Reaching Out

[omega minimo]

After too many posts saying we can't discuss without being attacked (in open forums) I ventured to put something up, a response to possibly genuine interest, that has had no comment. What does ASAH think of this?



In general, the argument on DU against astrology is very limited to a mechanistic view. AFAIK, the variety of astrologers or adherents don't believe "that their positions have an influence on what happens on earth" in a mechanistic or direct sense, that your argument (regarding the depth of field and its implications, for one thing) seems hinged on.

With me so far? Did that make sense?

"Astrology, however, is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of those movements--which are actually only apparent movements relative to the position of the earth. Astrology is based on the false premise that the stars' movement has an impact on events on this planet."

If people here think that that is what astrology is about, maybe think again. This idea appears in various threads and suggests not only that some people think others see the universe in a mechanistic way --- but that that's how they see it. This is a surprise, given what science over the past 100 or so years has shown about the nature of the universe.

There was an excellent post here this year, by someone whose name I can't recall, about his views on -- and use of -- astrology as an aspect of psychology. It was too good for me to try to paraphrase.

Astronomy is based on astrology, from the time that they were the same science, one grounded in and emerging from the other. There's no shame IMHO in sharing those roots; in considering the ways that humans studied their planet and skies way back when. When we're standing on their shoulders, it might be a good idea not to "yank the rug out."

"... but the whole craft they practice is firmly rooted in that original mistake." Says who?

If astrology were completely mechanistic and limited to an inside-the-sky-dome system, you might be right. Like a lot of what people lump together as "new age," there's more to it than that.

[OneGrassRoot]

1. It's not argumentative enough...lol

Omega, I have the utmost respect for not only the thoughts and information you present, but your persistence and determination to follow through on discussions that, 9 times out of 10, disintegrate into a flame war at GD. Talk about wearing battle armor! You constantly amaze me. It takes a lot of energy and fortitude to interact the way you do, IMHO.

Even though what you share at DU is, IMHO, always clear, straightforward and rational, this particular post is SO rational and doesn't allow enough room for the flame war perpetrators to engage. So, they stay away.

That's how I see it.

:yourock:

[Kind of Blue]

2. Oh, Dupe! n/t

[Kind of Blue]

3. Hi, omega minimo.

:hi: Missed you. Glad to see you out and about.

[omega minimo]

6. Hi Kind of Blue

Nice to see ya :toast:

[ricochetastroman]

4. You can't argue this stuff

you got it, they don't
it has NOTHING to do with mechanistics. It's all about what true above, is so below, it's that simple.
You can't explain it.
You have to try it, examine it, then you'll see how it's always 100% true.
really

[omega minimo]

5. The irony

being it requires paying attention to your environment, noticing patterns, making connections, documenting events...