Do you believe in astrology? What is your sign.


s_lone
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by mimiki

for those of you who believe and follow astrology, as different sites/people give different takes every time, which site in web gives the most accurate outlooks?

I'm not much the type to lookout for astrology in the way you propose. I must admit, a damn heavy load of astrology is abject junk. But if you're really interested in the subject you can start by checking out this archival site on Dane Rudhyar, one of the most important astrologers from the 20th century.

www.khaldea.com/rudhyar/ (external - login to view)

If you're looking for horoscopes, you won't find it there. I don't care much about horoscopes. From my point of view they are almost always a mindless and dishonest use of astrology by pop culture.

If you want to read a very good book on the subject, try to get your hands on the book Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas. The book gives an extensive analysis of how planetary cycles historically correspond to archetypal realities.
 
Dexter Sinister
#62
Quote:

...Dane Rudhyar, one of the most important astrologers from the 20th century.

Important to whom? Other astrologers who think his rambling, disjointed prose is actually about something? For instance, what in Hell does this paragraph of his mean?

Saturnian provincialism transforms itself into Neptunian federalism; in turn, the federal structures, once they have become familiar and strongly operative, become Saturnian bondage to the internationalist who seeks to establish Neptunian patterns of supernational organizations like the United Nations or the new "Europe" that the truly progressive minds of that continent are envisioning and yearning for and slowly building step after step.

I haven't a clue what he's talking about. Is he really crediting Neptune's influence for creating the UN and the EEC? How can you believe such flatulent nonsense?
 
Dexter Sinister
#63
More to the point, where was the influence of Neptune before it was discovered? Is there some regular pattern of inconsistencies or errors in astrological understandings prior to 1848 that the presence of Neptune explains? If Neptune's influence was real, there would be. The same question must be asked about Pluto, which wasn't discovered until 1930, and Uranus, discovered in 1781. The answer of course is no, there's no such pattern of inconsistencies or errors. Does the influence begin only after we learn about them? That defies the most elementary logic.
 
s_lone
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote:

...Dane Rudhyar, one of the most important astrologers from the 20th century.

Important to whom? Other astrologers who think his rambling, disjointed prose is actually about something? For instance, what in Hell does this paragraph of his mean?

Saturnian provincialism transforms itself into Neptunian federalism; in turn, the federal structures, once they have become familiar and strongly operative, become Saturnian bondage to the internationalist who seeks to establish Neptunian patterns of supernational organizations like the United Nations or the new "Europe" that the truly progressive minds of that continent are envisioning and yearning for — and slowly building step after step.

I haven't a clue what he's talking about. Is he really crediting Neptune's influence for creating the UN and the EEC? How can you believe such flatulent nonsense?

The key word is symbolism here. Astrology is a symbolical language.

Of course if you know nothing about astrology I can certainly understand how all this sounds like utter nonsense.

In astrological symbolism Saturn represents structures, limitations, the sense of security (very crudely explained)... frontiers in this case

Neptune is known as the planet which dissolves structures... It symbolises what connects us to larger wholes...

But forget about the planets for a bit. The idea to all this is that there are archetypal patterns and ideas that exist in the same way mathematical principles seem to simply exist.

If you can't accept the idea of an archetypal reality it's utterly useless for us to talk about astrology.
 
s_lone
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

More to the point, where was the influence of Neptune before it was discovered? Is there some regular pattern of inconsistencies or errors in astrological understandings prior to 1848 that the presence of Neptune explains? If Neptune's influence was real, there would be. The same question must be asked about Pluto, which wasn't discovered until 1930, and Uranus, discovered in 1781. The answer of course is no, there's no such pattern of inconsistencies or errors. Does the influence begin only after we learn about them? That defies the most elementary logic.

The answer to your question is no, the “influence” does not only begin when we discover a given planet.

It’s a bit like someone going through a psychotherapy. The therapist can help the patient become aware of certain patterns of thought that are limiting or polluting his conscious mind. Before his therapy, the unconscious patterns are there even if he doesn’t know it. They are still there during and after the therapy but the patterns have arisen to his consciousness.

Coming back to planets, the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto can very well be used to understand the past before they were discovered. Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas. If you get the chance to read this book you will know what I am talking about.

Astrology is always incomplete because it can only take into account a limited number of factors. But as astronomical knowledge evolves, astrology becomes richer and better. While it bases itself on exact data (astronomy), its results can never be exact… a bit like predicting the weather. Astrology deals with archetypes that cannot be quantitatively or scientifically measured.
 
Dexter Sinister
#66
Sounds like sympathetic magic to me. Can you explain what you mean by an "archetypal reality," with an example or two? To me that means a typical specimen of reality, which doesn't seem to mean anything, there's only one. Or are you using it in Jung's sense, as some sort of mental image present in the collective unconscious?
 
s_lone
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Sounds like sympathetic magic to me. Can you explain what you mean by an "archetypal reality," with an example or two? To me that means a typical specimen of reality, which doesn't seem to mean anything, there's only one. Or are you using it in Jung's sense, as some sort of mental image present in the collective unconscious?

I agree with you, there is only one reality. But to what extent can we grasp all subtleties of this reality?

When I speak of an archetypal reality I do mean it in Jung's sense. But I also mean it in the sense that certain form of ideas or principles exist in themselves. The same way mathematical principles exist even if humans don't think about them. 2+2 equaled 4 before humans learned how to count. The universe is made of matter but there are underlying principles that order it all together like the laws of physics, for example.

A more specific example would be the concepts of expansion and acceleration (symbolised by Jupiter in astrology). I believe these "concepts" or "principles" exist in themselves

To put it bluntly, I believe in an underlying "mental" reality existing through the whole cosmos. Astrology tends to consider the whole cosmos as full of life and meaning. Biological life is but an expression of Life itself which is present in every single little bit of the cosmos. I guess this is pretty much a leap of faith but I can accept that.

I won't bitterly argue with someone who doesn't believe in astrology because I understand too much why you wouldn't want to. That's perfectly OK with me. In the end I think it comes down to your way of conceptualizing the universe in its form and meaning.
 
Dexter Sinister
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I agree with you, there is only one reality. But to what extent can we grasp all subtleties of this reality?

I dunno. Neither does anybody else. Physics and cosmology long ago went way beyond the direct perception of our senses. I've always been fascinated by the idea that reality, whatever it is, isn't remotely what our unaided senses would tell us it is.

Quote:

certain form of ideas or principles exist in themselves.

Agreed.
Quote:

...example would be the concepts of expansion and acceleration (symbolised by Jupiter in astrology). I believe these "concepts" or "principles" exist in themselves

Agreed again; things were expanding and accelerating long before there was anyone around to perceive them. Do you also believe there's an objective reality separate from our perceptions of it?

Actually I'm inclined to agree with quite a lot of what you posted there, though I'd certainly have phrased things differently. The only real mystery to me is the bit in parentheses, "(symbolized by Jupiter in astrology)." Why does Jupiter symbolize those things, or anything at all, and what's the connection between those symbolic associations and reality? It's clear from the little bit of Rudhyar I read at that link you posted that astrology considers each planet to be symbolic of certain things, the astrological signs are symbolic of certain things, each sign has a gender associated with it, certain signs are associated with the old Greek idea of the four elements (earth, air, fire, and water), and so on. What possible justification is there for all those associations? It's not empirical, obviously, and you stated in an earlier post that these things can't be empirically tested anyway. How can they be known then? The only explanation I can imagine is that at some point somebody just made this stuff up. That seems to me a pretty flimsy basis for trying to understand reality. The only useful test is to probe nature and observe how it behaves.

I was also a little chagrined to see you write "I won't bitterly argue..." I certainly didn't intend any element of bitterness to creep into this. I was just trying to convey my incredulity. And it's not that I don't want to believe this stuff, I simply can't. It flies in the face of everything I understand about how things work, and a life in science has given me what I think is a pretty good understanding of how a lot of things work.
 
jimmoyer
#69
The only explanation I can imagine is that at some point somebody just made this stuff up. That seems to me a pretty flimsy basis for trying to understand reality.
--------------------------Dexter Sinister-----------------

Ever are you the warrior of sequential thinking,
a crusader against mystical vaguaries !!!

Your quote reminds me of the oddity how people
just make stuff up out of the clear blue and this is
exactly found in the commonality of symbols universally
dreamt in dreams and led to Jung to the Archetypes
of the Unconscious.
 
s_lone
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

I was also a little chagrined to see you write "I won't bitterly argue..." I certainly didn't intend any element of bitterness to creep into this. I was just trying to convey my incredulity. And it's not that I don't want to believe this stuff, I simply can't. It flies in the face of everything I understand about how things work, and a life in science has given me what I think is a pretty good understanding of how a lot of things work.

I truly didn't feel any form of bitterness in your remarks... believe me. :P This is a pleasant discussion. All I meant, really, is that I truly understand why you can be skeptical about astrology. (I'll be bitter about a subject like monarchy but certainly not astrology!)

Because of the way astrology is used today (a sad relationship between naive people and crooks), the onus is indeed on us to prove the claims of astrology.
 
tamarin
#71
If you believe in astrology you also believe in predestination. How could we ever be happy in a world devoid of free will? How could religions ever make sense, if what we could be and hope to be is already determined? Astrology is a clever pastime but it guesses at a world for man we all should protest.
 
s_lone
#72
Dexter Sinister asked: Do you also believe there's an objective reality separate from our perceptions of it?

Tough question... I tend to think that yes, there is an objective reality seperate from our perceptions of it.

Now for astrology, why would Jupiter symbolise acceleration and expansion? I admit it gets tougher for me to argue at this point because astrological symbolism is essentially based on tradition and I guess I trust this tradition. Am I naive to do so? Maybe... The idea is that after a few thousand years of studying planetary correspondences with human existence, we eventually come up with principles we can stick to. However, astrology did evolve a great deal thanks to modern astronomy and a healthy dose of criticism.

For example, medieval astrology considered Jupiter a good planet and Saturn a bad and evil planet. Jupiter would bring luck and joy while Saturn would bring sorrow and bad luck. Today's astrological symbolism is a lot more subtle than this. While Jupiter can bring you expansion and abundance, it can also lead to excess and exageration. Saturn on the other hand leads us to maturity and wisdom by imposing it's difficult cold realities. Saturn contracts and sets limits.

It gets more interesting with the modern planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto (and all the other new stuff!!!). The"effects" of these planets were passionately observed by astrologers as they were discovered and they seem to have come up with a coherent symbolic system that enriches the classical astrogical one (that stops at Saturn).

Pluto is an interesting planet... it is considered a very powerful, despite its very small size. It symbolises a form of ruthless cosmic energy that transcends any human notion of good and evil. Pluto purifies everything it touches by destroying anything that is no longer useful. It is a planet of death and destruction, but also of regeneration and rebirth (phoenix rising from the ashes). In a sense, it can be compared to the titaniesque but potentially destructive energy of an atom. Pluto was discovered at a time when atomic energy was becoming a reality for us humans.

All this bla bla doesn't prove astrology... I know. But maybe it gives you better understanding of what kind of world it is. It's both extremely concrete (astronomical data) and extremely abstract (symbolism... archetypes...)
 
s_lone
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by tamarin

If you believe in astrology you also believe in predestination. How could we ever be happy in a world devoid of free will? How could religions ever make sense, if what we could be and hope to be is already determined? Astrology is a clever pastime but it guesses at a world for man we all should protest.

The idea of predestination is an important objection to astrology. I myself strongly oppose the idea of being determined by planetary movements. But today's astrology largely accepts freewill as a "fact".
Knowing about the cosmic cycles can be compared to knowing about the weather. If it is raining like hell outside you probably will stay inside... but you are still free to go outside if that is what you want to do.
 
s_lone
#74
An important point, astrology is very intimately connected to numerical symbolism

The 12 signs of the zodiac are seperated in 2 groups of 6 (masculine and feminine)...3 groups of 4 (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable)... and 4 groups of 3 (fire, earth, air, water) All dealing with different symbolical sets.

1. Aries: Cardinal---Fire---Masculine
2. Taurus: Fixed-----Earth--Feminine
3. Gemini: Mutable--Air-----Masculine
4. Cancer: Cardinal-Water-Feminine
5. Leo: Fixed----Fire----Masculine
6. Virgo: Mutable--Earth--Feminine
7. Libra: Cardinal--Air -----Masculine
8. Scorpio: Fixed---Water--Feminine
9. Sagittarius: Mutable-- Fire-Masculine
10. Capricorn: Cardinal--Earth- Feminine
11. Aquarius: Fixed---Air-----Masculine
12. Pisces: Mutable--Water--Femine

Very logical construction in which the multiples of 12 (2,3,4,6)are combined in every possible way.
 
SaintLucifer
#75
People! Pay attention! Astrology is not a science! It is mythology! Christ on a stick! judging one's past, present and future based on the positions of stars that are nowhere near where you are looking at them. That's where they were thousands of years ago yet an astrologer says 'the alignment of this star here with that star means this will happen to you' yet she is looking at nothing more than old light! The star is no longer there! As a fascist I would have astrology banned outright because it would poison the minds of our young thus rendering their weak minds permeable to ridiculous notions like God and Astrology.

My ancestors, the Druids, believed in Astrology. That was also thousands of years ago before the advent of the telescope, mathematics and celestial cartography. The Druids are about as ridiculous as those idiots who practise Wicca. Embarassment to my Celtic heritage.
 
Kreskin
#76
You've added "banning astrology" to your platform? What happens to someone caught looking it up on the internet?
 
SaintLucifer
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin

You've added "banning astrology" to your platform? What happens to someone caught looking it up on the internet?

I meant I would have it banned from the State. There is no use for Astrology in the everyday running of Canada. No government institution shall bother with Astrology. I would never touch the internet because it is not part and parcel of the State. I would though seek to assure that our schoolchildren do not have their heads filled with such ridiculous nonesense because Astrology would not serve the purposes of the State. Look it up on the internet all you want just do not expect any Canadian taxpayers to have anything to do with it. Feel free to look up anything you want in my fascist utopia but just do not expect Canadian taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned dollars in the form of grants etc. for idiotic Astrology groups. Let them fund their own but you will never see anything about them or anything to do with Astrology on the CBC and any government publications.
 
s_lone
#78
Well Christ on a stick! In the old days the church would warn us about the devil using astrology to manipulate our poor souls.

Today we have Lucifer himself warning us against the dangers of astrology... The world has truly turned upside down!
 
SaintLucifer
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

Well Christ on a stick! In the old days the church would warn us about the devil using astrology to manipulate our poor souls.

Today we have Lucifer himself warning us against the dangers of astrology... The world has truly turned upside down!

You used my saying 'Christ on a stick'! I am sooooo proud!! Thank you! I invented that saying you know? I just thought of Christ on the wooden cross and came up with that saying. Aren't I just the greatest?

Anyhoo, you equate my bans with those of the church. Not the same thing. Astrology serves no purpose. The devil very much served the purpose of the Church. It increased their power by claiming that those who do not follow the tenets of the Church are controlled by the Devil and should be treated as such. This gave them the right to finger those who do not toe the line. I have not done any such thing since I would allow those who show an interest in Astrology to feel free to follow that interest via libraries, the internet and other sources. I merely point out none of those sources would be a State entity. Not a dime of the State's money would ever be spent on anything as ridiculous as Astrology. Feel free to do what you will with Astrology but do not ever expect to find such claptrap in our schools or in any government offices. Such idiocy serves the State no benefit therein should be banned.
 
Dexter Sinister
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Ever are you the warrior of sequential thinking,
a crusader against mystical vaguaries !!!

Make that "clear" rather than "sequential" and I'll agree with you.

Quote:

Your quote reminds me of the oddity how people
just make stuff up out of the clear blue and this is
exactly found in the commonality of symbols universally
dreamt in dreams and led to Jung to the Archetypes
of the Unconscious.

Commonality of symbols universally dreamt...? I strongly doubt there's any such thing, but if there is, there's a much more prosaic origin. Any culture is steeped in symbols of various kinds, you'll see them in art and architecture and fiction and all over the place, we're all immersed in them and they're just products of human culture. There's no mystical significance beyond that.

Jung I think is not to be taken seriously for about the last half of his life. He believed in telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, and various forms of ESP. To those demonstrably false notions he added two metaphysical speculations of his own invention, the collective unconscious and synchronicity. His justification of synchronicity and the acausal coincidences that underly it is trite and surprisingly naive for someone of his intelligence, and experience; all it really shows is his complete ignorance of probability and statistics. All he really did was tart up with some fancy prose a well known human tendency to find significance where there isn't any. It's what leads us to see and name patterns in the night sky and the face of Jesus on a burnt tortilla, believe very generic personality profiles are uniquely applicable to us, and similar things, like finding trivial and predictable (in a statistical sense) coincidences to be bulging with transcendental significance. In general it's called apophenia, and in the particular case where visuals are involved, it's called pareidolia.
 
s_lone
#81
About telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, and various forms of ESP. It's wrong to think that all this is demonstrably false. It would also be wrong to say it is demonstrably true. An honest answer would be to say that it doesn't seem possible. But who are we to say that telepathy is literally impossible? We simply do not know that as a fact. In a million years, if by any beautiful chance humanity still exists, we might very well communicate telepathically.

It's already pretty amazing that we can communicate so easily by typing little symbols onto our computer screens. I really don't see why two powerful brains couldn't connect directly to the "mental world" and communicate directly.
 
Dexter Sinister
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

About telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, and various forms of ESP. It's wrong to think that all this is demonstrably false.

Every properly controlled test of those faculties fails. Every one, without exception. Not even as well-established an activity as dowsing , in tests the dowsers themselves agree are fair and reasonable, shows anything better than chance results under properly controlled conditions. Parapsychology in over a century of research and testing has produced no legitimate results at all. There's nothing there.
 
s_lone
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

About telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, and various forms of ESP. It's wrong to think that all this is demonstrably false.

Every properly controlled test of those faculties fails. Every one, without exception. Not even as well-established an activity as dowsing , in tests the dowsers themselves agree are fair and reasonable, shows anything better than chance results under properly controlled conditions. Parapsychology in over a century of research and testing has produced no legitimate results at all. There's nothing there.

I agree, paranormal phenomenon wasn't proved scientifically...yet. But you only quoted part of my post... My point is that we don't know if that kind of phenomenon is theoretically possible. The idea that 2 brains could communicate data telepathically really isn't such a far-fetched idea. Do you think it's absolutely impossible that highly evolved beings could communicate telepathically?
 
Dexter Sinister
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

I agree, paranormal phenomenon wasn't proved scientifically...yet. But you only quoted part of my post...

Yeah, I had to think about it for a while. Outside the axiomatic systems of mathematics, proving something false is pretty difficult. Usually the best we can do, as in the case of paranormal phenomena, is show they're highly unlikely, but a single counter-example will blow all that away.

I can't think of any reason why telepathy would be impossible in principle. The human nervous system runs on a few watts of electrical power, and produces electromagnetic signals readily detectable by EEG and ECG machines. There's no reason in principle why such signals couldn't be used for direct nervous system to nervous system communication. I think the metabolic cost might be pretty high though. The human brain already accounts for something like 30% of total metabolic activity, if my memory is correct, and telepathy would cost even more. There'd have to be strong selection pressure favouring its evolution, and I can't imagine what that might be. That's just a failure of my imagination though, nature has a way of perpetually surprising us.
 
s_lone
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote: Originally Posted by s_loneI agree, paranormal phenomenon wasn't proved scientifically...yet. But you only quoted part of my post...Yeah, I had to think about it for a while. Outside the axiomatic systems of mathematics, proving something false is pretty difficult. Usually the best we can do, as in the case of paranormal phenomena, is show they're highly unlikely, but a single counter-example will blow all that away.
I can't think of any reason why telepathy would be impossible in principle. The human nervous system runs on a few watts of electrical power, and produces electromagnetic signals readily detectable by EEG and ECG machines. There's no reason in principle why such signals couldn't be used for direct nervous system to nervous system communication. I think the metabolic cost might be pretty high though. The human brain already accounts for something like 30% of total metabolic activity, if my memory is correct, and telepathy would cost even more. There'd have to be strong selection pressure favouring its evolution, and I can't imagine what that might be. That's just a failure of my imagination though, nature has a way of perpetually surprising us.

Quote has been trimmed
Presented that way, you're right, I'm not sure it would really be worth the metabolic cost to communicate in that type of telepathy! Why would we, or nature, go through all this trouble while it's so easy for us to use our good old spoken/written/word/language system?

We're reaching a point where it's clear to me that you're way of thinking is kind of the reverse of mine. But i'm not saying there's a right way to think in this situation. You present telepathy as energy transferred through matter. My idea of telepathy is a transfer of mental energy through a "mental plane" or "mental dimension"... The realm of ideas, principles and meaning. To me, matter as we experience it is an expression of this "mental" level of reality. I'd say that energy in its purest essence is what this mental dimension is made of. Telepathy would demand a purification of the thought process into pure energy that could be transferred from one living entitiy to another without any form of "material" resistance...

In a way, speaking is a brilliant way of communicating because we use air vibrations (minimal material resistance) to transfer ideas.
 
s_lone
#86
Prepare to laugh or cry...

I guess love would be a very favourable factor for telepathy to happen. Looking straight into the eyes of loved ones gets pretty close to telepathic communication.
 
Dexter Sinister
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

We're reaching a point where it's clear to me that you're way of thinking is kind of the reverse of mine.... My idea of telepathy is a transfer of mental energy through a "mental plane" or "mental dimension"... The realm of ideas, principles and meaning.

I'm an engineer by training and inclination, if you hadn't guessed by now, or seen other posts in which I make that statement. Telepathy, to exist at all, to my way of thinking has to have some plausible mechanism and has to involve some measurable energy transfer. I don't think science has done much more than scratch the surface when it comes to truly understanding the nature of reality and what's possible (or forbidden). I'm inclined to think the cosmos is fundamentally fractal, which loosely speaking means that no matter at what scale we inspect it, from multi-billions of light years to sub-billionths of a millimetre and beyond, it'll display the same degree of complexity. We're never going to figure it all out, and that's a good thing; the journey's far more interesting than the destination.

To me the realm of ideas, principles, and meaning, has no existence outside our minds. (And we'll have to leave aside for the moment the question of what "mind" is.) That's not to belittle or denigrate it, it just means that those are things we've invented to give structure and purpose to our lives. Nothing wrong with that, in fact I think everything's right with that. As I've said elsewhere in these forums, I think the meaning of life is to be found in our relationships with other people, in what we can do to, with, for, and sometimes in spite of, the other people in our lives. As far as I can tell, that's all there is. We make our own meanings, the cosmos I think is supremely indifferent to us.

Obviously your thoughts run in different channels than mine do. I'm certain that some of your thoughts I'd dismiss as mystic nonsense, and some of mine you'd dismiss as narrow-minded materialism and scientism. In fact I think we've both done exactly that in previous posts... No matter. Yours is an interesting and intelligent mind and I'm pleased that you're willing to share parts of it here. People like you are why I keep coming back here.
 
s_lone
#88
Dexter Sinister, you've just accomplished a beautiful landing back to earth. It was a perillous trip out there in space but we made it back safely with all our feathers intact. Hope to fly with you again...

Cheers to you and good night!
 
Jay
#89
Dex isn't a Capricorn, just like me.
 
Dexter Sinister
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone

... Hope to fly with you again...

Hey ol' buddy, always a pleasure to encounter another one of the Good Guys.
 

Similar Threads

0
Astrology fundamentals
by s_lone | Mar 7th, 2007
no new posts