NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/astrolog/2849

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 6.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!gagme!uumeme!sfoley
From: [e-mail] (Sean M. Foley)
Newsgroups: alt.astrology
Subject: Re: bullshit
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:45:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: UUMEME Public Access Xenix
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John A. Wincek) writes:
>
>In a previous article, [e-mail] (rabjab) says:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
>>monash.edu.au (GAVIN KING) writes:
>>
>>>I cannot believe that thinking human beings can actually believe this stuff.
>>I must agree with this.  The chance that the other planets has any effect
>>at all on the lives of human beings is vanishingly small.
   It's not that small, consider that even the gravity of pluto has an effect
on earth<no matter how proportionately small it is>, the fact is, astrology
even if it gives no accurate result, is a good medium to learn the meanings
attached to zodiacal signs. There are thousands of astrological methods, some
of which are excellent, and some that fail horridly; But, know that astrology
in its component form is as specific as the most honoured sciences, and a
true astrologer could make you a horoscope so accurate that you'd be dazed
even if you had only the tiniest bit introspective capability. As for the
matter of "believing" in astrology, that isn't necessary, it's not a faith,
and its only merit is its success in diagnosing the currents of your life; If
after you learn astrology and complete your own horoscope you feel the same
way, you are quite justified in thinking your way; If you haven't tried to
learn it, and haven't worked out your own to test its validity; Your
skepticism is the menacle that ties you to the sinking ship of ignorance, and
appearantly your opinions on anything are questionable; as you don't try to
find truth, you only believe everything you are told.

>>The effect on Earth lifeforms of the sun and moon is of course a matter
>>of record, from purely physical considerations.

 What is your definition of physical? Your idea of science has proved that
everything which is matter is a vibration, therefore the only determinator
of the density of anything is simply the rate at which its components move.
 One of the basics of astrology is the "vibrational" influence of the
planets, or the forces they represent; this theory is supported by all
modern sciences as well.

>>Astrology is simply an ancient attempt to understand the universe and
>>its effect on human beings and has been superceeded by astrophysics,
>>biology and psychology.

  actually, its the other way around.. Modern science is vastly inferior
to any ancient system, its level of non-tolerance of any concept makes it
a system which could lead to lie and self-deception.  Most scientists
have the problem of melding their belief with their researches, and this
alone makes the validity of any such research questionable. To think that
the universe applies to our "principles" entirely is completely absurd.
   The advantages to ancient systems is that they keep the scientific method
yet admit that the universe doesn't totally bind to any concept whatsoever.
   If you think that astrology is any less capable than modern sciences you
are crazy, on the average, it takes a person a year to learn how to properly
turn out a single horoscope properly using one method. It will take usually
the best astrologer a few days to map out the influences and put them
together.. All systems have their proper place; science being superior to
astrology is ludicrous; they use much of the same methods to get results,
but work on entirely different ends of the spectrum(science deals with
physicality, astrology works more on the spiritual and mental ends).

>>Give up astrology for modern science and you will be richly rewarded.
>>
>>-rabjab
  Why give up either? You only make yourself ignorant of some method which
may or may not work. Being ignorant of science is just as bad as being
ignorant of astrology; either one leads to ignorance, which is the only
unexcusable case.

>Have you studied astrology?  I think not.  From my own personal experience
>I have found the "science" of astrology to be a valid one.  Biology never
>appealed to me and I seriously doubt that the subject I found terminally
>boaring in school would now suddenly richly reward me.  Now, I'm not
>doubting it's validity, it just holds no appeal.  And since astrology holds
>no appeal to you, you might be better served reading alt. bio. or some
>other "rewarding" board.  And you might ask yourself why you don't  believe
>in astrology.  Is it because of exhaustive research on your part which
>proved it's non existance or is it just your uneducated opinion?  Or
>perhaps you listen to others opinions?  "Others don't believe in it, why
>not me?"
>
>john

  Agreed, I'd recommend you research astrology and document your work, if it
doesn't work for you, the documenting could give you reasons "why" you have
failed, or succeeded. Take it with salt however, the errors are not usually
caused by the planets(etc), but the interpretor themself; just as in science
you must be sure that you are not the cause of the error. If you get no
result after the most careful research, I would agree that astrology is
completely worthless FOR YOU, but this doesn't apply to anyone else.
   But, in general, you could prove your wisdom by researching to the greatest
extent anything which you doubt throughly, as this shows you how much your
idea of the matter has been altered by your social conditioning and personal
prejudices.

-Sean

--
| [e-mail] |       I only look like I have a clue.           |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Love is the Law, Love under Will
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------