--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <Snip> > > >The final woo woo aspect is the > > claim that humans could know about such a connection using ancient > > scriptures from a pre-scientific culture who believed in many forms of > > divination. > > Huh? Are you suggesting that ancient cultures bring absolutely nothing > to the table? No valid knowledge of ANYTHING? Whew. We have different > views there.
I was putting my finger on the epistemological basis for the claims of Joitish. They come from ancient scriptures, not from any empirical basis. I was challenging that people can know about such a mechanism and proposing that pre-scientific cultures tended to believe assertions from priestly classes without any verification required. There is plenty of stuff from pre-scientific cultures that has passed modern standards of proof. Joitish is not one of them. > > > Do people with big ears really have a better chance to > > become wealthy? > > Is the term strawman in your vocabulary? Physiognomy is a branch of Joitish. This claim came from one of Maharishi's favorite Joitishis. I am pointing out that there is a cluster of beliefs that need to be examined through some testing rather than accepted on face value. > > > Finally, the use of gems to magically mitigate the influence of plants > > seems to throw the whole claim of causation back into play doesn't it? > > Um where did I say anything about gems? I have said there may be lots> of mud around the um, "gems" of insight from ancient cultures. There > is a need to wash off the mud. It is in the system. You don't need to mention it for me to bring it up. I agree that there is a lot of mud to wash off in human knowledge of all eras of our history. > > > Humans naturally desire to know about and control future events. > > Perhaps. But what does that have to do with this discussion? OHHHH you> are still stuck in the same misconception as HUGO that this is about> casuation. Neti Neti. > < <Snip> And you seem to be stuck in the misconception that a claim of causation is somehow more fantastic than the claim that there is a correlation in Vedic astrology. They are equally baseless as assertions of unproven claims from an ancient culture. This doesn't mean that they didn't know anything, just that we shouldn't assume they had the whole mechanics of creation figured out to such a precise degree that they can accurately predict future events. > > > >But > > one thing seems to jump out from studying history: we totally suck at > > this. We always have, and that includes the Vedic era in India. > > You can "rant" on about whole civilizations. I was talking about > jyotish. But why we are talking non-sequiturs, sportscasters suck at > predicting who is going to win Wimbledon. Should we line em all up and > shoot them? "rant" ummm And I said we should shoot Joitish guys where? > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > I'm not convinced anything has happened to me emotionally > > > > or career wise that I couldn't account for just by looking > > > > at myself and what's happened, influences from parents, school > > > > etc.... In short, > > > > it should be obvious that I've been dancing on the strings > > > > of unseen powers rather than subject to the cause and effect > > > > of a life lived among other people just making it up as they > > > > go along. > > > > > > You perhaps are mistaking cause and correlation. I can understand how > > > some in the past 1000 years took the notion of planets correlate to > > > events with "the planets cause events". But jyotish never said that > > > (that I have ever read or heard. Its been 10 years since I have done > > > anything with jyotish, but back then I read 10 or so books, saw maybe > > > 8 or so jyotishees. Went to a national convention that happened to be > > > in my home town. I never hard any claim of causality.) > > > > > > Your watch may be able to tell when its five o'clock, and someone may > > > tell you that the train comes at 5, but in no way does the watch > > > striking 5 CAUSE the train to come. And no one claims that it does. > > > > > > Wristwatch, jytoish clock, no one claims causality. Why then expect or > > > look for causality? > > > > > > And people may be acting "randomly" but collectively are certain > > > trends more apparent when the temperature rises? Higher crime? More > > > bar fights? More road rage? I see jyotish (if there is anything to it > > > -- jury still is out) as something like that. "Its going to be hot for > > > a while, and we can expect more events that occur when its hot to > > > actually occur." Not a lot of woo woo rays in that. > > > > > > (Or , "Its going to be a bumpy ride .. fasten your seatbelt") > > > > > >
