Consider, if you will, the basic absurdity that an astral body - so far away from you as to have absolutely zero magnetic, thermodynamic, or photonic influence on your very existence...
Sure, most planets are ridiculously far away, although the more *core* ones to astrology and natal charts such as the Sun and the Moon have clear physical influences on the earth and our lives. It's not meant to be taken literally I don't think. It is primarily a system of symbols and for me has validity as such.
One of the primary arguements against the tarot is how a card out of 78 picked at random could possibly have any relevance whatsoever. I admit that I started out as a huge sceptic and while I won't accept every reader/astrologer unquestioningly I have seen it work. Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.
It's different to not believing in snowfall, especially considering the vast number of africans who have actually seen snow. {it's always either they haven't seen snow or there are lions wandering the streets}
You mean there aren't lions wandering the streets? *shocked gasp*
You're right, it was a bad example and it was intended as arbitrary rather than a social comment. A better example would have been to say *I don't believe in Freud* or something of that sort. Saying I have studied Freud's ideas and I think they are unfounded/wrong/short-sighted/twisted/simplistic is fair enough and I'd be very likely to agree with you ;)
Religions usually tell us that Scientists are heretics and must be incinerated at the nearest stake.
*has brief and strangely fulfilling visions of a few choice psychologists burned on the stake at the pyre of their own convoluted and largely pointless texts*
Science requires that you place belief in numbers, and rules that are measurable in science' own terms -
Yep. Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot.
Sure, most planets are ridiculously far away, although the more *core* ones to astrology and natal charts such as the Sun and the Moon have clear physical influences on the earth and our lives. It's not meant to be taken literally I don't think. It is primarily a system of symbols and for me has validity as such.
That's a similar argument to that used to justify all the various contradictions of the bible though....
The Sun, being a star, also throws up the quandary of - stars vs planets divided by spatial influence.
All life comes from the sun, or so science tells us:- the difference comes when science tries to prove itself, whereas other religions/beliefs tend not to...
Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.
Agreed. Then again, a huge amount of psychology is supposition and theory, dogged by association to freud {screaming maniac} or other such absurd theories.
If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.
Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot. i dunno - i think it's worth doing what the older universities used to do, and that's differentiate science from psychology:- believe it or not - you can still get a BA in psychology, because some don't consider it a science... atomic/quantum physics are an obvious example of how absurd science can be - and thus why it should be considered a religion.
i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology, beyond dave gorman that is...
The Sun, being a star, also throws up the quandary of - stars vs planets divided by spatial influence.
I know, astrology is weird because it is subjective and it starts out with the same principles as astronomy but then completely throws them off and turns them on their head. Eg. the constellations astronomically are of different sizes but for the purposes of astrology and having a workable symbol system they are neatly divided into occupying a space of 30 degrees each.
and the sun and moon are treated as planets in the chart, and I use the word for the sake of convenience because it is the standard reference. as are other words, like rulerships, even though that is not strictly accurate either.
If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.
I agree totally. But I think it depends on what you see as the foundation. In astrology, I see the foundation as a symbol system and that's how I treat it rather than basing it in astronomical relevance. Just as dreams may look like the representations of the real world but are something else entirely and their imagery and meaning is rarely literal.
i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology, beyond dave gorman that is...
lol! me neither, not fully. but I do have ideas for experiemnts and would love someday to run them, or have someone else run them. Tarot-wise, whatever psych methods were used to prove the psychometric reliability and validity of the Roscharch and tools like it, I think could be adapted for Tarot.
Astrology-wise I know there's been a few decent attempts at experiemnts by non-astrologers and I can't think of the guy's name off the top of my head but I shall go look. He was a French statistician I think who tried to prove randomness of astrology by plotting the planetary positions in the charts of famous sportsmen, politicians, actors and so on (france being a blessed place where the time of birth is recorded and easily available thus making the whole thing easier) and ended up finding definate patterns in his data. e.g. In the charts of athletes for instance, Mars (the plaent of energy, aggression, drive) was very prominently placed (e.g. it was on the ascendant, or in some other very dominant position on the chart where its influence would be seen as amplified/to amplify).
Of course there are no hard and fast proofs, nor will there ever be perfect patterns but it was interesting to read. I am always so cheered when people set up half-decent experiments. Whether or not people are ever find any sort of viable *proof* for astrology is much less important to me than whether people make a good attempt to do so.
or photonic influence on your very existence...
Sure, most planets are ridiculously far away, although the more *core* ones to astrology and natal charts such as the Sun and the Moon have clear physical influences on the earth and our lives. It's not meant to be taken literally I don't think. It is primarily a system of symbols and for me has validity as such.
One of the primary arguements against the tarot is how a card out of 78 picked at random could possibly have any relevance whatsoever. I admit that I started out as a huge sceptic and while I won't accept every reader/astrologer unquestioningly I have seen it work. Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.
It's different to not believing in snowfall, especially considering the vast number of africans who have actually seen snow.
{it's always either they haven't seen snow or there are lions wandering the streets}
You mean there aren't lions wandering the streets? *shocked gasp*
You're right, it was a bad example and it was intended as arbitrary rather than a social comment.
A better example would have been to say *I don't believe in Freud* or something of that sort. Saying I have studied Freud's ideas and I think they are unfounded/wrong/short-sighted/twisted/simplistic is fair enough and I'd be very likely to agree with you ;)
Religions usually tell us that Scientists are heretics and must be incinerated at the nearest stake.
*has brief and strangely fulfilling visions of a few choice psychologists burned on the stake at the pyre of their own convoluted and largely pointless texts*
Science requires that you place belief in numbers,
and rules that are measurable in science' own terms -
Yep. Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot.
Reply
That's a similar argument to that used to justify all the various contradictions of the bible though....
The Sun, being a star, also throws up the quandary of - stars vs planets divided by spatial influence.
All life comes from the sun, or so science tells us:-
the difference comes when science tries to prove itself,
whereas other religions/beliefs tend not to...
Symbols are a powerful and ancient language that defy easy rules but if they were irrelevant than a lot of psychology and particularly psychoanalysis would be in deep trouble.
Agreed.
Then again, a huge amount of psychology is supposition and theory,
dogged by association to freud {screaming maniac}
or other such absurd theories.
If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.
Yet still science accepts things like magnetism, atomic physics/quantum physics (not to mention Roscharch and similar psychometric tools) on the base of thier demonstrable effects yet by the same token demonstrable effects are not seen as a sufficiently solid basis for validity of astrology/tarot.
i dunno - i think it's worth doing what the older universities used to do,
and that's differentiate science from psychology:-
believe it or not - you can still get a BA in psychology,
because some don't consider it a science...
atomic/quantum physics are an obvious example of how absurd science can be - and thus why it should be considered a religion.
i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology,
beyond dave gorman that is...
Reply
I know, astrology is weird because it is subjective and it starts out with the same principles as astronomy but then completely throws them off and turns them on their head. Eg. the constellations astronomically are of different sizes but for the purposes of astrology and having a workable symbol system they are neatly divided into occupying a space of 30 degrees each.
and the sun and moon are treated as planets in the chart, and I use the word for the sake of convenience because it is the standard reference. as are other words, like rulerships, even though that is not strictly accurate either.
If the foundation is flawed the building is unlikely to be weather proof.
I agree totally. But I think it depends on what you see as the foundation. In astrology, I see the foundation as a symbol system and that's how I treat it rather than basing it in astronomical relevance. Just as dreams may look like the representations of the real world but are something else entirely and their imagery and meaning is rarely literal.
i'm not sure about demonstrable effects of tarot or astrology,
beyond dave gorman that is...
lol!
me neither, not fully. but I do have ideas for experiemnts and would love someday to run them, or have someone else run them. Tarot-wise, whatever psych methods were used to prove the psychometric reliability and validity of the Roscharch and tools like it, I think could be adapted for Tarot.
Astrology-wise I know there's been a few decent attempts at experiemnts by non-astrologers and I can't think of the guy's name off the top of my head but I shall go look. He was a French statistician I think who tried to prove randomness of astrology by plotting the planetary positions in the charts of famous sportsmen, politicians, actors and so on (france being a blessed place where the time of birth is recorded and easily available thus making the whole thing easier) and ended up finding definate patterns in his data. e.g. In the charts of athletes for instance, Mars (the plaent of energy, aggression, drive) was very prominently placed (e.g. it was on the ascendant, or in some other very dominant position on the chart where its influence would be seen as amplified/to amplify).
Of course there are no hard and fast proofs, nor will there ever be perfect patterns but it was interesting to read. I am always so cheered when people set up half-decent experiments. Whether or not people are ever find any sort of viable *proof* for astrology is much less important to me than whether people make a good attempt to do so.
Reply
Leave a comment