--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Think of this as a favor on my part. I could have > > > > responded giving you some made-up outcome of the > > > > test for me. I used to have fun at TM parties by > > > > telling people who asked "What sign are you?" the > > > > *wrong* astrological sign. Then I'd just kick back > > > > and watch them trip on how *perfect* that was for > > > > me, and how I matched all the descriptions of a > > > > <whatever it was> to a T. > > > > > > Given that we all bounce around all 16 cells at times, and > > > descriptor COULD describe your behavior "some times". > > > > > > If one is (sadly) stuck in the notion that these are tight > > > little boxes -- then, your game could be amusing. Amusement > > > based on false notions. Now that is funny. > > > > Not to mention, anybody who thinks wrong guesses in > > the "What's-my-sun-sign?" game reveal anything at > > all about the validity or lack of same of astrology > > doesn't have any idea of what astrology actually > > involves. (Same applies to *right* guesses, for that > > matter.) > > > > That's my game. I know what astrology involves, I learnt > how to chart horoscopes many years ago. The whole process > is rubbish from start to finish.
The sensing part of me would say "sure". The intuitive part of me says" yeah, thats true, but Jeez why do so many correct things pop out of my chart when I look at it once a year." The latter may just be tricky confirmation bias going on. But the correlations over the years seem to have "disproved". All part of a more transparent, higher order confirmation bias I am sure. :) Regardless of mapping person A to Chart X -- and chart X to destiny X34w1 -- I find insight in just using the jyotish based classifications and relationships as useful (fluid) descriptors. "Oh that person looks soooo Saturn. Not like that Jupitarian over there". "Or, that was a really mars thing to do". Or, "he is on a venus run". Or rahu times anyone?" And when you say astrology, I assume you mean one particular type of Western astrology. Or at best, one or two particular brands of whatever school. Hardly a definitive case to be made against all jyotish systems (jyotish being my focus). And in various jyotish schools, the lagna, or other key point can be many things, in many places. Depending on the angle of analysis. Look at the harmonic charts, as a small subset of examples. Which means you are not REALLY ONLY a pisces ascedent with moon in 5th -- but at times, in some periods, in some circumstances, for some parts of your totality -- you are also A, B C D ... Z. Which illustrates that the totality is within in us. Just different parts manifest at any time. To IDENTIFY with ONLY being pisces ascedent with moon if 5th is so anally limited and closed minded, such a eyes-shut view, one-dimensional, well, its breath stopping. I am everything. Only at times, I was given the script for a pisces with moon in 5th -- and I try to play along. In other parts of my life, I am mars ascendant with .... and in other parts ... An last life I was .... > The originators didn't > know of course, they were just trying to make sense of things > and bring some order to the world. I'm not slagging them off > as they had a sense of wonder about the night sky. They just > didn't have our understanding, little things like the sun > doesn't go round the earth, the knowledge of which would > make your horoscope look pretty different. And they did give > the heavens some pretty cool names. > > People only claim sun-signs aren't a true indicator of > anything when it doesn't work out. Astrologers see the sun > as the biggest influence. It would be nice if there was > any evidence for it but after this long it's firmly on my > list of "Unproved and time to move on". >
