Discussion:
Anorexia nervosa 'link to spring birth'
(too old to reply)
Kjell Pettersson
2011-04-29 22:57:05 UTC
Permalink
"The report suggests seasonal changes in temperature, sunlight
exposure and vitamin D levels, maternal nutrition and infections as
"strong candidate factors"."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13208401

I fancy the above quote as a possible response from someone out-of-
handedly rejecting astrology (whether or not this was the case this
time). But would something like which Sun sign you are necessarily
exclude things like, say, sunlight exposure and seasonal changes in
temperature?

I think not. Even "maternal nutrition" and "infections" may follow
yearly cycles.

Not that I am suggesting that anorexia is about which Sun sign you
are, or have prominent.

Anorexia nervosa is far from the only psychological or somatic problem
that affects different month groups (or Sun sign groups?) differently,
by the way.

After this somewhat long and winding intro: How, think you, would the
world change if medical astrology became accepted in academia and
scientific/medical circles?

/K
A B
2011-05-05 20:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
How, think you, would the
world change if medical astrology became accepted in academia and
scientific/medical circles?
Thanks for another intriguing topic, Kjell. Sorry I didn't get round to
replying before, had to think about it!

In medicine, astrology might do rather what genetics keeps promising -
indicate susceptibilities and what treatments suit that patient. It might
also help explain mystery ailments that doctors can't find a cause for
(still common despite all the new tests).

If scientists really accepted even one astrological phenomenon, astrology
would become a respectable field for research. I can see this "new" and
exciting field becoming quite fashionable! The phenomenon could also be
used for measurement, checking aspect orbs, the role of declination, etc. by
experiment. Within 20 years there could be a working theory of the
mechanism of astrology, if it does in fact have any definable mechanism.
Some scientific ideas might have to change to accommodate it - cause and
effect, the fundamental forces, minor tweaks like that!

Of course, it cuts both ways - because accepting one astrological phenomenon
means considering all others, scientists are very reluctant to do any such
thing, evidence or not.
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Kjell Pettersson
2011-05-25 09:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by A B
Post by Kjell Pettersson
How, think you, would the
world change if medical astrology became accepted in academia and
scientific/medical circles?
Thanks for another intriguing topic, Kjell.
I am glad there was someone who could decipher my overly complicated
post, and the strange title (given what I want to discuss).
Post by A B
 Sorry I didn't get round to
replying before, had to think about it!
See previous comment! :-)
Post by A B
In medicine, astrology might do rather what genetics keeps promising -
indicate susceptibilities and what treatments suit that patient.  It might
also help explain mystery ailments that doctors can't find a cause for
(still common despite all the new tests).
Medicine is a great hope, especially considering its astrology-
friendly history. There are precedents, the entire Hippocratic
tradition to start with.
Post by A B
If scientists really accepted even one astrological phenomenon, astrology
would become a respectable field for research.  I can see this "new" and
exciting field becoming quite fashionable!  The phenomenon could also be
used for measurement, checking aspect orbs, the role of declination, etc. by
experiment.
Considering how science in general progresses by leaps and bounds
nowadays, with possibilites of really deep data analysis, one can only
imagine what could become possible should similar attention be given
to astrology. Given Moore's law, hopefully what today takes the most
powerful computers on earth to investigate will, in due time, be
computation powers available to everyman. If almost half a century ago
they could fly to the Moon with the computational powers of a
contemporary laptop, what will not be possible in yet a few decades? A
coming Age of Aquarius would certainly include the democratization of
the means to acquire knowledge.
Post by A B
 Within 20 years there could be a working theory of the
mechanism of astrology, if it does in fact have any definable mechanism.
In India, astrology goes by the name of "Jyotish" (from Sanskrit
jyotiṣa, from jyótis- "light, heavenly body"), has got—I think—it
right. As I understand it, this was also the idea of the ancients in
the West. Contemporary science has also started to acknowledge that
light affects us in a variety of ways. We have optogenetics, light
treatment against depression, the relationship(s) between circadian
rhythms and light... et cetera. I would say that all this provides us
with a very good starting point for investigating the mechanisms
underlying astrology.
Post by A B
Some scientific ideas might have to change to accommodate it - cause and
effect, the fundamental forces, minor tweaks like that!
I am not certain CHANGE is what is needed. Just as quantum physics
does not negate classical physics, a scientific Weltanschaung that
included astrology could, I think, do this by expanding rather than
abandoning itself. It may be as simple as Hamlet tells Horatio; "There
are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Post by A B
Of course, it cuts both ways - because accepting one astrological phenomenon
means considering all others, scientists are very reluctant to do any such
thing, evidence or not.
We need just one "Galileo". Just one. Just one single experiment
conclusively proving one single point. Once the process is initiated,
if science be true to itself, its representatives MUST investigate,
sooner or later. There WILL be mavericks. No church of dogma can, in
the long run, withstand this. Not even the Church of Skepticism has
that power.

/K
unknown
2011-06-01 20:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by A B
Some scientific ideas might have to change to accommodate it - cause and
effect, the fundamental forces, minor tweaks like that!
I am not certain CHANGE is what is needed. Just as quantum physics
does not negate classical physics, a scientific Weltanschaung that
included astrology could, I think, do this by expanding rather than
abandoning itself. It may be as simple as Hamlet tells Horatio; "There
are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
True. I don't think it would negate any known scientific law. What it
WOULD negate is the all-too-common assumption that they cover everything.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
We need just one "Galileo". Just one. Just one single experiment
conclusively proving one single point. Once the process is initiated,
if science be true to itself, its representatives MUST investigate,
sooner or later. There WILL be mavericks. No church of dogma can, in
the long run, withstand this. Not even the Church of Skepticism has
that power.
"If science be true to itself..." But when has it ever been that, if the
claim is really embarrassing? And they'd have an excuse. What makes a
scientific result compelling is a rigorous method and a trustworthy
scientist. But for anything "paranormal", there aren't resources for a
rigorous experiment (e.g. who's going to arrange a full-scale clinical trial
for an astrologer?), and any scientist who goes near it is automatically
branded untrustworthy.

But as you mentioned, computer technology might help with the lack of
resources. Surely some of the vast datasets left over from studies of other
things would reveal an astrological factor. We can hope!
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
A B
2011-05-05 20:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
"The report suggests seasonal changes in temperature, sunlight
exposure and vitamin D levels, maternal nutrition and infections as
"strong candidate factors"."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13208401
I fancy the above quote as a possible response from someone out-of-
handedly rejecting astrology (whether or not this was the case this
time). But would something like which Sun sign you are necessarily
exclude things like, say, sunlight exposure and seasonal changes in
temperature?
I think not. Even "maternal nutrition" and "infections" may follow
yearly cycles.
Not that I am suggesting that anorexia is about which Sun sign you
are, or have prominent.
Anorexia nervosa is far from the only psychological or somatic problem
that affects different month groups (or Sun sign groups?) differently,
by the way.
Sun sign is problematic, since the period mentioned (Mar-Jun) takes in
Pisces, Aries, Taurus and Gemini, all very different. But those ARE the
only months when Mercury can be in Aries. Has anyone done anything on
Mercury or Venus sign and mental illnesses? (Incidentally, there's another
theory about the spring-birth phenomenon, related to infection with
toxoplasmosis before birth.)

Other promising medical ones include the full Moon/haemorrhage link, the
Moon phase/behaviour link, and the circadian and circannual rhythms (which
seem to be far more complex than anyone thought).
--
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often
Kjell Pettersson
2011-05-25 09:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by A B
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Anorexia nervosa is far from the only psychological or somatic problem
that affects different month groups (or Sun sign groups?) differently,
by the way.
Sun sign is problematic, since the period mentioned (Mar-Jun) takes in
Pisces, Aries, Taurus and Gemini, all very different.
 But those ARE the
only months when Mercury can be in Aries.  
Not June/Gemini.
Post by A B
Has anyone done anything on
Mercury or Venus sign and mental illnesses?  (Incidentally, there's another
theory about the spring-birth phenomenon, related to infection with
toxoplasmosis before birth.)
I do not see how a theory of toxoplasmos would invalidate an
astrological explanation. I see the astrological explanation as being
on quite another "level". With regards to toxoplasmos astrology would
offer a "meta-explanation" of WHY it is that toxoplasmosis works in
that particular way during that particular time.
Post by A B
Other promising medical ones include the full Moon/haemorrhage link, the
Moon phase/behaviour link, and the circadian and circannual rhythms (which
seem to be far more complex than anyone thought).
It is said that anecdotal evidence does not hold up, that the
"scientific method" cannot accept anecdotal evidence. This may be
true. Anecdotes cannot PROVE anything. Yet, a really compelling case
story could, I think, convince a person to investigate a problem they
would never otherwise have considered. Anecdotes may not be part of
scientific method, but it is anecdotal evidence of data that "mis-
fits" the current paradigm that opens the way for a new one.

And what we need are more a change of paradigm than anything else. It
is the paradigm that stifles astrological research in academia, not
the scientific method as such.

/K
CFA
2011-05-26 06:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by A B
Has anyone done anything on
Mercury or Venus sign and mental illnesses?  (Incidentally, there's another
theory about the spring-birth phenomenon, related to infection with
toxoplasmosis before birth.)
I do not see how a theory of toxoplasmos would invalidate an
astrological explanation. I see the astrological explanation as being
on quite another "level". With regards to toxoplasmos astrology would
offer a "meta-explanation" of WHY it is that toxoplasmosis works in
that particular way during that particular time.
Unequivocally nailing down this or any other specific ailment would
seem difficult at best from a purely astrological viewpoint (much less
a scientific one). Astrologers can't agree on a model of reality
(basically, whether or not there is free will). If there is, astrology
will never be scientifically 'provable'.

However, science is still in the dark ages about health and healing in
ways that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, the idea
of testing drugs on patients without also closely monitoring their
state of mind makes no sense. The effects of medication can be
significantly altered by a person's mind set.

Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-05-29 22:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by CFA
Unequivocally nailing down this or any other specific ailment would
seem difficult at best from a purely astrological viewpoint (much less
a scientific one).
I agree, at least to a point.

The law of cause and effect does not work in the manner of Newtonian
“billiard ball physics” when it comes to human affairs. Diseases may
have a zillion different reasons, half of these unknown to medical
science. This is likely to be reflected in a multitude of various
astrological signatures. Yet, with enough data and deep statistical
analysis, I still think we may get results. But it IS hard when we do
not have the same tools as are available to research within academia
and enterprise.
Post by CFA
Astrologers can't agree on a model of reality
(basically, whether or not there is free will). If there is, astrology
will never be scientifically 'provable'.
I am not so certain that astrology needs a model of reality to be
provable. OTOH, I can imagine that it, in principle, would be possible
to prove whether or not free will is so, through examining results
obtained through astrological techniques. However, personally I think
the question is not really about free will or not but that this is a
point where our minds are framed so as to construct an opposition
between free will and determinism that is not REALLY there. If we
really and truly always by our own free will do and experience
precisely what it is our will to do and experience (even if we do not
perceive that to be so at the surface level of our conscious
experience), then if this predetermined or not will make no difference
– to take but one example of how the seeming contradiction could be
nullified.
Post by CFA
However, science is still in the dark ages about health and healing in
ways that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, the idea
of testing drugs on patients without also closely monitoring their
state of mind makes no sense. The effects of medication can be
significantly altered by a person's mind set.
This is a very wise comment.

/Kjell
CFA
2011-06-07 11:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Unequivocally nailing down this or any other specific ailment would
seem difficult at best from a purely astrological viewpoint (much less
a scientific one).
I agree, at least to a point.
The law of cause and effect does not work in the manner of Newtonian
“billiard ball physics” when it comes to human affairs. Diseases may
have a zillion different reasons, half of these unknown to medical
science. This is likely to be reflected in a multitude of various
astrological signatures. Yet, with enough data and deep statistical
analysis, I still think we may get results. But it IS hard when we do
not have the same tools as are available to research within academia
and enterprise.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence... Parts of science
and/or scientific research don't apply to astrology, I guess. But it
seems to me we can use a lot of it to supplement, confirm, and/or
disprove astrological patterns.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Astrologers can't agree on a model of reality
(basically, whether or not there is free will). If there is, astrology
will never be scientifically 'provable'.
I am not so certain that astrology needs a model of reality to be
provable.
If consistent, predictable results (interpretations) were possible,
you can bet someone would make the attempt to define such a model :-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
OTOH, I can imagine that it, in principle, would be possible
to prove whether or not free will is so, through examining results
obtained through astrological techniques. However, personally I think
the question is not really about free will or not but that this is a
point where our minds are framed so as to construct an opposition
between free will and determinism that is not REALLY there. If we
really and truly always by our own free will do and experience
precisely what it is our will to do and experience (even if we do not
perceive that to be so at the surface level of our conscious
experience), then if this predetermined or not will make no difference
– to take but one example of how the seeming contradiction could be
nullified.
That at least sounds true in the moment :-) The other thing is that by
exercising choices, we narrow the range of possibilities down the
line... Choosing to be human, if we suppose such a choice, likely
precludes being a unicorn, too.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
However, science is still in the dark ages about health and healing in
ways that have nothing to do with metaphysics. For instance, the idea
of testing drugs on patients without also closely monitoring their
state of mind makes no sense. The effects of medication can be
significantly altered by a person's mind set.
This is a very wise comment.
/Kjell
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-06-09 14:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But it IS hard when we do
not have the same tools as are available to research within academia
and enterprise.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence...
Universities, with the possible exception of some countries' military
organizations or IBM, have the world's most impressive computing
powers available.

Perhaps I should not have used the word "enterprise". You may not use
it the way I think in English, I may have made a too direct
translation from how one would express it in Swedish. Anyhow, I was
attempting this (from the dictionary) definition:

"a unit of economic organization or activity; especially : a business
organization"

Whatever people believe they can make money off, they will throw money
at. If venture capitalists would believe that astrological knowledge
was possible to patent and sell, they would pay for all the research
we could ask for.

I am thinking of once when Ray (who used to participate in this group)
processed the data from my chart and charts of people in my life who
had shown important. This was perhaps more a case of software than
computing power, but I think the point holds. He could pick out
patterns seen not specifically in my chart, but among the people who
occurred in my life, such as midpoint combinations or certain aspects.
Computing power could generate similar results. Not every pattern can
be seen by the mind's eye, if that eye is unaided. Just as the
microscope, or the telescope, helps the physical eye, so there are
levels at which patterns occur in a birth chart, or in combinations of
them, which are not immediately available to us.

Ray, for instance, could see that some whopping 25 or 35 percent of
all people I knew were born on a Tuesday. Probably a random factoid of
no consequence, but it could be part of a pattern indicating that the
day of Mars is of importance in defining my friends. Actually, come
think of it, even as I write this, my eleventh house is ruled by and
contains the planet!

In a way I may be proving the opposite of my point by just seeing that
correspondence (if it is not more of a chance thing), but I hope not.
I think we could find patterns at levels we would not or could not
investigate without rather sophisticated tools and pretty much raw
computing power .
Post by CFA
Parts of science
and/or scientific research don't apply to astrology, I guess.
Could you give examples? I think the main problem is more in
formulating the question the right way than not being able to ask
questions of astrology. In particular, research into astrology must
take into consideration its peculiar analogical nature. You could not,
for instance, ask an astrologer to separate two different groups from
one another by their charts if these two groups overlap analogically.
Say a surgeon's secretary and a military messenger. Both would,
according to the cookbooks, display a mixture of Mercury and Mars and
would not ASTROLOGICALLY really show two distinct groups, possible to
easily tell apart.

Astrological analysis must precede the formulation of any test or
experiment if it shall have any chance of revealing anything. Without
a preceding astrological analysis, no results CAN be found.
Post by CFA
But it
seems to me we can use a lot of it to supplement, confirm, and/or
disprove astrological patterns.
Certainly.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Astrologers can't agree on a model of reality
(basically, whether or not there is free will). If there is, astrology
will never be scientifically 'provable'.
I am not so certain that astrology needs a model of reality to be
provable.
If consistent, predictable results (interpretations) were possible,
They are.
Post by CFA
you can bet someone would make the attempt to define such a model :-)
And, yes, I confess: I do. ;-)

But I would still say that astrology in some way is like mathematics,
it is a meta-discipline and a science unto itself. You can apply it to
a variety of subjects, but it is offers a theoretical and abstract
description. It is the application that tells you what results to
expect, how to interpret the material. A marriage chart or the
foundation of a state makes no real difference.

I may be stretching things too far, but sometimes I wonder if not
astrology IS mathematics, pure and simple.

---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If we
really and truly always by our own free will do and experience
precisely what it is our will to do and experience (even if we do not
perceive that to be so at the surface level of our conscious
experience), then if this predetermined or not will make no difference
– to take but one example of how the seeming contradiction could be
nullified.
That at least sounds true in the moment :-) The other thing is that by
exercising choices, we narrow the range of possibilities down the
line... Choosing to be human, if we suppose such a choice, likely
precludes being a unicorn, too.
If we look at the movements of atoms in a gas, they seem to be
perfectly random. Yet, if we look at the same atoms as a wind, we
surely do not think their movements random. Its a level thing. In a
similar manner you could analyze mathematically (or astrologically!)
social and political events, such as the revolutions going on in the
Arab world in the last few months.
CFA
2011-06-09 21:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But it IS hard when we do
not have the same tools as are available to research within academia
and enterprise.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence...
Universities, with the possible exception of some countries' military
organizations or IBM, have the world's most impressive computing
powers available.
Perhaps I should not have used the word "enterprise". You may not use
it the way I think in English, I may have made a too direct
translation from how one would express it in Swedish. Anyhow, I was
"a unit of economic organization or activity; especially : a business
organization"
Whatever people believe they can make money off, they will throw money
at. If venture capitalists would believe that astrological knowledge
was possible to patent and sell, they would pay for all the research
we could ask for.
I am thinking of once when Ray (who used to participate in this group)
processed the data from my chart and charts of people in my life who
had shown important. This was perhaps more a case of software than
computing power, but I think the point holds. He could pick out
patterns seen not specifically in my chart, but among the people who
occurred in my life, such as midpoint combinations or certain aspects.
Computing power could generate similar results. Not every pattern can
be seen by the mind's eye, if that eye is unaided. Just as the
microscope, or the telescope, helps the physical eye, so there are
levels at which patterns occur in a birth chart, or in combinations of
them, which are not immediately available to us.
Ray, for instance, could see that some whopping 25 or 35 percent of
all people I knew were born on a Tuesday. Probably a random factoid of
no consequence, but it could be part of a pattern indicating that the
day of Mars is of importance in defining my friends. Actually, come
think of it, even as I write this, my eleventh house is ruled by and
contains the planet!
In a way I may be proving the opposite of my point by just seeing that
correspondence (if it is not more of a chance thing), but I hope not.
I think we could find patterns at levels we would not or could not
investigate without rather sophisticated tools and pretty much raw
computing power .
I think we do have that available. My sense of it (without any proof)
is that we've been able to apply what computing power we needed to the
queries that have been made.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Parts of science
and/or scientific research don't apply to astrology, I guess.
Could you give examples? I think the main problem is more in
formulating the question the right way than not being able to ask
questions of astrology. In particular, research into astrology must
take into consideration its peculiar analogical nature. You could not,
for instance, ask an astrologer to separate two different groups from
one another by their charts if these two groups overlap analogically.
Say a surgeon's secretary and a military messenger. Both would,
according to the cookbooks, display a mixture of Mercury and Mars and
would not ASTROLOGICALLY really show two distinct groups, possible to
easily tell apart.
Astrological analysis must precede the formulation of any test or
experiment if it shall have any chance of revealing anything. Without
a preceding astrological analysis, no results CAN be found.
I guess I was thinking of things like proof of a g/God. That's not
relevant to astrology.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
But it
seems to me we can use a lot of it to supplement, confirm, and/or
disprove astrological patterns.
Certainly.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Astrologers can't agree on a model of reality
(basically, whether or not there is free will). If there is, astrology
will never be scientifically 'provable'.
I am not so certain that astrology needs a model of reality to be
provable.
If consistent, predictable results (interpretations) were possible,
They are.
Not so far, as far as I can tell. Certain repeating transits don't
always represent the same events. I also realize planetary patterns
only repeat every 25000 years or so, but we wouldn't have to wait that
long.

This is where the question of free will also applies. It might be
possible to choose a different outcome, faced with the same or similar
transits again.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
you can bet someone would make the attempt to define such a model :-)
And, yes, I confess: I do. ;-)
But I would still say that astrology in some way is like mathematics,
it is a meta-discipline and a science unto itself. You can apply it to
a variety of subjects, but it is offers a theoretical and abstract
description. It is the application that tells you what results to
expect, how to interpret the material. A marriage chart or the
foundation of a state makes no real difference.
I may be stretching things too far, but sometimes I wonder if not
astrology IS mathematics, pure and simple.
Most times, the better astrologers I've seen also use intuition. I
don't think I'd do very well at all if I didn't also.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If we
really and truly always by our own free will do and experience
precisely what it is our will to do and experience (even if we do not
perceive that to be so at the surface level of our conscious
experience), then if this predetermined or not will make no difference
– to take but one example of how the seeming contradiction could be
nullified.
That at least sounds true in the moment :-) The other thing is that by
exercising choices, we narrow the range of possibilities down the
line... Choosing to be human, if we suppose such a choice, likely
precludes being a unicorn, too.
If we look at the movements of atoms in a gas, they seem to be
perfectly random. Yet, if we look at the same atoms as a wind, we
surely do not think their movements random. Its a level thing. In a
similar manner you could analyze mathematically (or astrologically!)
social and political events, such as the revolutions going on in the
Arab world in the last few months.
Just people considering different choices. If we use the idea of
levels, in my mind the approaching transiting Uranus/Pluto aspect is
the foundation of those revolutions.

That revolution will occur is a given; the specifics of how it will
turn out is not. This is where non-believers have trouble with
astrology. It speaks to the general, but seldom to the particular.

If it did, it would open a potential for misuse of power (as well as
teaching and healing) like nothing we've ever seen. That's why I don't
think astrology will ever be scientifically proven as a valid
discipline. It would take away important aspects of the idea of
personal responsibility.

Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-06-12 15:35:09 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
CFA
2011-06-12 21:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
I think we do have that available. My sense of it (without any proof)
is that we've been able to apply what computing power we needed to the
queries that have been made.
Well, I am too sloppy. I am not only thinking of computer power, but
also about access to data. Universities, and enterprise (if that's the
word), sit on truckloads of data, and mining data (for which immense
computing power is needed if you have immense amounts of data) takes a
lot of raw power. But I am thinking not only of the raw power, but
also of accessing the kind of data that you can access in such a
setting.
One thing I think could be revealing would be to sorting through a lot
of data for a specific condition and select, from an analogical
viewpoint, who should be in the batch and who not. Applying a matrix
of selections to get a sample as pure as possible and THEN check for
astrological correspondences and statistical oddities in that group.
Given data on thousands of individuals that have been tested in a
clinical setting -- which is the kind of data universities operate
with -- surely we would receive results.
One would think.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Astrological analysis must precede the formulation of any test or
experiment if it shall have any chance of revealing anything. Without
a preceding astrological analysis, no results CAN be found.
I guess I was thinking of things like proof of a g/God. That's not
relevant to astrology.
I will hold nothing impossible. When it comes to getting answers, I
think the art is in posing the question. And who knows the limits for
that?
At some point, answers to questions like this seem to become
subjective, rather than objective.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
If consistent, predictable results (interpretations) were possible,
They are.
Not so far, as far as I can tell. Certain repeating transits don't
always represent the same events. I also realize planetary patterns
only repeat every 25000 years or so, but we wouldn't have to wait that
long.
I think you are looking for events that are the same in "material"
terms rather than analogical (astrological) terms. As if there could
be a signature for all earthquakes or all revolutions. I am thinking
of this in another way. You could have earthquake signatures, but they
would be about kinds of earthquakes, just as flue signatures would
differ due to the etiology of the flue itself, its effects in the life
of an individual, etc. (One does have to contextualize when
categorizing astrological events.)
What I've encountered is that any one condition, attitude, or
experience can have a daunting number of astrological indicators. Yes,
the outcome has a 'signature', but the raw chart elements can come
from almost anywhere. And I'm just talking about the 10 'planets',
Asc, and MC. Add in asteroids and stars, and it's completely
unmanageable.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
This is where the question of free will also applies. It might be
possible to choose a different outcome, faced with the same or similar
transits again.
That is what we call learning, the ability to choose differently the
next time we get stuck.
Yes, and it shows how astrology both works and doesn't work :-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I may be stretching things too far, but sometimes I wonder if not
astrology IS mathematics, pure and simple.
Most times, the better astrologers I've seen also use intuition. I
don't think I'd do very well at all if I didn't also.
In my thought, that which we call intuition is more or less the same
as implicit knowledge. We know stuff, but we do not know we know them,
we have not formulated them and the knowledge resides below the
surface of the conscious mind. We can always expand the explicit
knowledge by making the implicit (the intuitive) explicit, but we are
likely not to be able to exhaust the source of knowledge. Simply
because while the additions to explicit knowledge work by addition,
the effect on the amount of knowledge that can be made explicit is
multiplied. (Analogically speaking. One could refer to exponential
growth also to get the idea across.)
That's a nice illustration of the phenomenon, and it doesn't describe
all of it. That's all I'll say, as it starts to get pretty 'woo-woo'
past here.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If we look at the movements of atoms in a gas, they seem to be
perfectly random. Yet, if we look at the same atoms as a wind, we
surely do not think their movements random. Its a level thing. In a
similar manner you could analyze mathematically (or astrologically!)
social and political events, such as the revolutions going on in the
Arab world in the last few months.
Just people considering different choices. If we use the idea of
levels, in my mind the approaching transiting Uranus/Pluto aspect is
the foundation of those revolutions.
I do not disagree, though I would not want to hold any particular
aspect the culprit.
Call it synchronicity, then. Last time we had this particular
combination, college students were burning down buildings. That kind
of thing hasn't happened nearly as much since.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think, also, one should not forget about the
past. Considering that all these revolutions are occurring within a
religio-cultural sphere dominated by Islam, it may be an aspect
transiting or progression within the founder's horoscope. Or some
such.
I wouldn't lay that on Islam; something similar happened in the
mid-late 60s in the US that had nothing to do that religion or any
other. It's called fundamental societal change, causes quite an
upheaval, and is linked to transits of the 'outers', especially among
themselves.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
That revolution will occur is a given; the specifics of how it will
turn out is not. This is where non-believers have trouble with
astrology. It speaks to the general, but seldom to the particular.
That gap is the same as the gap between the abstract and the concrete.
And, yes, it is something that can be very hard to bridge, in
interpretation as well as in understanding.
Post by CFA
If it did, it would open a potential for misuse of power (as well as
teaching and healing) like nothing we've ever seen. That's why I don't
think astrology will ever be scientifically proven as a valid
discipline. It would take away important aspects of the idea of
personal responsibility.
But that is not really an argument. There is no rational reason to
assume that personal responsibility is inherent in the nature of the
universe.
There's no reason not to, either. At least anecdotally, some effects
can be noticed. Try not being responsible for yourself and see what
happens :-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Also, I do not agree. In connection with another thread here I read
some about autism and the like, and a hacker (convicted for crime)
said that his diagnosis did not absolve him from having done what he
had done. His interest in hacking was surely due to his diagnosis (and
that, in turn, is largely due to genetics), but his *actions* were his
own.
The stars impel, but they do not compel. Analogically, even if your
chart says you are to end up a criminal it is YOU who take the steps
in that direction. Or not. Having an astrological makeup at birth is,
I think, perfectly analogical to having a genetic makeup. What you do
with it, within the spectrum available to you, is up to you, in both
cases.
I believe that's exactly the point I was making :-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-06-14 00:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I will hold nothing impossible. When it comes to getting answers, I
think the art is in posing the question. And who knows the limits for
that?
At some point, answers to questions like this seem to become
subjective, rather than objective.
Being subjective is not being in opposition to truth. Subjective
experiences, such as pain, can be measured objectively, and factual
statements can be made about them.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think you are looking for events that are the same in "material"
terms rather than analogical (astrological) terms. As if there could
be a signature for all earthquakes or all revolutions. I am thinking
of this in another way. You could have earthquake signatures, but they
would be about kinds of earthquakes, just as flue signatures would
differ due to the etiology of the flue itself, its effects in the life
of an individual, etc. (One does have to contextualize when
categorizing astrological events.)
What I've encountered is that any one condition, attitude, or
experience can have a daunting number of astrological indicators. Yes,
the outcome has a 'signature', but the raw chart elements can come
from almost anywhere. And I'm just talking about the 10 'planets',
Asc, and MC. Add in asteroids and stars, and it's completely
unmanageable.
I think that is true for most experiences, experiences being
subjective. The kind of investigations that need to be done need to be
as the truth we want to distill. If we want objective facts in the
ordinary sense of the term, that is, facts that are intersubjectively
verifiable. That is certainly impossible. But to find those
signatures, one also needs an intersubjective astrology. Births and
deaths would be the most obvious examples of what would provide
promising research material. At least, that is my experience.
Subjectively and objectively! ;-)
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is what we call learning, the ability to choose differently the
next time we get stuck.
Yes, and it shows how astrology both works and doesn't work :-)
If you mean by astrology something like "that which predicts things
which will absolutely come true", yes, then astrology does not work in
combination with learning. But I am not talking about astrology in a
fatalistic sense (though I do not preclude things being that way).
Astrology must not dictate when it predicts.

I'd rather think it does not. I think we have a range of alternatives
to choose from. The RANGE is predetermined astrologically, but not the
choice itself. And the choice contains the specifics, the moral and
ethical level of understanding and all that *matters*. There is an
interaction here between "fate" and "free will". Fate gives us
choices; we choose; our choices determine our fate, and around it
turns. And after each turn of the wheel, we will find ourselves in a
new position, determined by "fate" but also by "free will".


---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
That revolution will occur is a given; the specifics of how it will
turn out is not. This is where non-believers have trouble with
astrology. It speaks to the general, but seldom to the particular.
That gap is the same as the gap between the abstract and the concrete.
And, yes, it is something that can be very hard to bridge, in
interpretation as well as in understanding.
Post by CFA
If it did, it would open a potential for misuse of power (as well as
teaching and healing) like nothing we've ever seen. That's why I don't
think astrology will ever be scientifically proven as a valid
discipline. It would take away important aspects of the idea of
personal responsibility.
But that is not really an argument. There is no rational reason to
assume that personal responsibility is inherent in the nature of the
universe.
There's no reason not to, either. At least anecdotally, some effects
can be noticed. Try not being responsible for yourself and see what
happens :-)
Your last sentence seems to want to prove the existence of free will
in the individual and at the individual level of experience. I do not
object to its existence. However, I still think there is no rational
reason to assume that assume that this MUST be so, in the larger
picture. Again, take the revolutions and the outer planets -- can
those who live these revolutions say they are revolting of their free
will? All together at the same time? But they did not all want this to
happen a year ago?

I think the only reasonable answer must be that we have some kind of
interaction between these two concepts; free will and fate. You can't
have one without the other.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Also, I do not agree. In connection with another thread here I read
some about autism and the like, and a hacker (convicted for crime)
said that his diagnosis did not absolve him from having done what he
had done. His interest in hacking was surely due to his diagnosis (and
that, in turn, is largely due to genetics), but his *actions* were his
own.
The stars impel, but they do not compel. Analogically, even if your
chart says you are to end up a criminal it is YOU who take the steps
in that direction. Or not. Having an astrological makeup at birth is,
I think, perfectly analogical to having a genetic makeup. What you do
with it, within the spectrum available to you, is up to you, in both
cases.
I believe that's exactly the point I was making :-)
Well, yes and no. I think you were making the point that free will
exists, but we must not prove astrology works, because that would
somehow threaten the free will.

If free will exists, nothing we prove about astrology will influence
our free will. If free will does NOT exist, whether we prove astrology
or not is irrelevant and is not up to us to decide anyway, even if we
should think so.

I believe free will exists (or co-exists, with fate, to be precise),
but I do not believe it can be threatened. Not by astrology, nor
anything else. As I read you, you think that it could somehow be.

/Kjell
Kjell Pettersson
2011-06-14 00:51:41 UTC
Permalink
CORRECTION
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think that is true for most experiences, experiences being
subjective. The kind of investigations that need to be done need to be
as the truth we want to distill. If we want objective facts in the
ordinary sense of the term, that is, facts that are intersubjectively
verifiable. That is certainly impossible.
I should have written the last sentence:
"If we want objective facts in the ordinary sense of the term, that
is, facts that are intersubjectively verifiable, that is certainly
POSSIBLE."

Lest anyone think I am, y'know, like... a skeptic or so! ;-)

/K
CFA
2011-06-14 07:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I will hold nothing impossible. When it comes to getting answers, I
think the art is in posing the question. And who knows the limits for
that?
At some point, answers to questions like this seem to become
subjective, rather than objective.
Being subjective is not being in opposition to truth. Subjective
experiences, such as pain, can be measured objectively, and factual
statements can be made about them.
but the larger question is individual perception. this is what
determines individual truth as opposed to Truth. Sometimes the two
truths never intersect.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think you are looking for events that are the same in "material"
terms rather than analogical (astrological) terms. As if there could
be a signature for all earthquakes or all revolutions. I am thinking
of this in another way. You could have earthquake signatures, but they
would be about kinds of earthquakes, just as flue signatures would
differ due to the etiology of the flue itself, its effects in the life
of an individual, etc. (One does have to contextualize when
categorizing astrological events.)
What I've encountered is that any one condition, attitude, or
experience can have a daunting number of astrological indicators. Yes,
the outcome has a 'signature', but the raw chart elements can come
from almost anywhere. And I'm just talking about the 10 'planets',
Asc, and MC. Add in asteroids and stars, and it's completely
unmanageable.
I think that is true for most experiences, experiences being
subjective. The kind of investigations that need to be done need to be
as the truth we want to distill. If we want objective facts in the
ordinary sense of the term, that is, facts that are intersubjectively
verifiable. That is certainly impossible.
correction noted.

Still, I've already bumped into this in real life. A condition or
event is related to a transit; why won't this condition or event
happen again, under the same transits? Typically it doesn't.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But to find those
signatures, one also needs an intersubjective astrology. Births and
deaths would be the most obvious examples of what would provide
promising research material. At least, that is my experience.
Subjectively and objectively! ;-)
There seem to me to be too many variables. Some people's death is
connected to a 'simple' Saturn transit, others a whole complex of
outer planets. Some don't correspond to any specific transits. But I
can see the last one might be a response to seeds planted (or damage
done) earlier in time, and it took a while...
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
That is what we call learning, the ability to choose differently the
next time we get stuck.
Yes, and it shows how astrology both works and doesn't work :-)
If you mean by astrology something like "that which predicts things
which will absolutely come true", yes, then astrology does not work in
combination with learning. But I am not talking about astrology in a
fatalistic sense (though I do not preclude things being that way).
Astrology must not dictate when it predicts.
I'd rather think it does not. I think we have a range of alternatives
to choose from. The RANGE is predetermined astrologically, but not the
choice itself. And the choice contains the specifics, the moral and
ethical level of understanding and all that *matters*. There is an
interaction here between "fate" and "free will". Fate gives us
choices; we choose; our choices determine our fate, and around it
turns. And after each turn of the wheel, we will find ourselves in a
new position, determined by "fate" but also by "free will".
Fate gives us choices? I thought it was defined as something that
rather limited or even eliminated them, at least in conventional
understanding.

Fate to me is something so deep that it seems unquestionable. But
there's still a choice not to ask...
Post by Kjell Pettersson
---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But that is not really an argument. There is no rational reason to
assume that personal responsibility is inherent in the nature of the
universe.
There's no reason not to, either. At least anecdotally, some effects
can be noticed. Try not being responsible for yourself and see what
happens :-)
Your last sentence seems to want to prove the existence of free will
in the individual and at the individual level of experience. I do not
object to its existence. However, I still think there is no rational
reason to assume that assume that this MUST be so, in the larger
picture.
Okay, perhaps it's not inherent in the universe. There is a choice
whether or not to take personal responsibility.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Again, take the revolutions and the outer planets -- can
those who live these revolutions say they are revolting of their free
will?
I would think so. It takes considerable time and energy to rebel
against the status quo, regardless how bad or good it is, knowing the
threats to one's safety it would entail.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
All together at the same time?
Isn't that what is happening?
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But they did not all want this to happen a year ago?
Again, isn't that what (didn't) happen?
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think the only reasonable answer must be that we have some kind of
interaction between these two concepts; free will and fate. You can't
have one without the other.
It's all belief, which is choice. There's no way to prove either one.
If that's the case, why not choose the one that doesn't lead to
feelings of hopelessness and helplessness?
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Also, I do not agree. In connection with another thread here I read
some about autism and the like, and a hacker (convicted for crime)
said that his diagnosis did not absolve him from having done what he
had done. His interest in hacking was surely due to his diagnosis (and
that, in turn, is largely due to genetics), but his *actions* were his
own.
The stars impel, but they do not compel. Analogically, even if your
chart says you are to end up a criminal it is YOU who take the steps
in that direction. Or not. Having an astrological makeup at birth is,
I think, perfectly analogical to having a genetic makeup. What you do
with it, within the spectrum available to you, is up to you, in both
cases.
I believe that's exactly the point I was making :-)
Well, yes and no. I think you were making the point that free will
exists, but we must not prove astrology works, because that would
somehow threaten the free will.
It would suggest the only choice made was: which chart to be born
under. That (no choices) doesn't appear to be how it works, once we
actually hit the planet. We do appear to have many crossroads, many
choices available to us.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If free will exists, nothing we prove about astrology will influence
our free will. If free will does NOT exist, whether we prove astrology
or not is irrelevant and is not up to us to decide anyway, even if we
should think so.
I believe free will exists (or co-exists, with fate, to be precise),
but I do not believe it can be threatened. Not by astrology, nor
anything else. As I read you, you think that it could somehow be.
No, I basically agree with you, because I don't think we'll be able to
prove astrology works, at least to a scientific standard.

There's another interesting point I wanted to highlight; I just didn't
know where to drop it in. Anthropology posits something to the effect
of "If it's real in one's perception, it's real in one's experience.",
which explains the existence and experience of predestination: belief
makes it so, individually, but not universally.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-07-03 18:32:53 UTC
Permalink
Sorry for the late answer (double Pluto transit going on).
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think that is true for most experiences, experiences being
subjective. The kind of investigations that need to be done need to be
as the truth we want to distill. If we want objective facts in the
ordinary sense of the term, that is, facts that are intersubjectively
verifiable. That is certainly impossible.
correction noted.
Still, I've already bumped into this in real life. A condition or
event is related to a transit; why won't this condition or event
happen again, under the same transits? Typically it doesn't.
Because, hopefully, we will have learned, or evolved, and whatever the
transit is about will happen at a ”higher” level next time.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But to find those
signatures, one also needs an intersubjective astrology. Births and
deaths would be the most obvious examples of what would provide
promising research material. At least, that is my experience.
Subjectively and objectively! ;-)
There seem to me to be too many variables. Some people's death is
connected to a 'simple' Saturn transit, others a whole complex of
outer planets. Some don't correspond to any specific transits. But I
can see the last one might be a response to seeds planted (or damage
done) earlier in time, and it took a while...
Death is always, at the individual level, a completely unique
experience, of that I am certain. What I think has to be investigated
is the signature among those still living, touched by the death. In
most cases we would speak of family members and, perhaps, close
friends. That's where intersubjectivity is possible.

By comparing the charts of the spouse, the children, siblings and who
might be relevant to include, it will be seen that death is a specific
event among those left behind. And there is where any signature of the
event will be found.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If you mean by astrology something like "that which predicts things
which will absolutely come true", yes, then astrology does not work in
combination with learning. But I am not talking about astrology in a
fatalistic sense (though I do not preclude things being that way).
Astrology must not dictate when it predicts.
There is an
Post by Kjell Pettersson
interaction here between "fate" and "free will". Fate gives us
choices; we choose; our choices determine our fate, and around it
turns. And after each turn of the wheel, we will find ourselves in a
new position, determined by "fate" but also by "free will".
Fate gives us choices? I thought it was defined as something that
rather limited or even eliminated them, at least in conventional
understanding.
Fate and free will operate at the same time, and with the same things.
Fate is that which provides us with a situation, free will is our
response to the situation; our choice. Fate is being born within, say,
a disadvantaged family, free will is what determines your response to
that fate. And the further down the road we go, the more our fate
becomes the effect of our earlier choices, a fate we have somehow
chosen, while the lessons of free will is to choose and act wisely,
because otherwise we will find ourselves in the same situation once
again, and again.
Post by CFA
Fate to me is something so deep that it seems unquestionable. But
there's still a choice not to ask...
I agree. At the fundamental level fate cannot be described or
understood. The question "why me?", or any version of it, has no
answer.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But that is not really an argument. There is no rational reason to
assume that personal responsibility is inherent in the nature of the
universe.
There's no reason not to, either. At least anecdotally, some effects
can be noticed. Try not being responsible for yourself and see what
happens :-)
Your last sentence seems to want to prove the existence of free will
in the individual and at the individual level of experience. I do not
object to its existence. However, I still think there is no rational
reason to assume that assume that this MUST be so, in the larger
picture.
Okay, perhaps it's not inherent in the universe. There is a choice
whether or not to take personal responsibility.
At least that is what it seems like, to us. We take for granted that
choice exists. Somehow this is what I am aiming for, that our
existence goes on within the spectrum created by fate and free will.
Neither can explain existence on its own, while at the same time the
existence of one sort of annihilates the existence of the other. For
me, the only option left is to regard the two as two sides of one
coin. One can see both sides, but never simultaneously.

---
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think the only reasonable answer must be that we have some kind of
interaction between these two concepts; free will and fate. You can't
have one without the other.
It's all belief, which is choice. There's no way to prove either one.
If that's the case, why not choose the one that doesn't lead to
feelings of hopelessness and helplessness?
If I am fated to be happy, and fate is somehow the correct answer,
then it wont matter what I choose. My choice will not matter, because
hopelessness and helplessness will be apportioned me by fate too.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Well, yes and no. I think you were making the point that free will
exists, but we must not prove astrology works, because that would
somehow threaten the free will.
It would suggest the only choice made was: which chart to be born
under. That (no choices) doesn't appear to be how it works, once we
actually hit the planet. We do appear to have many crossroads, many
choices available to us.
The choice of chart may be the only choice we make. I think that could
be sensible. In Plato's Phaedo when the dead stand by the river of
forgetfulness and are to choose the life where they want to go next,
that is what they do. The only problem with their choosing is that it
is not always wise. Choosing to be born a king may seem like a
wonderful thing, until you get there (here) and have to live the life
of that king, perhaps to finally get murdered.

To experience, fully, the effects of one's choosing would be a
rational constitution of the universe I think. Then, next time one has
to choose, perhaps one will not be seduced by superficial traits of
the life one has chosen.

Not that I want to say that free will during life does not exist, but
Plato's idea is sensible.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If free will exists, nothing we prove about astrology will influence
our free will. If free will does NOT exist, whether we prove astrology
or not is irrelevant and is not up to us to decide anyway, even if we
should think so.
I believe free will exists (or co-exists, with fate, to be precise),
but I do not believe it can be threatened. Not by astrology, nor
anything else. As I read you, you think that it could somehow be.
No, I basically agree with you, because I don't think we'll be able to
prove astrology works, at least to a scientific standard.
Yes, and no. The concept of "scientific standard" probably needs to be
changed. Contemporary science, in toto, relies upon a worldview that
is materialistic, un-spiritual and basically denies everything that
does not comply with this "reality". It is logically impossible to
find, for instance, a *rational* place for spiritual values in a
materialistic setting. The very concept of rationality gets warped.
Post by CFA
There's another interesting point I wanted to highlight; I just didn't
know where to drop it in. Anthropology posits something to the effect
of "If it's real in one's perception, it's real in one's experience.",
which explains the existence and experience of predestination: belief
makes it so, individually, but not universally.
But that is not all. If belief has the power to make reality turn out
one way or another, then that in itself is testimony against the
materialistic worldview. If belief has effect in the common reality,
that means the mind has effects on *things*.

That makes the mind seem more real than stuff. But, then again,
already Plato knew that! :-)

/Kjell
CFA
2011-07-04 00:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Sorry for the late answer (double Pluto transit going on).
Two Plutos? :-) I have it approaching either a square or conjunction
to a cluster of planets. A similar thing happened to me about 30 years
ago, about the time I began my study of astrology. If you've not been
through a serious Pluto transit, fasten your seat belts :-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
I think that is true for most experiences, experiences being
subjective. The kind of investigations that need to be done need to be
as the truth we want to distill. If we want objective facts in the
ordinary sense of the term, that is, facts that are intersubjectively
verifiable. That is certainly impossible.
correction noted.
Still, I've already bumped into this in real life. A condition or
event is related to a transit; why won't this condition or event
happen again, under the same transits? Typically it doesn't.
Because, hopefully, we will have learned, or evolved, and whatever the
transit is about will happen at a ”higher” level next time.
Well, yeah, but I'm talking about across many people's lives. The only
reason I mention it is that this is one of the criticisms leveled at
astrology- that duplicate transits don't indicate duplicate events. Of
course they don't, we say, but it falls on mostly deaf ears.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Fate gives us choices? I thought it was defined as something that
rather limited or even eliminated them, at least in conventional
understanding.
Fate and free will operate at the same time, and with the same things.
Fate is that which provides us with a situation, free will is our
response to the situation; our choice. Fate is being born within, say,
a disadvantaged family, free will is what determines your response to
that fate. And the further down the road we go, the more our fate
becomes the effect of our earlier choices, a fate we have somehow
chosen, while the lessons of free will is to choose and act wisely,
because otherwise we will find ourselves in the same situation once
again, and again.
Okay, I think I'm complete with this part of the discussion :-)

---
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
If free will exists, nothing we prove about astrology will influence
our free will. If free will does NOT exist, whether we prove astrology
or not is irrelevant and is not up to us to decide anyway, even if we
should think so.
I believe free will exists (or co-exists, with fate, to be precise),
but I do not believe it can be threatened. Not by astrology, nor
anything else. As I read you, you think that it could somehow be.
No, I basically agree with you, because I don't think we'll be able to
prove astrology works, at least to a scientific standard.
Yes, and no. The concept of "scientific standard" probably needs to be
changed. Contemporary science, in toto, relies upon a worldview that
is materialistic, un-spiritual and basically denies everything that
does not comply with this "reality". It is logically impossible to
find, for instance, a *rational* place for spiritual values in a
materialistic setting. The very concept of rationality gets warped.
I think a logical case can be made for spiritual values, but some
people don't have the patience it (compassion) requires. A me-first
attitude 'works', but it also alienates people.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
There's another interesting point I wanted to highlight; I just didn't
know where to drop it in. Anthropology posits something to the effect
of "If it's real in one's perception, it's real in one's experience.",
which explains the existence and experience of predestination: belief
makes it so, individually, but not universally.
But that is not all. If belief has the power to make reality turn out
one way or another, then that in itself is testimony against the
materialistic worldview. If belief has effect in the common reality,
that means the mind has effects on *things*.
Yes.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
That makes the mind seem more real than stuff. But, then again,
already Plato knew that! :-)
:-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
/Kjell
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-07-05 07:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Sorry for the late answer (double Pluto transit going on).
Two Plutos? :-)
Actually I should have said "double double"! Transiting Pluto aspects
natal Mars and natal Pluto. One aspect with one Pluto, one with two
Plutos, double double seems to equate three Plutos. But they are
benign, not that that altogether hides their Pluto-character.
Post by CFA
I have it approaching either a square or conjunction
to a cluster of planets. A similar thing happened to me about 30 years
ago, about the time I began my study of astrology. If you've not been
through a serious Pluto transit, fasten your seat belts :-)
Been there, done that... I have had a rather serious one, an un-benign
one, affecting my sixth house. Not fun at all.
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Contemporary science, in toto, relies upon a worldview that
is materialistic, un-spiritual and basically denies everything that
does not comply with this "reality". It is logically impossible to
find, for instance, a *rational* place for spiritual values in a
materialistic setting. The very concept of rationality gets warped.
I think a logical case can be made for spiritual values, but some
people don't have the patience it (compassion) requires. A me-first
attitude 'works', but it also alienates people.
We are where we are because our culture is where it is. To make a
parallell, cognitive behaviour therapy works because the patient
learns to identify faulty thought patterns. If Western culture, as it
expresses itself in scientism, could be treated with some cbt... Ah
well, when wishing, I wish I had a pony too... :-)

/K
CFA
2011-07-07 21:12:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Sorry for the late answer (double Pluto transit going on).
Two Plutos? :-)
Actually I should have said "double double"! Transiting Pluto aspects
natal Mars and natal Pluto. One aspect with one Pluto, one with two
Plutos, double double seems to equate three Plutos. But they are
benign, not that that altogether hides their Pluto-character.
Post by CFA
I have it approaching either a square or conjunction
to a cluster of planets. A similar thing happened to me about 30 years
ago, about the time I began my study of astrology. If you've not been
through a serious Pluto transit, fasten your seat belts :-)
Been there, done that... I have had a rather serious one, an un-benign
one, affecting my sixth house. Not fun at all.
No, it's not. Even when it's 'working', it can be a frightening
experience.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Contemporary science, in toto, relies upon a worldview that
is materialistic, un-spiritual and basically denies everything that
does not comply with this "reality". It is logically impossible to
find, for instance, a *rational* place for spiritual values in a
materialistic setting. The very concept of rationality gets warped.
I think a logical case can be made for spiritual values, but some
people don't have the patience it (compassion) requires. A me-first
attitude 'works', but it also alienates people.
We are where we are because our culture is where it is. To make a
parallell, cognitive behaviour therapy works because the patient
learns to identify faulty thought patterns. If Western culture, as it
expresses itself in scientism, could be treated with some cbt... Ah
well, when wishing, I wish I had a pony too... :-)
:-)
Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
CFA
2011-07-04 00:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
But to find those
signatures, one also needs an intersubjective astrology. Births and
deaths would be the most obvious examples of what would provide
promising research material. At least, that is my experience.
Subjectively and objectively! ;-)
There seem to me to be too many variables. Some people's death is
connected to a 'simple' Saturn transit, others a whole complex of
outer planets. Some don't correspond to any specific transits. But I
can see the last one might be a response to seeds planted (or damage
done) earlier in time, and it took a while...
Death is always, at the individual level, a completely unique
experience, of that I am certain. What I think has to be investigated
is the signature among those still living, touched by the death. In
most cases we would speak of family members and, perhaps, close
friends. That's where intersubjectivity is possible.
By comparing the charts of the spouse, the children, siblings and who
might be relevant to include, it will be seen that death is a specific
event among those left behind. And there is where any signature of the
event will be found.
My siblings (all 4 of them) showed a Pluto transit exact (conjunction,
square, or opposition) about six months after our father died. It
looked to me like his passing didn't really register for them for that
long.

My own transits were much more significant: Sa sq my Sun, Ur/Ne
conjunct Asc, sq Me/Ne, and Pl sq Pl.

Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Kjell Pettersson
2011-07-05 07:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
By comparing the charts of the spouse, the children, siblings and who
might be relevant to include, it will be seen that death is a specific
event among those left behind. And there is where any signature of the
event will be found.
My siblings (all 4 of them) showed a Pluto transit exact (conjunction,
square, or opposition) about six months after our father died. It
looked to me like his passing didn't really register for them for that
long.
Thinking about what Pluto stands for, could it not also be that their
reactions were going on "in the depths"?
Post by CFA
My own transits were much more significant: Sa sq my Sun, Ur/Ne
conjunct Asc, sq Me/Ne, and Pl sq Pl.
My transits were also more significant than those of the others in my
family, but when comparing progressions between charts, all were
heavily involved with one another.

However, aside from that, and with reference to the idea "belief makes
it so", I have the wildest idea that sometimes seems to be true:
Astrologers' charts are more telling than other people's charts. It
sounds too crazy to be true, but it seems a real possibility. Or
perhaps it is some kind of Darwinism going on; those with charts easy
to interpret more easily become astrologers?

/K
CFA
2011-07-07 21:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
Post by Kjell Pettersson
By comparing the charts of the spouse, the children, siblings and who
might be relevant to include, it will be seen that death is a specific
event among those left behind. And there is where any signature of the
event will be found.
My siblings (all 4 of them) showed a Pluto transit exact (conjunction,
square, or opposition) about six months after our father died. It
looked to me like his passing didn't really register for them for that
long.
Thinking about what Pluto stands for, could it not also be that their
reactions were going on "in the depths"?
Sure. It just throws off any predictive efforts.
Post by Kjell Pettersson
Post by CFA
My own transits were much more significant: Sa sq my Sun, Ur/Ne
conjunct Asc, sq Me/Ne, and Pl sq Pl.
My transits were also more significant than those of the others in my
family, but when comparing progressions between charts, all were
heavily involved with one another.
However, aside from that, and with reference to the idea "belief makes
Astrologers' charts are more telling than other people's charts. It
sounds too crazy to be true, but it seems a real possibility. Or
perhaps it is some kind of Darwinism going on; those with charts easy
to interpret more easily become astrologers?
Here's the chart of one. View in courier/fixed pitch font.

2 0 2 sa 16vi03
7 5 ne 15li38 5 ma 00vi26
ve 19sa39 s s me 18li44 v
c c su 04sc00 i pl 18le05
4 4 2
-20sa16----1-----------0-----------4----16le23-
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
¦ Ken ¦
¦ ¦
¦ ¦
-15cp23----¦ ¦----15ca23-
¦ ¦
mo 22cp46 ¦ ¦
¦ ¦ ur 04ca54r
ju 24cp42 ¦ ¦
¦ ¦
-16aq23----2---koch----0---HOUSES--2----20ge16-
5 5 7
p t t
i a a
2 no 15ar34r4 4
4 0 1
Post by Kjell Pettersson
/K
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...