible evidents!" I'm not defending astrology, I can't say I believe in it. I'm just pointing out some hypocrisy here. I suppose the main difference between the two is that religion requires no proof whatsoever, skeptics rarely attack religion outright and mostly avoid any religious issues - maybe because, historically, that would have been the wisest thing to do ;) Astrology, on the other hand, seems to be a fair target for anyone who demands scientific proof. I'm not entirely sure why this is the case but I'd love for someone to prove the existance of black holes or quarks :)

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Astrology is bunk, it can't be proven otherwise. [/quote]Astrology is not bunk, and can not be proven otherwise. Are we any closer to a truism? [quote] How about this: if any of those esteemed people in your list "believed" in the *reality* of "astrology", it had no detrimental impact on their accomplishments. [/quote]Yes. So the point you are making is, that if you believe in astrology you will suffer? Follow your own logic. It is full of presumption. [quote] The bottom line is that to presume another person should believe something because someone else "says it's so" is irrational. I say there is not a causal connection between the geometry of the earth and the stars and planets that determines *anything* in the fate of individuals on this planet in regards to when someone was born. [/quote]You sir, are entirely entiled to your own opinion and to live your life based on such. But you are dangerously close to digging a hole where you yourself will sink into. I don't think anyone is forcing an idea onto you. You on the other hand are coming close to doing just that. [quote] ......all sorts of things that are a STEP BACKWARD from being intelligent human beings, aware of one's surroundings. [/quote]Well it seems from my perspective, that if you were really that aware you would realize the "interconnectedness" of ALL things. [quote] I can see where this is going: one day maybe it's taught in school, given equal time with "Creationism Science" and more such bs. The more such irrational behaviors are embraced, the more likely people will cease being intellectually inquisitive about the nature of reality. Society is moving in reverse, becoming more and more irrational, and I for one will not sit idly by. [/quote]So rational means that anything that can be "scientifically" measured exist, and everything else does not? Can God be measured? Can you see a black hole? Can you see your soul? Who are YOU? Where are your thoughts? Do they exist in your brain, or in your arms or eyes? Can you quantify them? Do they exist? I believe the exact opposite of you. I believe that our mechanistic view has frozen us into a perception that is both "wrong" and dangerous. We are slowly killing off the collective soul of our society, and a belief in astrology is not the culprit. Ignorance and pride are.

[Master Zap]

[quote]prove the existance of black holes or quarks [/quote]There is a very common misconception that science is about "proving" things. Very little can, in fact, be "proven" at all. Do I exist? Do YOU exist? Prove it! etc. What science *IS* about, is formulating *theories* and *models*, then one USES those models to make *predictions*. Then one *checks* those predictions with *reality*. If they *match*, the model is *good*, if they *dont* the model is *bad*, and rejected or at least shelved until more data arrives. It's really a matter of probabilities and "how much right this theory seems". If it can predict 99.5% of every case it's probably a damned good theroy. If it can predict 0.5% its probably a pretty rotten one. Astrology is a fair target because it is "supposedly" a "science". There are clear "rules" to follow to calculate the various heavenly bodies and whatnot. Also it's easily *testable*. The astrology might say X should happen, and X does not happen, hence being yet another thing in favor of the opposition. But can we prove it doesn't work? Not really. You can't prove a negative anyway. Suffice to say, though, there is an overwhelming body of evidence listing endless amount of astrological "predictions" that *didn't* came to pass. That, aimed with the fact that the gravitational pull of a legal size piece of normal printer paper on your desk is actually LARGER on your body than the gravitational pull of the MOON is on your body (yes really, do the math, invese square law and all), makes effects of even our closes heavenly body questionable. That coupled with the fact that astrologers are preocuupied with the time and date the fetus passes from the inside to the outside of the womb, an even that, while traumatic, doesn't really mark any significant event in the actual development of the fetus itself, RATHER than going for a much more significant event - the actual sperm entering the egg cell, which is a much much MUCH more influential event on how the person actually develops. In a lot less words; Astrology is hogwash, and anyone who believes in it is an idiot. Simple as that, really. /Z

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dan South: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] To dismiss eastern philosohers and eastern scientific thought in general, before one has truly studied it, is a pretty empty argument against it.[/b][/quote]I'm not a practitioner of Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Sufism, Zen Buddhism, or Shintoism, but I don't necessarily dismiss any of them. In fact, I have read books about several of these and have admired their ability to distill timeless wisdom into stirring and unforgettable passages. I've read a few horoscopes, too. They didn't give me the same sense of legitimacy. As far as a comparison of religion vs. astrology, that's like comparing synth programming to snow boarding. They're vastly different. Religion offers possible explanations for things that cannot be discerned - where life originate, where the soul goes after death, what happened before the beginning of the universe, global definitions of morality, etc. Astrology concerns itself with predictions of what may unfold in day to day life. Astrology and religion could not be farther apart in their respective spheres of influence.[/b][/quote]They both require faith from the devotee. OK, astrology is not a bona fide 'belief system' but both astrology and religion exist to give answers to the questions asked by the faithful, and also to afford some measure of comfort. What I am saying is that the origins and driving forces behind the two are quite similar. I'd also bet that many of the people who jumped and astrology and attacked it are religious - and I didn't need a reading to give that prediction ;) [/b][/quote]Exactly the point I was trying to make when I brought up religion. However, I am definitly not religious so that has nothing to do with my 'attack' on astrology...actually I wasn't attacking anything to start...just pointing out that I think Astrology is bullshit :) MasterZap and Chip are much better at arguing this stuff than I am and they also seem to know more detail about it so I'll step back and chill. :wave:

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Master Zap: [b] [quote]prove the existance of black holes or quarks [/quote]There is a very common misconception that science is about "proving" things. Very little can, in fact, be "proven" at all. Do I exist? Do YOU exist? Prove it! etc. ... In a lot less words; Astrology is hogwash, and anyone who believes in it is an idiot. Simple as that, really. /Z[/b][/quote]It's hogwash? Believers are idiots? Does the same rationale apply to religious people? Logic would suggest that it must which means I am in the minority of non-idiots that don't believe in hogwash on this planet ;) Seriously, I think most of what we believe in is based on concensus. There are many religions but there are only a few major ones which would support this. I believe this is also true of science. I'm aware that, for many branches of science, the pursuit of absolute truth is a pointless task. Theories are accepted based upon concensus too. Published works are subject to peer review and, if enough people support a theory, it is accepted as, if not a truth, then a working proposition.

[Dave Pierce]

I've tried and tried to just let this go, but I can't do it. I am a huge Heinlein fan, and I believe I've read every word he ever wrote, although I may have missed a couple of the early short stories. This is the second time I've seen this quote of his: [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an "intellectual", find out how he feels about astrology. - Robert Heinlein [/b][/quote]Guys, guys....Heinlein's point is that anyone who [b]believes[/b] in astrology, is not an intellectual! :eek: If you are going to use an [i]argumentum ad verecundiam[/i], at least try to use one that actually supports your position! Personally, I'd say that staying away from the logical fallacies is a better way to make your point, but whatever. :rolleyes: And in the spirit of friendly discourse over condescension, I offer the following link for those who haven't had the time to study logic formally: [url=http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm]Stephen\'s Guide to the Logical Fallacies[/url] --Dave

[Jotown]

Copernicus postulated that the sun was the center of the solar system. Galileo much later proved it, even though the proof was not widely accepted at the time due to the ignorance of the powers that be. John Nash postulated the equilibrium theory. It took over 20 years for people to realize how that theory could be applied to economic principle and thus the predicting of outcomes. Einstein postulated the theory of relativity and the proof that it was correct came later. In fact the implications of his theories are even now just being unraveled. Great science, great art, great thinking in general will always require a "leap of faith". The creator will postulate a possibility, create a working model that demonstrates that principle, and later, much later, sometimes never will that theory be provable. The fact is; this science you cling to so desperately will in a hundred years or so resemble elementary school algebra today. It will be replaced and supplanted by a broader and bigger view of the cosmos. The person who first pronounces this new model will be criticized and ridiculed and eventually his/her ideas will become accepted as common knowledge. People can call anything bunk or rubbish, and they can call believers of any thought systems idiots, or worse. But their language belies a small mind and a person not yet capable of nonlinear thinking. I encounter this kind of limited reasoning in the real world every day, but I never would have thought that I would encounter it among a community of supposed artists. In the end I guess that is why there are so few truly original thinkers and true creators in this world, and so much mediocrity and imitation on this spinning blue ball that we call home. Peace/out.

[george costanza]

I can't believe how massively this matted tangle of opinion has grown since yesterday! Wish I had time to read everyone's [i]opinions[/i] on this. Here: read mine! JTown, I hope you recognize that I was neither dismissing (nor endorsing) astrology in my post about belief/science...although I will say that since dicovering that Lyndon Johnson, Paul (PeeWee) Reubens & I all share the same birthday, I look askance at what similar natures we might have, no matter which astrological system one invests. That in itself proves nothing, though. I happen to think that there's much to be gain from the oldest philosophies. One thing we should remember is that much is portrayed in ways that are meant to be understandable by the student/worshiper/whatever [i]regardless[/i] of their level. That ls, the same message may be "encoded" variously to suit the mentality of the particular "receiver". This is demonstrated often in Hindu, Buddhist & Catholic religious imagery...science (or rationalism), we should remember, is treated (in spite of proper intent) by many as a type of religion, too. [Note the vehemence some attach to the necessity of converting others to their views.] My point, which I think is worth restating, is that [b]what seems true at one time may be disproved by new evidence & that our understanding of reality shifts beneath our philosophical feet regularly[/b].

[StoneinaPond]

Dave, [quote] Guys, guys....Heinlein's point is that anyone who believes in astrology, is not an intellectual! [/quote]You appear to be correct on that point. But in the interest of levity, let me provide another quote that I came upon while checking that out. [quote] Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman's breast; it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and happy. [/quote]I'll talk to you later. :eek:

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]My point, which I think is worth restating, is that [b]what seems true at one time may be disproved by new evidence & that our understanding of reality shifts beneath our philosophical feet regularly[/b].[/b][/quote]Well George, your point is well taken. However, there are certain ideas that stand the test of time. There are certain concepts that remain true regardless of historical context. Ideas that great minds like Plato, Socrates and great eastern mystics like Krishnamurti put forth, that are just as true today as they were when first written down millennia ago. These ideas are called [b]Perennial Wisdom.[/b] They are what separates great ideas from mere science. Sometimes these ideas are scientific and sometimes they are not. The truth they hold however is above such limiting classification. Dave Pierce wrote: [quote]Guys, guys....Heinlein's point is that anyone who believes in astrology, is not an intellectual! [/quote]Good for you Dave. You have possibly de-bunked one quote on a list of 17. What about the other 16 statements? Are they irrelevant? Is that the kind of science you practice, where one grain of sand that may improve your position dismisses the rest of the beach? Looking only at information that may prove your point is a very selective form of discovery. That is; you won't find anyting new with that perspective. :)

[mars_dup1]

From Robert Zoller, medieval astrology specialist, and the only astrologer that I am aware of who made an [i]accurate[/i] prediction concerning Sept 11th some twelve months before hand. He was the only astrologer who specifically stated that the attack would be by Islamic fundamentalists on US soil, that it would be in September 2001 and specifically named bin Laden. [quote] Predictions must be clear and unambiguous. They must convey practical advice that can be acted upon. Any statement that introduces ambiguity should not be called prediction at all. Part of the trouble with the current debate on prediction and its place within astrology is that the main proponents think they are debating on prediction but are mostly considering nothing more than [i]Considerations before Judgment[/i] . Coupled to this is the manner in which people are apt to upgrade these inferior observations to foreknowledge. [/quote]

[Jotown]

Thank you for that. This thread was not called a prediction by me. But I do appreciate this factual statement regarding the validity of astrology. It sure beats; "astrology is bullshit". :p

[george costanza]

Jotown, I know quite a bit about the Mystic East...& the Mystic West, North, South, Mystic Up & Mystic Down. Enough to know that the universe is all things to all people. I wonder if my actual point is clear...or being deflected due to the attack/defense situation that seems to've arisen here... All our knowledge is based on the idea that we are in touch with what Jotown has called "perennial wisdom"...but everyone has their own idea of what that wisdom [i]is[/i]. True understanding entails the recognition that we may need to adjust our ideas as necssary to respond to the reality around us. This isn't meant to endorse "science" or "belief" but to try to show that either may be correct as circumstances change. The only immutable truth is that no one knows the ultimate truth, no matter what any of us may wish to think. The biggest fool is the one who thinks they have all the answers.

[Jotown]

[quote]All our knowledge is based on the idea that we are in touch with what Jotown has called "perennial wisdom"...but everyone has their own idea of what that wisdom is. [/quote]Incorrect. [b]Perennial Wisdom[/b] was true then and is true now. This is why it is [b]Perennial[/b]. Everything else is as you describe; Mutable and conditional. Perennial wisdom is how you know what is really true, and what is merely theoretical. It is what separates the wheat from the chaff. .

[george costanza]

As one progresses one learns that all knowledge is available but that one must make room for new ideas. Do not mistake that because some things may seem eternal that they are known...or even knowable. Further do not mistake the small differences that are "perceived" as signifying true difference ultimately. Remember the story of the tower of Babel? What separates people most often is the inability to understand one another's communication. [quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]The only immutable truth is that no one knows the ultimate truth, no matter what any of us may wish to think. The biggest fool is the one who thinks they have all the answers.[/b][/quote]

[Jotown]

[quote]As one progresses one learns that all knowledge is available but that one must make room for new ideas. Do not mistake that because some things may seem eternal that they are known...or even knowable. [/quote]Well George, that's what I have been saying for four days here. I was only referring to your description of what I meant by "Perrenial Wisdom", because it was not what I meant at all. No offense intended, we are actually saying the same thing in many ways. I was just in disagreement on that one point. :)

[george costanza]

Conxactly :thu: Now if we could just get CM to quit doing that thing where he quotes a post & savages it point by point....

[Dave Pierce]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]Good for you Dave. You have possibly de-bunked one quote on a list of 17. What about the other 16 statements? Are they irrelevant? Is that the kind of science you practice, where one grain of sand that may improve your position dismisses the rest of the beach? Looking only at information that may prove your point is a very selective form of discovery. That is; you won't find anyting new with that perspective. :) [/b][/quote]Dude, I'm waaaay done trying to debate this reasonably, as I said around 30 posts ago. You're the one who's trying to "prove" something here, using the "appeal to authority". If you want to believe that you've proven your point, I've got no problem with that. I'm not saying astrology is bunk or not -- I am saying I've never seen a prediction specific enough to be tested. I doubt if I ever will, but if I do I'll happily say that I was wrong. However, I don't want one of my favorite authors misrepresented, which was the sole purpose of my post. Heinlein DID believe astrology was bunk, and it's disrespectful to quote him otherwise. --Dave

[Skip_dup1]

to the extent that the universe, including ourselves, is made from star-stuff with residual subtle energies, it is logical to posit that the position of existing stars at the time of our birth would have some influence over our lives. The position of the stars imply a confluence of energies which would direct events one way or another. But this would be in a very general sense, such as, one set of influences may set up more negative conditions, or another may bring about more positive, nourishing events. In that case, the system of measuring time wouldn`t matter, as long as the stars behave in a predictable way. But it would all be very general, so I think that attempting to predict specific events has nothing to do with astrology, that would be more in the psychic/intuitive realm.