|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 12, 2022 11:05:56 GMT -5
Yes, if I understand your question correctly. There is a belief structure supporting the idea of conditioning. Yeah, sure, conditioning is just a general interpretation of synapses that fire together wire together sorta thing. But, what I was getting at was more to do with the interplay of intentions/wants/desires being a co-product of/with a belief system. A simple playbook interpretation might be that one feels compelled to or intends to do something based on a belief structure. It's kind snorta what some of the discussions around the "'necessity for' versus 'correlation of' meditation with respect to using it as a tool for seeking and/or peace of mind. Does that make sense? I think so! I don't have a prob with it in any case. I'm down with correlation or co-product or whatev. Like Rupert Spira in that astrology vid -- it's just what happens with mind/self. Like the squashed rubber ball automagically reshaping to it's original form. blah blah
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 12, 2022 11:08:40 GMT -5
How is sitting and noticing internal desires arise not also living spontaneously? Are you saying the Zen practitioner doesn't discern desire? I couldn't find that mentioned here for example: zenstudies.org/teachings/how-to-practice/ What makes you an authority on what is or isn't Zen all of a sudden? Max: Reefs is correct, but he's pointing to Zen people who have attained non-abidance in mind, SR, etc. Noticing internal desires arising, and thinking that one is a SVP noticing whatever is noticed, is an early stage on the path. The tenth ox-herding picture of Zen points to a sage who lives life spontaneously and non-reflectively. By the time one is an adult, one has subconsciously internalized millions of abstract distinctions (trees, clouds, humans, etc), the most fundamental of which is the idea that one is a separate volitional person who is at the center of whatever is happening and is exercising control over whatever is happening. Because the distinctions are internalized, it's not necessary to engage in mind talk about them (even though most adults do that). People on the path to sagehood have numerous realizations that result in freedom from attachment to thoughts, a recognition that THIS is undivided and infinite, that awareness is primordial and unchanging (beyond birth and death), that selfhood is an illusion, etc. Those kinds of realizations lead to a state of freedom and spontaneity that can't be captured in words, and that is what Reefs is pointing to. Zen people rarely talk or write about this, but the ten ox-herding pictures represent the progressive evolution of a beginning Zen student who thinks like most adults (subscribes to the concensus paradigm) and eventually becomes a Zen Master/sage whose primary motivation is helping other people discover the "living truth" of THIS. haha I forgot about that .00001% of zen practicioners that actually grok Zen/THIS.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 12, 2022 11:16:12 GMT -5
How is sitting and noticing internal desires arise not also living spontaneously? Are you saying the Zen practitioner doesn't discern desire? I couldn't find that mentioned here for example: zenstudies.org/teachings/how-to-practice/ What makes you an authority on what is or isn't Zen all of a sudden? I am not talking about 'practicing' Zen. You don't need to practice who you are. And I said "living spontaneously in the moment"... which is the opposite of what Spira suggested. What Spira suggests is standing apart from experience, this moment. Still not getting this. Sussing out the concept "living spontaneously" is the issue I think. We have this image of a surfur living spontaneously as they ride the wave. But they are actually noticing variations in the wave and adjusting balance etc. Even in Flow. What they aren't doing is mentally drafting a post of it for a discussion forum, as the context demands more attention. The type of internal observation Spira was talking about is similar to surfing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2022 23:27:23 GMT -5
Well, you have to listen to him at normal speed and it will all make sense. But seriously, where's the problemo? He says that astrology determines your disposition which can be easily proven with aptitude tests. Then he says that astrology is one way of getting to know yourself better, but like any system of thought, it cannot help you knowing your true Self. In that sense, psychology, philosophy and religion (including Buddhism) are equally useful and useless at the same time. Nothing can replace SR. No, I agree, Spira talks nonsense. haha. Actually, I enjoyed listening to it. I think RS does a good job of explaining his view on things and it brought up some questions that have been stewing on the backburner. He's saying it can be useful but he's not saying anything about how it can be easily proven with aptitude tests. That's nonsense. But you're right that it's about as useful/useless as anything else. Regarding your "easily proven" remark...this paper shows how it's basically as good as guessing/chance: Carlson, S. 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425. Might as well read the tea leaves, cuz then you get some tea! That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 13, 2022 23:29:20 GMT -5
I am not talking about 'practicing' Zen. You don't need to practice who you are. And I said "living spontaneously in the moment"... which is the opposite of what Spira suggested. What Spira suggests is standing apart from experience, this moment. Still not getting this. Sussing out the concept "living spontaneously" is the issue I think. We have this image of a surfur living spontaneously as they ride the wave. But they are actually noticing variations in the wave and adjusting balance etc. Even in Flow. What they aren't doing is mentally drafting a post of it for a discussion forum, as the context demands more attention. The type of internal observation Spira was talking about is similar to surfing. No, that's not the issue. The issue is living in the NOW vs. living in your head (sorting out desires into appropriate ones and inappropriate ones).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 14, 2022 4:42:21 GMT -5
No, I agree, Spira talks nonsense. haha. Actually, I enjoyed listening to it. I think RS does a good job of explaining his view on things and it brought up some questions that have been stewing on the backburner. He's saying it can be useful but he's not saying anything about how it can be easily proven with aptitude tests. That's nonsense. But you're right that it's about as useful/useless as anything else. Regarding your "easily proven" remark...this paper shows how it's basically as good as guessing/chance: Carlson, S. 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425. Might as well read the tea leaves, cuz then you get some tea! That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'. One of the problems you'd run into trying to convince people of astrology is completely independent of the conditioned bias against non-physical causation. That problem is the same for every theory of how/"why" appearances appear the way that they do: complexity. The chart isn't just the Sun, but the influence of the other 7 planets + the Moon, and you see, the Moon having the outsized influence that it does seems to contradict the premise that the causation is non-physical. Ultimately, the chart reflects uniqueness in both the time and spatial orientation of the individual to the bodies, and as history demonstrates, sometimes even minute differences in those orientations produce very very different characters. Sue sometimes starts to go on and on about "Pluto in Virgo" blah-blah, and I tell her, sardonically, "Pluto weren't even a planet back when all this stuff was figured out ".
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 14, 2022 11:24:38 GMT -5
No, I agree, Spira talks nonsense. haha. Actually, I enjoyed listening to it. I think RS does a good job of explaining his view on things and it brought up some questions that have been stewing on the backburner. He's saying it can be useful but he's not saying anything about how it can be easily proven with aptitude tests. That's nonsense. But you're right that it's about as useful/useless as anything else. Regarding your "easily proven" remark...this paper shows how it's basically as good as guessing/chance: Carlson, S. 1985. A double-blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419-425. Might as well read the tea leaves, cuz then you get some tea! That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'. Mea Culpe! --that's cool to see that paper being taken apart at researchgate, thanks! Science is at it's best when it debunks it's own -- it's peer reviewed neti neti. Surely there must be other papers taking apart astrology?? I'm resisting the urge to go down the "sacred geometry" rabbit hole, but I did stumble across an illustration recently:
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 14, 2022 11:29:28 GMT -5
That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'. One of the problems you'd run into trying to convince people of astrology is completely independent of the conditioned bias against non-physical causation. That problem is the same for every theory of how/"why" appearances appear the way that they do: complexity. The chart isn't just the Sun, but the influence of the other 7 planets + the Moon, and you see, the Moon having the outsized influence that it does seems to contradict the premise that the causation is non-physical. Ultimately, the chart reflects uniqueness in both the time and spatial orientation of the individual to the bodies, and as history demonstrates, sometimes even minute differences in those orientations produce very very different characters. Sue sometimes starts to go on and on about "Pluto in Virgo" blah-blah, and I tell her, sardonically, "Pluto weren't even a planet back when all this stuff was figured out ". I like the idea of astrology -- the influence of the particular pattern of universe's heavenly bodies influence on the sensitive expression of the individual personality. It's compelling. Who knows what other planetoids are exuding some influence over this particular post?
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 14, 2022 11:31:46 GMT -5
Still not getting this. Sussing out the concept "living spontaneously" is the issue I think. We have this image of a surfur living spontaneously as they ride the wave. But they are actually noticing variations in the wave and adjusting balance etc. Even in Flow. What they aren't doing is mentally drafting a post of it for a discussion forum, as the context demands more attention. The type of internal observation Spira was talking about is similar to surfing. No, that's not the issue. The issue is living in the NOW vs. living in your head (sorting out desires into appropriate ones and inappropriate ones). NOW = THIS - head?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 14, 2022 11:40:08 GMT -5
No, that's not the issue. The issue is living in the NOW vs. living in your head (sorting out desires into appropriate ones and inappropriate ones). NOW = THIS - head? NOW/SR=THIS without attachment to ideas (head/intellect is submissive rather than dominant, servant rather than master)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2022 21:30:29 GMT -5
That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'. One of the problems you'd run into trying to convince people of astrology is completely independent of the conditioned bias against non-physical causation. That problem is the same for every theory of how/"why" appearances appear the way that they do: complexity. The chart isn't just the Sun, but the influence of the other 7 planets + the Moon, and you see, the Moon having the outsized influence that it does seems to contradict the premise that the causation is non-physical. Ultimately, the chart reflects uniqueness in both the time and spatial orientation of the individual to the bodies, and as history demonstrates, sometimes even minute differences in those orientations produce very very different characters. Sue sometimes starts to go on and on about "Pluto in Virgo" blah-blah, and I tell her, sardonically, "Pluto weren't even a planet back when all this stuff was figured out ". The chart is a snapshot of a specific moment in time (and space) presented in 2D format on a sheet of paper. Context is very important in order to give a meaningful reading of any chart. In such tests where they want to debunk astrology, they usually leave that out. If someone just hands you a chart without giving any context at all and wants you to make predictions to test your skills or astrology in general, that's not how it works. Because without some basic information about the native you can't tell if the chart you are looking at is the birth chart of a chicken, a monkey, a human or a corporation. In the West, there's actually some kind of civil war going on between traditional astrologers ('trads') and modern astrologers ('mods'), each faction claiming to have the most reasonable approach. Traditionally, astrology used only the so-called seven classical planets, which include the 2 lights (Sun, Moon) and the 5 planets from Mercury to Saturn, i.e. the planets that you can observe with the naked eye. The mods go beyond that and also include the 3 outer planets ('the outers') Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and some would even include a bunch of major asteroids. So when Pluto had been demoted to dwarf planet status, that was a major blow to the mods. Now, when you learn astrology, you will have to focus on 2 major areas. One is technique, i.e. how to calculate positions of the planets correctly so that you can make predictions, like assessing planetary strength and timing periods. The other is the archetypes, i.e. what the planets and signs actually symbolize, so that you are able to answer questions like these: "What do gold, the heart, the color orange and your boss have in common?" or "What do the mind, silver, water and your mother have in common?"... So if you don't know how to do the math, you can't do astrology. And if you can't answer these questions, you can't do astrology either. These two skills go hand in hand. But each skill does require a different kind of talent. Doing the calculations right and weighing each factor in terms of importance is a very logical, methodical approach that is easy to teach and nowadays done almost entirely by computer programs. But getting a grasp of these archetypes and then associating them with the 10.000 things under the heaven, that requires some skill in associative thinking, no computer can do that. Sometimes they call this vertical thinking, because it is a different approach to categorizing things. In ordinary everyday thinking, you will find it impossible to find a common category for let's say old people, the color black, logic, rocks and your skin because that's not how we are used to think. But in astrology, it's easy. Those are all under the rulership of the planet Saturn. So those who know about vibration and are sensitive to energy, will master that skill more easily than those who rely too much on logic and intellect alone. This is where astrology becomes very intuitive. And without that intuitive skill, you will have trouble synthesizing a chart reading. One problem though with very intuitive people doing astrology is that very often (without noticing), they read the client instead of the chart. I've seen that numerous times. The client will ask something like "Does he still love me?" or "Will I get this job?" and the intuitive astrologer will give the correct answer, but when you actually look at the chart the astrologer supposedly has 'read', then you suddenly realize that the chart, if read following the rules, doesn't actually give that kind of answer or that the chart they cast was cast for the wrong date or wrong place and therefore invalid. 2016 was a particularly bad year for astrology in that regard, because 90% of Western astrologers predicted HRC would win the presidency. So you gotta wonder, did they actually read the chart or just the polls? Interestingly, most of the astrologers in India predicted that DJT would win. This is the reason why in the old astrology books they suggest to not read your own chart on topics that matter a lot to you, where you are too emotionally involved, because you will have some blind spots and may apply too much wishful thinking in your reading and then you get it wrong and then astrology gets the blame. About Pluto in Virgo, even if that would be a legitimate influence, you gotta ask yourself how significant that actually is, because Pluto stays in one sign between 12-30 years, or 20 years on average. Which means a whole generation will have that exact same influence in their charts. Which means those are generational influences on the collective, not individually defining influences. They don't actually determine your individual character. And you are right, the outers are not part of the traditionally astrological scheme of rulerships. However, the outers, with their individual distances and speeds fit into a harmonious cosmic pattern that rules our solar system, and that includes the seemingly highly irregular path of Pluto. So I expect Pluto to be reinstated as a planet at some point in the future. On that note, you also have to look at definitions, i.e. what is a planet? Astrology and astronomy have different definitions. In astrology, both the Sun and the Moon are actually treated similar to planets. In astronomy, the Sun is a star and the Moon a natural satellite.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2022 22:27:38 GMT -5
That seems to be a junk paper of a junk study done by some undergraduate student who couldn't (or didn't want to?) interpret his own data correctly: You see, some of the more famous astrologers in the West started like you and this Carlson dude. They wanted to prove that astrology is nonsense. I actually went a similar route. But unlike you, I and so many others, we've actually studied it, thoroughly. Because if you want to refute a theory, you better first understand it fully or else you are just going to make a fool of yourself. And the more we've studied astrology in order to refute its claims, the more we started to see that astrology actually worked and that our previous held beliefs about astrology were all wrong. What people often don't realize is that astrology is both a science and an art. It is a science in the sense that it is based on mathematics, sacred geometry actually, and it relies on precise astronomical calculations in order to cast a horoscope. But it is also an art because astrology heavily relies on symbolism which points to something that lies beyond the intellect (the archetypes) and therefore has to be interpreted by someone and put into context. So the astrologer is both a scientist and artist. In fact, in the past, astrology and astronomy were one. Astronomers of the past were also all astrologers and vice versa. Now, the mistake many who want to debunk astrology are making is the same mistake James Randi made when he wanted to debunk any paranormal claims - he confused the the art with the artist, the message with the messenger. You see, if some astrologers are stupid enough to take part in these idiotic studies that are heavily biased against them from the start, then they just had it coming, like those 'frauds' Randi 'exposed'. At best what these studies can 'prove' is that these artists haven't fully mastered their own art yet. It doesn't debunk their art. Read what I wrote about astrology in this thread and you'll see why they may have 'failed'. Mea Culpe! --that's cool to see that paper being taken apart at researchgate, thanks! Science is at it's best when it debunks it's own -- it's peer reviewed neti neti. Surely there must be other papers taking apart astrology?? I'm resisting the urge to go down the "sacred geometry" rabbit hole, but I did stumble across an illustration recently: There are some studies on aptitude, character, career paths and so on where astrologers look for common patterns to test their own theories or to refute the theories of other astrologers. You have to keep in mind that astrology is a vast field, a big tent, with many different traditions, schools and approaches. I actually think that at some point there was some kind of common theory which I would call the original astrology. But over the centuries, following major upheavals in culture and the repeated rise and fall of great civilizations, some of that knowledge got lost, distorted, new things from other areas added, different priorities set and so on. You see, the most frequently asked questions these days are about career, relationships and money. In ancient times, however, the most frequently asked questions were about longevity and slavery, e.g. "Will the child survive childhood?" or "Will this child become a slave?"... So astrology had been used differently in different times to suit the interest and needs of the people. The one tradition that has preserved its classical texts best is the Indian tradition. In the West, they only recently discovered some older Greek and Latin texts and are still in the process of slowly sifting that material and translating it into English so that astrologers can work with it. On the surface, Western astrology and Indian astrology are very different. But the old Greek or Hellenistic astrology shows remarkable similarities to the old Indian or Vedic astrology. The common denominator seems to be hermetic thinking. So it could be that hermetic astrology is the original astrology from which all the different traditions we know today branched off. But when it comes to testing each others theories, astrologers are already their own worst critics. And you always have to be aware of the fact that your study will only be as good as your database allows (GIGO). There are a lot of websites that list the birth data of a lot of famous people so that you can do your own database and research. I do that, too. But what I have discovered is that this kind of data is notoriously unreliable, usually the rising sign is incorrect. Sometimes even the year of birth is in dispute or the place of birth. And sometimes they just made mistakes by entering the data, like 9 AM instead of 9 PM and so on. Now, I doubt that Carlson was aware of this. And that being a study from the 1980's, they probably still had to calculate the chart by hand, using tables for planetary positions (ephemerides) and house positions which introduces another level of uncertainty and possible inaccuracy, even if the birth data was 100% correct. Sacred geometry is a fascinating area. Basically, artists and architects use it intuitively because it produces harmonious patterns and configurations which are pleasing to our eye and which we would associate with beauty. And that is probably because it conforms with natural order of the cosmos, which also seems to be based on regular, harmonious patterns and relationships. In fact, if you look at the movement and placement of the planets, the way things grow in nature, you start to wonder if this is actually the pattern of life in general. Maybe you've heard about the 5 petals of Venus: earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/five-petals-of-venus/That basically looks like a mandala. The other planets also have their own, similar patterns. So the cosmos seems very orderly indeed. Up until the so-called age of enlightenment, that was common knowledge though. A lot of old, intuitive knowledge seems to have been lost during that period. So you gotta wonder if the age of enlightenment in that regard may have been a misnomer. There's an excellent book I can recommend on this topic by Hartmut Warm, Signature of the Celestial Spheres: Discovering Order in the Solar System. He has a lot of images of these planetary patterns in his book and also all the calculations. Here are some videos of these patterns: www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7F1RaKFRGA&list=PLGrupZnxkjCVQEzpxVsXF66InAE90wIsu&index=1You can also translate this movement of the planets into music: planeten-musik.de/en/acoustic-clock/
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 14, 2022 22:36:52 GMT -5
No, that's not the issue. The issue is living in the NOW vs. living in your head (sorting out desires into appropriate ones and inappropriate ones). NOW = THIS - head?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2022 17:36:25 GMT -5
One of the problems you'd run into trying to convince people of astrology is completely independent of the conditioned bias against non-physical causation. That problem is the same for every theory of how/"why" appearances appear the way that they do: complexity. The chart isn't just the Sun, but the influence of the other 7 planets + the Moon, and you see, the Moon having the outsized influence that it does seems to contradict the premise that the causation is non-physical. Ultimately, the chart reflects uniqueness in both the time and spatial orientation of the individual to the bodies, and as history demonstrates, sometimes even minute differences in those orientations produce very very different characters. Sue sometimes starts to go on and on about "Pluto in Virgo" blah-blah, and I tell her, sardonically, "Pluto weren't even a planet back when all this stuff was figured out ". I like the idea of astrology -- the influence of the particular pattern of universe's heavenly bodies influence on the sensitive expression of the individual personality. It's compelling. Who knows what other planetoids are exuding some influence over this particular post? Jean: "oh, well she's a Sagi and we'll try anything at least once so that explains why she <blah blah blah>" Bill Sr. (deadpan): "yeah that explains it" ... (never got old, everyone cracked up, including mom ... )
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 16, 2022 17:54:55 GMT -5
One of the problems you'd run into trying to convince people of astrology is completely independent of the conditioned bias against non-physical causation. That problem is the same for every theory of how/"why" appearances appear the way that they do: complexity. The chart isn't just the Sun, but the influence of the other 7 planets + the Moon, and you see, the Moon having the outsized influence that it does seems to contradict the premise that the causation is non-physical. Ultimately, the chart reflects uniqueness in both the time and spatial orientation of the individual to the bodies, and as history demonstrates, sometimes even minute differences in those orientations produce very very different characters. Sue sometimes starts to go on and on about "Pluto in Virgo" blah-blah, and I tell her, sardonically, "Pluto weren't even a planet back when all this stuff was figured out ". The chart is a snapshot of a specific moment in time (and space) presented in 2D format on a sheet of paper. Context is very important in order to give a meaningful reading of any chart. In such tests where they want to debunk astrology, they usually leave that out. If someone just hands you a chart without giving any context at all and wants you to make predictions to test your skills or astrology in general, that's not how it works. Because without some basic information about the native you can't tell if the chart you are looking at is the birth chart of a chicken, a monkey, a human or a corporation. In the West, there's actually some kind of civil war going on between traditional astrologers ('trads') and modern astrologers ('mods'), each faction claiming to have the most reasonable approach. Traditionally, astrology used only the so-called seven classical planets, which include the 2 lights (Sun, Moon) and the 5 planets from Mercury to Saturn, i.e. the planets that you can observe with the naked eye. The mods go beyond that and also include the 3 outer planets ('the outers') Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and some would even include a bunch of major asteroids. So when Pluto had been demoted to dwarf planet status, that was a major blow to the mods. Now, when you learn astrology, you will have to focus on 2 major areas. One is technique, i.e. how to calculate positions of the planets correctly so that you can make predictions, like assessing planetary strength and timing periods. The other is the archetypes, i.e. what the planets and signs actually symbolize, so that you are able to answer questions like these: "What do gold, the heart, the color orange and your boss have in common?" or "What do the mind, silver, water and your mother have in common?"... So if you don't know how to do the math, you can't do astrology. And if you can't answer these questions, you can't do astrology either. These two skills go hand in hand. But each skill does require a different kind of talent. Doing the calculations right and weighing each factor in terms of importance is a very logical, methodical approach that is easy to teach and nowadays done almost entirely by computer programs. But getting a grasp of these archetypes and then associating them with the 10.000 things under the heaven, that requires some skill in associative thinking, no computer can do that. Sometimes they call this vertical thinking, because it is a different approach to categorizing things. In ordinary everyday thinking, you will find it impossible to find a common category for let's say old people, the color black, logic, rocks and your skin because that's not how we are used to think. But in astrology, it's easy. Those are all under the rulership of the planet Saturn. So those who know about vibration and are sensitive to energy, will master that skill more easily than those who rely too much on logic and intellect alone. This is where astrology becomes very intuitive. And without that intuitive skill, you will have trouble synthesizing a chart reading. One problem though with very intuitive people doing astrology is that very often (without noticing), they read the client instead of the chart. I've seen that numerous times. The client will ask something like "Does he still love me?" or "Will I get this job?" and the intuitive astrologer will give the correct answer, but when you actually look at the chart the astrologer supposedly has 'read', then you suddenly realize that the chart, if read following the rules, doesn't actually give that kind of answer or that the chart they cast was cast for the wrong date or wrong place and therefore invalid. 2016 was a particularly bad year for astrology in that regard, because 90% of Western astrologers predicted HRC would win the presidency. So you gotta wonder, did they actually read the chart or just the polls? Interestingly, most of the astrologers in India predicted that DJT would win. This is the reason why in the old astrology books they suggest to not read your own chart on topics that matter a lot to you, where you are too emotionally involved, because you will have some blind spots and may apply too much wishful thinking in your reading and then you get it wrong and then astrology gets the blame. About Pluto in Virgo, even if that would be a legitimate influence, you gotta ask yourself how significant that actually is, because Pluto stays in one sign between 12-30 years, or 20 years on average. Which means a whole generation will have that exact same influence in their charts. Which means those are generational influences on the collective, not individually defining influences. They don't actually determine your individual character. And you are right, the outers are not part of the traditionally astrological scheme of rulerships. However, the outers, with their individual distances and speeds fit into a harmonious cosmic pattern that rules our solar system, and that includes the seemingly highly irregular path of Pluto. So I expect Pluto to be reinstated as a planet at some point in the future. On that note, you also have to look at definitions, i.e. what is a planet? Astrology and astronomy have different definitions. In astrology, both the Sun and the Moon are actually treated similar to planets. In astronomy, the Sun is a star and the Moon a natural satellite. Fun stuff, thanks for taking the time to write it. Yes, the mathematics of the chart casting -- it's not rocket science but not trivial either. With these two women in my life who are avid on the topic, believe me, I've had enough exposure to have an intuitive feel for the influences of the bodies and the signs. Regardless of my opinion of the field over time. There was this guy who made a living at it that she used to follow, ever hear of Kelly Lee Phipps? The way Sue puts her interest in the Pluto transit, it's not just the generational influence on the people born with it in a given same sign, but the influence on the cultural mood at the moment, Similar to how, you know, when Mercury goes retrograde? .. the trad/mod schism ... hmmm, yeah, seems rather predictable.
|
|