Thread: Astrology Revisited

Astrology belongs to hypothetical sciences just like psychiatry.
There are no truly evdence to backup psychiatry and that is propably why psychiatry made so many mistakes in the past.
There are no practical evidence for psychiatry as there isn't for astrology.
But science is not what you can only see with your eyes.
You won't find even one astrologer who is gonna back up evidence to you like a mechanic.
Not even one.
Even if he knows good not even one.
As you won't find any psychiatrist.




To the word humility i already answered you that this conversation is pointless apart from the phrase a more you're learning for astrology as much less you talk about her.

My language allows me to study original texts which i cannot share with you,as somebody has to read shakespeare in english.
And reading of ancient scripts in my language is giving me the priviledge of realizations of ideas which there are no words used for them in english.
I cannot even explain and i don't wanna.
Do not base an hypothetical practice in demands of evidence.

As for the man called Ιπποκρατης the whole western medicine is based upon his teachings.
You are even giving an oath as a doctor to him.
He and his methods presented in numerous scripts.

This conversation is already pointless.

Actually there is evidence to back up psychiatry. So much so that psychiatric theories are able to stand on their own rather than depend on some expert telling everybody "This shit's true, don't ask me how I know or the conversation will be pointless." That's what makes something a science, when you can perform a study or experiment that makes the theory self-evident. But if you believe that modern medical findings are secondary to the Hippocratic Corpus, how can I argue what science is to you? You've already left science behind in favor of dogmatism. And it's fine to be a dogmatist, if we didn't have them we wouldn't be able to sustain tradition. Just don't claim you're talking about Science.

You've already attempted to back up evidence about Astrology, you just did so extremely vaguely and the moment I questioned it you called me an ignorant boy not worth your explanation, as if you're casting pearls before swine to even consider explaining the function behind what you believe. Then you made another (false) claim that no astrologer would ever consider picking a route other than pure, unadulterated dogmatism to teach me about astrology. Which I find funny because of all the great information I've found on astrology.

I'm perfectly aware of the problems regarding translation which is why I made the argument that we can't get stuck on the words we use to describe astrological energies. Instead of understanding this argument, you got stuck on the words I used to describe astrological energies and that red herring brought us to where we are now. Simply because I can't read ancient greeks in greek doesn't mean I'm not worth the information. I don't get it, first I was too ignorant for your expertise and now I'm not allowed because I speak english. You're right, this conversation is pointless. This is like the teacher telling the student he's a dumbass because he doesn't understand what the teacher refuses to tell him.

Yes of course there are.
Propably that is why people some decades ago got lobotomized and stayed vegetables for the rest of their live.
Propably because people with lack of knowledge were just putting needles in peoples heads.

As for the astrology im not going to type for days in a forum for you to have your evidence.

As for hippocrates and any ANY ancient script.
IM greek and in our school were studying even names you cant even spell.
Dont mention to know.

Im greek and you are going to learn me the personas of my country?

So leave the lessons to me.

I never said people's practices were necessarily healthy, people base their practice on all sorts of garbage which could barely be called superstition. For instance refusing to perform surgery on a full moon. Psychology is full of similar theories that gained too much popularity before enough research could validate them. That one kid committed suicide because a behaviorist thought he could raise him like a girl and he would act like a girl. This experiment did not occur because psychology cannot be demonstrated with evidence, it occurred because one dumbass behaviorist had a swelling ego and thought he was right with or without evidence. That's why science works the way it does, so we can appeal to evidence rather than authority. You are claiming that you are correct because you are greek. This means you are appealing to authority. This is a no-no in science. Nothing in psychiatry can be true just because Freud said so, everything had be backed up with evidence. If you want to call astrology a science, you have to back it up with evidence.

For example

A major principle in astrology is the idea represented by the saying, "As above, so below" or "That which is above is the same as that which is below." In quantum physics terminology, it means that what applies to the very large (the solar system) applies to the very small (the atom). The same laws apply to both. In mathematical terms, human beings are like a "fractal" of the universe, each cell in our body is like a "fractal" (DNA) of our entire body, the atom is like a fractal of each cell, and so on, ad infinitum. The ancients believed the study of the stars is a study of the inner workings of the human mind. This does not seem like such an odd idea when you consider that everything - including our minds - evolved from the stars from the Big Bang. Astrology is simply a system of thought concerning the connections between external reality and internal reality.

The Scientific Evidence Suggestive of Astrology

See right here, some would call it pseudo-science but the explanation still, at least, exists. The mind follows the same pattern as the solar system because they operate with the same rules, so when the solar system is affected by change, the same change is affecting the mind. To bring this evidence even closer in scope to hard science, I can provide another study

The new feature that makes this discovery distinctly different from many other previously undertaken attempts to measure and identify subtle energy fields [1] is that the field of the DNA phantom has the ability to be coupled to conventional electromagnetic fields of laser radiation and as a consequence, it can be reliably detected and positively identified using standard optical techniques.

Furthermore, it seems very plausible that the DNA phantom effect is an example of subtle energy manifestation in which direct human influence is not involved. These experimental data provide us not only quantitative data concerning the coupling constant between the DNA phantom field and the electromagnetic field of the laser light but also provides qualitative and quantitative information about the nonlinear dynamics of the phantom DNA fields. Note that both types of data are crucial for the development of a new unified nonlinear quantum field theory which must include the physical theory of consciousness and should be based on a precise quantitative background.

http://www.twm.co.nz/the-dna-phantom-effect/

Notice how no one is saying they're right because they're greek? They're introducing a theory called the DNA Phantom Effect and explaining how they can test the theory to show that human DNA can be affected by subtle energy, therefore we can experience changes that are not based purely on newtonian causality.

Good.
"as above so below as the inner the outer" a phrase by hermes the trismegistus.
It describes polarity.
few words two sides of the same coin.
And as people in a society function only by instinct towards a constant fear of death,
Societies and people are polarized.
Which creates chartography.
Which some people are able to read through an astrological map.

Now science starts always as an hypothesis not evidence.
20000 years ago if you were going to show people electricity they were going to think you're a god.
500 years ago they could burn you.

So evidence exists when a big enough group of people can recognize a function or a pattern.

So till enough people gather around astrology to make an hypothesis solid to create an evidence
there isn't any evidence.
Even if you find something by yourself you gonna have to convince people that what you found exists.

So start approaching astrology through eperience and instinct.

As for the greek
unfortunately most of the ancient scripts are badly translated as my language carries words and meanings which cannot be translated properly
so most of the translations are bad.
So i have the luck to study them as they are.

But evidence doesn't need a consensus to become evidence, most of the thinkers that changed society were initially scoffed at. That's simply how ideas permeate, first they are laughed at, then violently opposed, then accepted as common sense. I'm not likely to scoff at evidence just because it conflicts with human presumptions about existence. Actually I tend to be the one advocating ideas that threaten the contemporary mind. Astrology is one of them. But you didn't actually bring up any evidence aside from some vague speculation on gravity that you weren't able to explain the process of.

The fact is there is an actual hypothesis for astrology, and I linked it to you. The page itself is a load of pseudo-science but the links within that page help demonstrate how it's possible, such as the DNA phantom effect. These theories don't claim its caused by gravity, nor do they claim it's physically causal in nature.

Many things can be possible but stay at the solid.
Once you can learn to recognize a pattern you can work with it.
And these theories to practice even if they say something they cannot prove anything.
Now the best thing to do for a start is to recover ancient knowledge,and the rest are going to come by effort.
But then again try to prove something that you feel is correct to people that don't aknowledge it is a waste of time.

Certainly explaining Astrology to Marvo would be a waste of time but I'm not Marvo, so stop presuming I am dismissing your ideas because I refuse to acknowledge their possible validity. I acknowledge the possible validity but I don't believe anything just because it has been handed down for many generations, just on the authority of teachers and elders or religious texts, or for any other reason other than because it proves functional in my life. For the same reason I don't disbelieve anything either because I never know what will prove functional.

As for ancient teachers though, I've read the Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P Hall which includes hermetic, pythagorean, rosicrucian, freemasonic and mystery school teachings. If you'd like, you can find it here

Secret Teachings of All Ages Index

So please, also stop assuming I haven't been properly introduced to ancient teachings, because I have. The purpose of this thread, however, was not merely to trust that the ancient guys got it right. If we did, people wouldn't perform surgery on the full moon, but luckily for us (in the US at least) studies have shown there is no greater risk to heart surgery during a full moon than any other time, so we let that tradition go.

Guy first waters risign at a full moon blood pressure is getting higher at a full moon.
Second you didn't got bored to use a whole load of words and expressions to describe the simpliest thing?
It is kinda getting pointless as this conversation really is.

This will offend everybody, but here's how I see this discussion....

Omnis Dei, I think that reading the likes of Earnest Holmes and doing hallucinogens has imbued you with a feeling of wisdom without commensurate substance. Say the same thing about me if you like and I'll agree; it doesn't make it less true for you.

I'm sorry for my gratuitous cruelty. Any other day and I would not have said it.

Beyond that I could nitpick the way you use scientific jargon, but I think I mostly agree with what you're trying to say.

As for TSiouz, clearly he knows and understands far more about astrology, classical Greek thought, and several other occult subjects than anyone else here. I could give a long list of topics that I'd value his thoughts on. But he can communicate almost nothing because he can't respect anyone enough to recognize and speak to the better part of what they're talking about. Another person's question almost inevitably implies understanding which he lacks, since almost no person's understanding is a perfect subset of his. This he can not tolerate, so he sees a caricature of the question and responds to that. Maybe he's here to act out a fantasy about dropping crumbs of wisdom for lesser minds. But since he's too insecure to do anything but run away from difficult issues, instead of crumbs of wisdom all we get is a psychological spectacle. Tragically, the intellectual life of his whole nation has been pickled for 2000 years in a similar sort of nostalgic arrogance.

I'm a quarter Greek by the way. And all asshole, apparently. Disappointed with everyone though, myself included. I'd like to be able to bounce some ideas off of you all, to grow a little more understanding from the tiny hints of knowledge that we have. But it seems you'd all rather be intoxicated, in one way or another, scared to death of your vague awareness of what has been slipped beyond your reach, if you're even sober enough to find the fear.

I won't even attempt to defend myself there, except to say it's not just Ernest Holmes. I read a shit ton of works on esoteric knowledge and philosophy. Does this mean I deserve to act wiser than anybody else? Of course not, and that was also what I was trying to explain to tsiouz. Claiming to be an authority on the subject doesn't mean your argument is more important than another person's. You still have to make a proper argument. Just because I've read a lot, it doesn't excuse me from the possibility that what I say is full of shit.

But if you would mind telling me ho you define commensurate substance, I am curious. I don't know how I lack substance.

Omnis Dei,

Give me a couple of days if you will and I'll get back to you on that. I'm busy at work, and need time to get my thoughts straighter before I say more. I think we're more in agreement than not, and my hostile attitude has way more to do with me than with you anyway. In any case I apologize for my rudeness.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

This will offend everybody, but here's how I see this discussion....

Omnis Dei, I think that reading the likes of Earnest Holmes and doing hallucinogens has imbued you with a feeling of wisdom without commensurate substance. Say the same thing about me if you like and I'll agree; it doesn't make it less true for you.

I'm sorry for my gratuitous cruelty. Any other day and I would not have said it.

Beyond that I could nitpick the way you use scientific jargon, but I think I mostly agree with what you're trying to say.

As for TSiouz, clearly he knows and understands far more about astrology, classical Greek thought, and several other occult subjects than anyone else here. I could give a long list of topics that I'd value his thoughts on. But he can communicate almost nothing because he can't respect anyone enough to recognize and speak to the better part of what they're talking about. Another person's question almost inevitably implies understanding which he lacks, since almost no person's understanding is a perfect subset of his. This he can not tolerate, so he sees a caricature of the question and responds to that. Maybe he's here to act out a fantasy about dropping crumbs of wisdom for lesser minds. But since he's too insecure to do anything but run away from difficult issues, instead of crumbs of wisdom all we get is a psychological spectacle. Tragically, the intellectual life of his whole nation has been pickled for 2000 years in a similar sort of nostalgic arrogance.

I'm a quarter Greek by the way. And all asshole, apparently. Disappointed with everyone though, myself included. I'd like to be able to bounce some ideas off of you all, to grow a little more understanding from the tiny hints of knowledge that we have. But it seems you'd all rather be intoxicated, in one way or another, scared to death of your vague awareness of what has been slipped beyond your reach, if you're even sober enough to find the fear.

Im gonna respond ot anything that has to say something.
Overcomplication of the simpliest thing is a waste of time.

The reason im pressuring him is because what every astrologer experiences if he ever takes astrology n dept Is a collapse of his knowledge.
As modern astrology is mostly rubbish.

For the part of lacking of understanding i can tolerate anything as long as the person doesen't fool or confuse himself.
The only way to be aware of the knoledge you're taking and the realizations you're making is to be raw with yourself and others.
People need a challenge not an award for their half efforts
As the mind reads something new gets excited with it and then quickly turns it into a solid pile of rubbish..
As for the intellectual life of my nation.
Collective mind of a nation when the nation is ancient is making bigger cirlces instead of countries like usa which every hundred years have a triumph and collapse.
I never said because some minds crossed this place every greek is intelligent (Although the language is a catalust)
as every american is a jackass because of his politic.
But lets leave time to show which nation gonna crumble to pieces and which not.
Apart from the fact the except the germans percentage of people with degrees in education is five times bigger than the one in west europe.


And i prefere a person which is aware of his arrogance than a man with distorded kindness.

So for your friend that read so many esoteric books should know that is not the quantity of the books you've read.
It is the match of the inner knowledge with the outer that gives you help and cultivation.

Now omnis dei since your friend understans already that i have definite more knowledge than you and astrology is difficult to find and learn
I've would try if i was you as crazy as i did in the past to get knowledge from that person.
But you're so busy to be proud and certain for what you've learned that you preffer arguing and defend what you already know rather than grab the chance you've got to amplify your supposed talent from a person that just knows more than you do.

And this is your difference from a person that tries
To gain inner knowledge.
You don't need a ton of books to understand.
Give a ready man and ten books should be enough.

As for the one quarter i won't bother is im one quarter turkish and another spanish and another half greek.
So what this is making me?

As for words like intoxification and fear and carricatures
i think the raw way i treat myself and people around me is the result of the truth that im seeking.
Im not try to put a shadow on your knowledge im not even try to argue.
But moving constantly around my finger is the least thing i can do
So i don't waste my time to judge people motives.
As for dissapointment of the greeks,maybe for a start dissapointment of what yourself is can lead you to a change.

Be raw with yourself.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

but i think this conversation is pointless.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Man im not gonna type for three days in a row the aspects of pythagorean astrology...

Originally Posted by tsiouz

So this conversation is pointless.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

And when you're reached that point you're gonna realize that is going to be pointless to talk about her.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

This conversation is already pointless.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

As for the astrology im not going to type for days in a forum for you to have your evidence.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

But then again try to prove something that you feel is correct to people that don't aknowledge it is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

It is kinda getting pointless as this conversation really is.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Overcomplication of the simpliest thing is a waste of time.

...

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Now omnis dei since your friend understans already that i have definite more knowledge than you and astrology is difficult to find and learn
I've would try if i was you as crazy as i did in the past to get knowledge from that person.
But you're so busy to be proud and certain for what you've learned that you preffer arguing and defend what you already know rather than grab the chance you've got to amplify your supposed talent from a person that just knows more than you do.

So are you going to take your own advice here? He is already open to learning from you. But he would be a fool to try like crazy to get knowledge from you, because as I suggested it is futile when you are completely closed.

As far as gravity or radio astronomy goes, the exchange of energy between planets is already totally understood, and it can not even remotely account for astrological effects. Any other exchange of "energy" that goes on is astral or otherwise supernatural, not within the realm that is currently accessible by science, and not fungible with the energy that is dealt with by science. This is within my area of expertise; I understand this stuff, not just pulling something out of my ass or echoing what I have read in a book. Omnis Dei is right on this point, which is key to his thought in his original post, and you're just wrong. But rather than being open to what he was saying so that you could reach a better understanding and maybe help break some new ground, instead you diverted to attacking his willingness to learn from you. Why does that apply to him and not to you?

You suggested that a person should try to get knowledge from you, but its all locked up. What else can I do except poke at the lock? If its a waste of time for me to speculate about motives, then fix the problem yourself.

Here's a question....Why is the order of elements on the common zodiac fire, earth, air, and water? If its a mature science, there must be an understandable reason for this, it can't just be by observation. In terms of a hierarchy of principles, I see how the four elements can be ordered fire, air, water, and earth. But I don't see the reason earth follows fire on the zodiac. Can you explain it? If you can't or don't care that's fine, but its no good to hide behind a personal attack or other diversion, everybody sees through it.

Gospel of Thomas is possibly my favorite religious writing, and I'm familiar with others such as Apocryphon of John. I'd offer some commentary for the sake of useful criticism or feedback, but I haven't seen anything yet to make me believe I'd get any. Similarly, one of my earlier posts contained a thought about Greek elements, kinetic energy, and astral matter. You have spoken of polarization and chartography, which I understand to be directly relevant. If you have the understanding that you pretend to, you should be able to comment constructively on such topics. It doesn't do us much good for you to just spew your wisdom at us - you haven't said anything of consequence yet that we haven't already read elsewhere. Its by addressing the problem points that we might get somewhere. But this requires some collaborative willingness to learn, because they're problem points for you also.

Astrology cannot be proved it is a fact.
As for learning you can just ASK.

So here your questions go.

the elements are just code

Triads
1st quadrant Personal charisma.Personality.physical traits.1 2 3 houses.
Aries taurus gemini the triad of sowing.
2nd quadrant.Creative charisma and expression of the person.creative traits.3 4 6 houses.
Cancer leo virgo triad of birth.
3rd quadrant.Expansion of the self to the enviroment.offer.7 8 9 houses.
libra scorpio saggitarius triad of conciousness.
4 quadrant work to redemption.10 11 12 houses.
Capricorn aquarius pisces triad of knowledge.


Trianges

Triangle of fire positive,expression,spirit,inspiration.
aries leo saggitarius.

Triangle of air spirit functions as intelligence.
Gemini libra aquarius.

Triangle of water Sentiment immediate connection with the etheric body.
Cancer Scorpio pisces.

Triangle of earth practice evolution through daily relationships and exchanges.

Four Crosses (mods) or qualities/

Cardinal or cross of impulse (for greeks).
Impulse start Beginings.Responsible for new phases.

Aries
Cancer Libra
capricorn

Aries impulse of the self.
Cancer impulse for introversion and sensitivity.
Libra impulse for cooperation.
Capricorn impulse for organization of the self.

Fixed cross
Steadiness static.Attachment.Fixed cross creates the balance of the zodiac.

Taurus

Leon Aquarius

Scorpio


Taurus steadiness of creativity.
Leon steadiness of self expression.
Scorpio Steadiness and expression of hiden recourses.
Aquarius Solidity of ideas.

Mutable cross.
Cardinal+fixed=mutable
Harmony purpose change evolution.
Gemini
virgo pisces
Saggitarius

Gemini purpose of communication.
Saggitarius purpose of knowledge.
Virgo purpose of service.
Pisces purpose of completion.


Elements are connected through modes and harmony of them lies to the secret of uranus.

1
Aries.orgasm.
2.
Taurus.fertilization.
3.
Gemini.communication.
4.
cancer.Growth.
5.
Leo.creation.
6.
Virgo.Function.
7.
Libra.cooperation.
8.
Scorpio.conciousness.
9.
Saggitarius.knowledge.
10.
Capricorn.organization.
11.
Aquarius.revision
12.
Idealization.

Orgasm is the start or the birth
which leads to fertilization or the body
which leads to communication
which leads to growth
which leads to creativity
which leads to understanding of function
which leads to cooperation
Which leads to the awareness of the conciousness
Which leads to knowledge
Which leads to organization
which leads to revision
which leads to the ideal

Now take uranus.represents the ++ (it is called hyperconcious in greece).
fixed elemcents Taurus leon scorpio and aquarius represent it.
It symbol it'is pentalfa with the sun as the top of the star.

To uranus and the fixed hides the connection of all elements a thing that it is called alchemy which means the connection of the elements.
To uranus hides the secret of fixed signs as the squares beetween fixed are easier than the mutable and cardinal.
This is why it is a planet in which conjunction and square with mars are both in good state against other planets relations.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Astrology cannot be proved it is a fact.
As for learning you can just ASK.

So here your questions go.

the elements are just code

Triads....

You didn't even attempt to answer my question. I already know about triads and triangles and crosses. You didn't say why the earth triangle is between the fire and air triangles, you just reasserted that it is. To say that something is a fact, and stop there, is neither science nor understanding.

oh that one.
well nature contradicts from positive to negative.

They are two types of connection.
The karmic as it is for instance gemini with scorpio and taurus with sagittarius.

The other is the phenomenon created towards the previous sign to the other.
for instance.

The impulse of the ego on the aries to take action,
is tending in its completion to follow the next one.
In order to balance the yin-yang polarity.

So the drive for impulsive action is giving turn to the passivity of taurus to please it self.
Or the drive of scorpio to seek constantly to put out inner recourses
is balanced by the mutable fire of sagittarius to expand what is been learned from the self.

In nature the 0 degrees of aries mark the beginning of the spring
which starts with aries and his symbol is sperm as the effort of the nature to create
giving the passive stance of the fertilization of earth represented by the taurus.
Now fertilized ground gives turn to the active stance of gemini which represents the subtle air of transfer
which throws seeds away and expands.
which then again giving turn to the passive stance of cancer and it's growth.
ect.

So as astrology is harmonized with the cycles of the earth (if it is harmonized or tuned by a bigger scale doesen't matter)
passes from the positive as fire to the negative as earth to air and then to water and then to fire again.
This is why sometimes you're gonna see a man with a lot of positions in aries to tend to get more stable as he grows up.
not always some times.

Does this answer your question?
As for science you never gonna make a solid fact about astrology.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

Does this answer your question?

Yes. I find that at least plausible.

Originally Posted by tsiouz

As for science you never gonna make a solid fact about astrology.

Science has tools for dealing with uncertainty, and can accommodate interdependence between perceiver and perceived, and subjectivity of metaphor. If astrology is real in the way that it is claimed to be, then I'm pretty sure it should be possible to demonstrate that scientifically, even if that won't be done quickly or easily, or if there's no point in pressing for that now. I will say more about this later.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The scientific method assumes your attitude cannot affect the results you are studying. It attempts to depersonalize reality, which would be fine if we knew for certain that there was a purely causal, objective reality we're all observing and our minds are not one of the causes for its effects. But because we do not know for certain that this is the case, science is an intrinsically limited (albeit profoundly useful) tool.

Omnis Dei, I don't think this limitation is intrinsic to science. Its specific to some scientists, and to the current collection of successful scientific theories. Its possible to collect data, form a hypothesis, and test a hypothesis while remaining aware that the mind affects the process and has to be taken into account. Granted that taking the mind into account makes the process much more difficult. But as you know, a somewhat analogous difficulty has already been overcome in the development of quantum mechanics, where the measurement unavoidably alters the subject of study. Historically, science deals with what it can using the tools it has, then it develops better tools it can do more. As another example, Einstein's theories were impossible until alternatives to Euclid's postulate were rigorously explored in the mid to late 19th century. But if a person were ever to declare that mathematics is inherently unable to deal with Newtonian mechanics, they would have been misunderstanding the nature of mathematics.

I think its a clear mistake to say, as some do, that science and religion apply to wholly separate realms. At best its a practical compromise, an acknowledgement that not everything that matters is accounted for scientifically. At worst its a way of trying to protect fact defying assertions from honest scrutiny. Many of us believe in 'supernatural' things because current 'natural' theories do not account for everything in our experience. In other words, there are areas where the natural theories break down. Those areas can be explored. As long as scientific inquiry continues, its almost inevitable that those leftover areas become increasingly obvious. And in the process better tools are developed that can deal with them. As minor examples of this, the prevailing view among physicists now seems to be that there exist other universes and worlds similar to but different from ours. And quantum mechanics has yielded a view of the 'vacuum' which is really a more sophisticated understanding of the old aether, under a different name. And it is well understood that the known universe is under-determined, that its not just a clockwork mechanism wound up at creation. All of these ideas bring us closer to being able to deal scientifically with 'astral' phenomena. I'm not arguing that this is the best approach, just that science does move in that direction, and there isn't an intrinsic line that it can't cross, certainly not in relation to something as structured and physically predictive as astrology. Of course there is subtlety and ambiguity in astrology. But statistical tools are clearly applicable, and in whatever sense they are not, we can still learn something by exploring where they fail and why. Again I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that its possible. I agree that its difficult, and people may be a long ways away from accomplishing anything definite this way.

Many years ago I collected birth dates and examined the biorhythms for all my friends and women who I had interacted with. At that time my relationships were based primarily on emotional affinity. My three closest friends were exactly in sync with me on the 28 day 'emotional' cycle, within a day anyway. All of the others, with one exception, were tightly clustered around that end of the cycle, off a day or slightly more. The other girl was 180 degree out of sync with me. But she was a theology student, our relationship had been based on religious discussions rather than emotional affinity, and it had been remarkable to me how unable I was to feel her, to me she was like spock. I had a sample of at least a dozen people, and statistically it was remarkably conclusive. Biorhythms don't seem very plausible to me though, it seems unnatural for something to be so rigidly fixed to the earths rotation that way. And I actually kind of doubt that a more general study could demonstrate the same patterns, I speculate it was somewhat specific to me, as narcissistic as it seems to suppose that my friends' birthdays could be inextricably tied to who I am.

Tentatively, I don't think that biorhythms or astrology are built into nature in quite the same way that other physical 'laws' are. I think they're more akin to conventions that spirits follow, patterns they have fallen into, ways they organize themselves. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if western astrology doesn't work as reliably on non-western ethnic and cultural groups.

As a crude analogy to illustrate what I mean, here's a picture of a hexagon on saturn:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/cassini/pia09188-200.jpg

Fluid does that under certain conditions that are understood mathematically. Here somebody has produced a pentagon by spinning a bucket in the right manner:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...erney.hex2.jpg

So the pattern is 'natural', but its still not utterly fundamental and universal. I think that the zodiac is more fundamental and natural than this example, but at the same time its not built into what is known scientifically about nature. And I've noticed that there are alternative ways of dividing a circle that show other interesting relationships, even though the zodiac is on balance better. Similarly, I have some fairly compelling evidence for numerology, but I don't think its built into the cosmos at the most basic level either. Its more like a way that some spirits have of keeping track of stuff and communicating with people. In any case, if my guess here is right, this would obviously be relevant to what kinds of experiments might produce astrological information and what kinds might not. This isn't something that I'm interested in pursuing, but those are my thoughts anyway.

Omnis Day, as to why I was pissed off yesterday....Mostly I was annoyed at tsiouz, not at you, and I thought he was using weaknesses of your presentation as pretexts to evade the valid points you were making. Also I thought his criticism was somewhat valid, and wanted to acknowledge where it was valid. Also it does sometimes seem to me that we pontificate as if we own a part of wisdom, when in reality we're doing little more than recycling ideas that have already been kicking around for a while. I didn't see anything that you said that I haven't posted on here previously in a similar form, and I'm also mostly just talking about gaining understanding, not actually doing very much of it. Like I said, I accept the same criticism. All of the Theosophical related material seems to me to be like that, they build these simplistic models of the mind or of higher worlds, then they act like they're doing a deeper, more meaningful version of what Einstein did. They have absolutely no idea of the level of difficulty and rigor involved in the creation of a successful physics theory. P. D. Ouspensky and H. W. Percival would be two examples of the kind of naivety that I'm talking about. To the extent that tsiouz was reacting to that sort of thing, I think he had a point. But you also made some good points along similar lines. To some extent I was just being a jerk, and there was no excuse for it. To some extent I was trying to stimulate a mild emotional reaction that would punch through some of the bullshit, and you were in the crossfire. And I was just expressing how I felt, trying to make the most of my own moment of emotional lucidity before I slipped off of it. I hope that makes some sense.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I read a shit ton of works on esoteric knowledge and philosophy.

You might like to read this too:

Esoteric Astrology - A Treatise on the Seven Rays

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

Spoiler for post:

Omnis Dei, I don't think this limitation is intrinsic to science. Its specific to some scientists, and to the current collection of successful scientific theories. Its possible to collect data, form a hypothesis, and test a hypothesis while remaining aware that the mind affects the process and has to be taken into account. Granted that taking the mind into account makes the process much more difficult. But as you know, a somewhat analogous difficulty has already been overcome in the development of quantum mechanics, where the measurement unavoidably alters the subject of study. Historically, science deals with what it can using the tools it has, then it develops better tools it can do more. As another example, Einstein's theories were impossible until alternatives to Euclid's postulate were rigorously explored in the mid to late 19th century. But if a person were ever to declare that mathematics is inherently unable to deal with Newtonian mechanics, they would have been misunderstanding the nature of mathematics.

I think its a clear mistake to say, as some do, that science and religion apply to wholly separate realms. At best its a practical compromise, an acknowledgement that not everything that matters is accounted for scientifically. At worst its a way of trying to protect fact defying assertions from honest scrutiny. Many of us believe in 'supernatural' things because current 'natural' theories do not account for everything in our experience. In other words, there are areas where the natural theories break down. Those areas can be explored. As long as scientific inquiry continues, its almost inevitable that those leftover areas become increasingly obvious. And in the process better tools are developed that can deal with them. As minor examples of this, the prevailing view among physicists now seems to be that there exist other universes and worlds similar to but different from ours. And quantum mechanics has yielded a view of the 'vacuum' which is really a more sophisticated understanding of the old aether, under a different name. And it is well understood that the known universe is under-determined, that its not just a clockwork mechanism wound up at creation. All of these ideas bring us closer to being able to deal scientifically with 'astral' phenomena. I'm not arguing that this is the best approach, just that science does move in that direction, and there isn't an intrinsic line that it can't cross, certainly not in relation to something as structured and physically predictive as astrology. Of course there is subtlety and ambiguity in astrology. But statistical tools are clearly applicable, and in whatever sense they are not, we can still learn something by exploring where they fail and why. Again I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying that its possible. I agree that its difficult, and people may be a long ways away from accomplishing anything definite this way.

Many years ago I collected birth dates and examined the biorhythms for all my friends and women who I had interacted with. At that time my relationships were based primarily on emotional affinity. My three closest friends were exactly in sync with me on the 28 day 'emotional' cycle, within a day anyway. All of the others, with one exception, were tightly clustered around that end of the cycle, off a day or slightly more. The other girl was 180 degree out of sync with me. But she was a theology student, our relationship had been based on religious discussions rather than emotional affinity, and it had been remarkable to me how unable I was to feel her, to me she was like spock. I had a sample of at least a dozen people, and statistically it was remarkably conclusive. Biorhythms don't seem very plausible to me though, it seems unnatural for something to be so rigidly fixed to the earths rotation that way. And I actually kind of doubt that a more general study could demonstrate the same patterns, I speculate it was somewhat specific to me, as narcissistic as it seems to suppose that my friends' birthdays could be inextricably tied to who I am.

Tentatively, I don't think that biorhythms or astrology are built into nature in quite the same way that other physical 'laws' are. I think they're more akin to conventions that spirits follow, patterns they have fallen into, ways they organize themselves. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if western astrology doesn't work as reliably on non-western ethnic and cultural groups.

As a crude analogy to illustrate what I mean, here's a picture of a hexagon on saturn:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/cassini/pia09188-200.jpg

Fluid does that under certain conditions that are understood mathematically. Here somebody has produced a pentagon by spinning a bucket in the right manner:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...erney.hex2.jpg

So the pattern is 'natural', but its still not utterly fundamental and universal. I think that the zodiac is more fundamental and natural than this example, but at the same time its not built into what is known scientifically about nature. And I've noticed that there are alternative ways of dividing a circle that show other interesting relationships, even though the zodiac is on balance better. Similarly, I have some fairly compelling evidence for numerology, but I don't think its built into the cosmos at the most basic level either. Its more like a way that some spirits have of keeping track of stuff and communicating with people. In any case, if my guess here is right, this would obviously be relevant to what kinds of experiments might produce astrological information and what kinds might not. This isn't something that I'm interested in pursuing, but those are my thoughts anyway.

Omnis Day, as to why I was pissed off yesterday....Mostly I was annoyed at tsiouz, not at you, and I thought he was using weaknesses of your presentation as pretexts to evade the valid points you were making. Also I thought his criticism was somewhat valid, and wanted to acknowledge where it was valid. Also it does sometimes seem to me that we pontificate as if we own a part of wisdom, when in reality we're doing little more than recycling ideas that have already been kicking around for a while. I didn't see anything that you said that I haven't posted on here previously in a similar form, and I'm also mostly just talking about gaining understanding, not actually doing very much of it. Like I said, I accept the same criticism. All of the Theosophical related material seems to me to be like that, they build these simplistic models of the mind or of higher worlds, then they act like they're doing a deeper, more meaningful version of what Einstein did. They have absolutely no idea of the level of difficulty and rigor involved in the creation of a successful physics theory. P. D. Ouspensky and H. W. Percival would be two examples of the kind of naivety that I'm talking about. To the extent that tsiouz was reacting to that sort of thing, I think he had a point. But you also made some good points along similar lines. To some extent I was just being a jerk, and there was no excuse for it. To some extent I was trying to stimulate a mild emotional reaction that would punch through some of the bullshit, and you were in the crossfire. And I was just expressing how I felt, trying to make the most of my own moment of emotional lucidity before I slipped off of it. I hope that makes some sense.

I agree that Science can be used to inquiry into everything. I was also using Science as a sort of umbrella term for cause-and-effect based logic, though, which I believe is one tool of inquiry but not the only tool of inquiry.

People have done studies that show how the mind can affect results, these are still limited to cause and effect based studies though, and are often considered pseudo-science by the greater scientific community. What I was mostly trying to say is that cause-and-effect based logic is not the only tool of inquiry, another type of inquiry is based on finding patterns, and delving into synchronicity. Synchronicity depends on conclusions which an observer must interpret on their own, and they cannot display any sort of scientific proof for others because they must make connections regarding patterns that they see. They also can't necessarily write down any absolute rules for their divination, and trek too deeply into the realm of absolute cause and effect. What I mean by this is, take the video IndieAnthias posted. The patterns create codes, and these codes represent certain energies. This is an attempt to organize rules to divination, and it can only go so far. In the end the interpreter must complete the journey, by relating it to their own life, and by using synchronicity which an outside observer can always just falsify as confirmation bias.

Human beings inherently attempt to organize everything into something readable. This essentially means we're translating reality all the time. We're transforming what is a mess of subtle differences into categorical information. We categorize, for instance, big things and small things when in reality we're looking at a scale of stuff. And the huge things and tiny things are not where we get in trouble, but in defining that place where small suddenly becomes large, and where two things nearly the same size must be placed in entirely different categories. That's why categorical thinking is good for attempting to map ideas out but it's important to remember a shade of a color is more than the category you place that shade into. And when dealing with astrology, the energy a planet represents is more than the collection of words that describe it.

In this sense I also agree that pontificating is an obstacle because people can be possessive over definitions and beliefs which may do a good job to map something out, but they are still ultimately a translation. As Nietzsche said the moment you open your mouth you begin to lie.

So to bring this full circle, I want to talk about what the book I read recently, The Story of B, had to say on the subject. The story describes early Animist religions as believing in a deity that existed as (I'm paraphrasing) the culmination of movement in the area that surrounded them. So the God of a particular mountain was made up of all the living and non-living stuff on the mountain, but moreso, it was the interaction between all that stuff, the gestalt. The animists also had a sort of divination which was not a collection of organized rules like the I-Ching or astrology so much as just different bundles of superstition. I'm sure scientists performing a proper study could invalidate them all, just as they've invalidated the full moon's increase in blood pressure and many other superstitions. The point is not that they're scientifically accurate. The point is that the observer follows certain parameters in order to gain good and bad fortune, and in essence this is a personal endeavor. Just as a gambler playing roulette will invent all sorts of little rules which don't do a thing regarding scientific probability but the gambler insists on them, and in the end just because it makes no difference whether the rules are real or not doesn't mean one should ignore them. What you have the beginnings of is ceremonial magic, where you utilize an arbitrary belief system in order to coax your inner-landscape into a sense of confidence that you will prevail in your task. You followed the rules, this give you confidence, and confidence is required to make decisions to the extent that early people had to make decisions. They had to know when to move camp in search of better land and when to stay put. They had to make life and death decisions all the time and unfortunately these decisions were not all easy, they were full of doubt. When there's so much doubt, it's not so ridiculous to see why people started tossing bones on the ground and pulling meaning out of them. It's not so far-fetched to see why we made decisions based on patterns pulled out of randomness, because making decisions on cause-and-effect logic was out of reach, There was too much doubt in that regard, so we had to use another system.

And this other system cannot be interpreted using organized, cause and effect rules, at least not in my view, because we're using magic. When attempting to pull meaning out of randomness, life can give surprising answers and these answers can come from surprising places. Interpreting the answer requires a certain amount of openness and a certain amount of faith in your own personal interpretation. The rule synchronicity follows is that coincidences are meaningful, the rule I follow more generally is that life will find a way to answer your question.

Let me put it another way, say you're following the I-Ching in the video IndieAnthias posted, and you get some results from tossing the coins that are so subtle in difference you cannot easily tell if they're positive or negative. A dogmatic, categorical thinker would be able to tell if it's positive or negative, but you're more hip than that so instead of drawing a broken or unbroken line, you draw whichever one it leans toward and add a little asterisk, nothing written down in the rules of I-Ching, just something you personally believe is important because you can't read the results well enough to decide if it's one or the other. Then when you get to the point where it's time to match the results to the chart, you note how you're not 100% positive if it's this, that or the other so you examine all possible results and discover the most accurate interpretation matches something more or less in between. You still find a suitable answer, but you didn't find it by following the hard-pressed rules of your divination practice. You found it by reasonably interpreting your observation.

Omnis Dei,

I've messed with the I Ching quite a lot. For me, although much of the behavior quite subjective and personal, and therefore hard to demonstrate, aspects of it would easily show up in objective statistical tests. For instance, I get the same image (with the same moving lines) twice in a row at a much higher rate than probability predicts. I doubt such a pattern would hold up in a general study, because as you point out, the oracle is sensitive to the kind of question being asked, and a study is a kind of question. Plus I think the oracle works better for some people than for others, because one's own elementals are involved, so to speak. (It seems to work better for me now than it did 15 years ago.) But I think what will happen eventually, is human thinking will change enough that somebody is going to be able to publicly and repeatably produce some blatant miracle, like teleporting objects. Then all these marginal cases of subjective coincidences will be assumed plausible by everyone also, so the issue of whether they can be proved will become moot.

As I've posted elsewhere, I take a dim view of Jung for the way he steered the definitions of synchronicity and collective unconscious. He carefully defined his terms in such a way that it was ambiguous whether there was anything supernatural implied by those words or not. When writing and speaking for his professional/skeptical audiences, he explicitly denied that anything supernatural was involved. But in other circumstances he used the words to cover phenomena which clearly involve a supernatural component, and in those contexts he avoided the question of whether anything supernatural was involved and left it ambiguous. So he had it both ways, keeping his respectable scientific reputation, while also claiming to be an authority of things outside of what science admits. Now the shadow of this sleight of hand persists even after he's gone. People identify phenomena like the I Ching's behavior as falling under Jung's categories, then they show where he explicitly says such categories involve nothing supernatural, and from there deny that anything supernatural is going on, without ever actually facing whether that interpretation is plausible for the facts at hand. Or they put on Jung's ambiguity hat, rather than his objective scientist hat, and say it can't be established one way or another, without the burden of ever demonstrating that. Likewise for the 'collective unconscious', which people believe isn't collective in the sense that information is actually shared internally, because Jung clearly said it wasn't, and he defined the terms. This precludes things like shared dreaming, for example.

By the way, if you ever use the I Ching, I think the 3 coin method sucks. The I Ching was designed to work with the yarrow stalk method, which is 5/8 probability for yang, 3/8 for moving yang, 7/8 for yin, and 1/8 for moving yin. The 3 coin method works, but it is skewed towards overly masculine results. A person can get the proper probabilities with two pairs of coins of different sizes though, such as two dimes and two quarters. I didn't come up with that, but if anyone cares, ask me and I'll explain how to do it.

You missed the point I was going for. First of all I believe words like supernatural and transcendental are inaccurate ways to describe synchronicity and esoteric studies. A better term would be something like supercasual, superphysicial or super-newtonian. The example I gave about the I-CHing is related to how practices such as I-Ching and Astrology are meant for personal observation, and that the observer personally shapes the information being received. I'm not arguing we all live in our own universe, but that we shape our reality in ways which makes it a very personal experience.

And to repeat the example I mentioned, if you're privy to this philosophy, you don't need to follow absolutist parameters when navigating these more mystical fields. You only need to follow personally created parameters because that's what the guidelines are being set by. The shape of your receiver dictates what it receives. Extremely scientifically oriented people will receive less evidence of magic than receivers which are properly shaped for those types of observations. This is what I mean when I say properly cultivating the inner landscape in order to effect the outer landscape is the heart of magical theory, and that magicians use ceremonial magic, and shamans used ritual magic, and gamblers use their own form of ritual. By investing belief in the ritual, you shape your receiver to more powerfully believe you will get a specific outcome.

And this is how I believe astrology and other supercausal methods operate. That's not to say the planets are not sending out signals, that is to say the signals being sent in are not radiowaves, and they are not subject to the rules of spacetime. The signals they broadcast reach their destinations instantaneously, just as how the law of attraction begins attracting things toward you the instance you tune into them, and it does not take and time for your new signal to travel to them. This type of transmission, which I will call mana circulation to borrow Peter Carrol's reapplication of the word in his Introduction to Chaos Magic, is also as unpredictable as emergence. This means that while the information you broadcast may be very specific, the way it emerges can be surprising. That is why astrologers describe various astrological energies with very broad, general terminology, often couples with very specific examples.

But superseding all of this is synchronicity which essentially means the life you live will match the shape of your mind. And therefore it doesn't matter which particular magical or mystical operating system you utilize, as long as you invest in it properly. Furthermore, these tools are more beneficial when you do not regard the results as absolutist, objective, categorical or scientific but when you regard them as chaotically emerged renditions of the inner self.