|Science & Astrology, You aren't the sign you think you are :)Page 4 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4)|
|In a gross way, I suppose you could use it to explain to yourself why|
the person in front of you might have a strong propensity to act in
the way you see them acting (especially, repeatedly) that is very
different from how so many people you know, act.
Ex. Pisces is a 'mute' sign. You may wonder why a person in front
of you, known to be a Pisces (sun), seems (in some way) to be mute.
Ex. Leo likes to be the center of attention. If someone is that way,
you might be seeing 'the Leo in them'. May not be the sun -- might
be their moon.
. . .
I think it just gives you another vocabulary to do what everyone does,
which is to classify personality traits and then, accomodate those in
some way. Going deeper, to also classify emotional traits, and 'higher
purpose' traits. Personality: ascendant. Emotions: moon. Purpose:
Sun. Like that.
None of this ought to work, at all. It should be random, in terms of
distribution of traits versus date, time, place of birth.
The observable fact that there are non-random correlations is ..
troubling, to say the least. It's there, and there is no reasonable
cause for it, other than the body of knowledge acquired over time
that shows the correlations.
. . .
My personal belief is to remain quizzical about it, and to look at
oddball things that do allow astrology, such as Nick Bostrom's
Simulation Argument* -- which also allows Santa Claus and the
Easter Bunny, btw, since it's only a computer simulation, and
there are no fixed rules that were not arbitrarily assigned when
the simulation began. ;)
It's costly, and/or dangerous, to take in oddball theory, for the
simple reason it may be difficult to shed, later in life, as more
experience is gained. I've definitely taken in much of it, and am
left standing there, with my cartoon picture of the world, pretty
unsatisfied. I'm not sure one lifetime is nearly enough to reach
a 'settled' state where the present view can really satisfy.
I also have a deep feeling for all those views I've (at least in some
respects) left behind.
. . .
I can say this: I could immediately understand the jargon that
starpoet was using in this thread. Objectively, that's a little bit
like listening to Dr. Gene Scott (R.I.P.) on the television -- he may
have been internally consistent, and he had a detailed knowledge
base that he seemed to have taught from. But the base premises
of that knowledge base may be .. suspect. If you catch my meaning.
Knowledge systems seem to have the trait that they can be both
internally consistent, and orthogonal to 'reality'. Classical geometry
fits this definition; this is taught early in studying the works of
Einstein, for example: that geometry does not 'fit' the real world,
precisely. Or at least, the geometry of Euclid does not seem to.
I'm probably a bit like Newton, in that I seem to know when I am
doing science, and when I am not. Newton's non-scientific ideas
were .. yes .. startlingly non-scientific. Yet, his contribution to
science is unquestionably valuable. So he knew; sometimes he did
real science, and sometimes he poisoned himself with his experiments
in alchemy. ;)
Newton believed that God revealed the Calculus only to Newton, which
is why he pursued the ruin of Leibniz so vehemently.