--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > I'm always intrigued at how you have an interest in cosmology but > > > don't apply the principles to astrology, horoscopes put the Earth > > > at the centre of the solar system and divide up the rest into houses > > > that aren't real and have the planets moving about in them as if their > > > going backwards (which they only appear to do due to differences in > > > orbital speed) means we'll get a different effect than normal when > > > they are in that particular part of the sky, even though that was totally > > > arbitrary anyway. I doesn't begin to make sense, or maybe > > > it's because my Mars is in Leo that I get annoyed about it.... > > > > Caveat: What I'm about to say is not an argument for the > > validity of astrology; it just addresses one of the most > > common misunderstandings by skeptics of what astrology *is*. > > > > If you think of astrology as an attempt to represent the > > universe, or even just the solar system, it's going to seem > > particularly ludicrous. > > > > But that's the wrong standard. What it represents is much > > simpler: what the inverted bowl of the sky looks like to > > the naked eye of someone standing on the surface of the > > earth. The zodiac constellations and "houses" are just > > ways to divide up that bowl into segments so one person > > can convey to another exactly which portion of the sky > > they're talking about. > > I know, that's what I said.
Um, well, no, not quite. > > This is an oversimplification, but it's close enough in > > this context. To complain that astrology puts the earth > > in the center of the solar system is absurd. > > But that is exactly what it does do, still. Yes, dear. But that isn't a bug, you see, it's a feature. > The earth > > *is* at the center of what astrology concerns itself with: > > again, what the sky *looks like from earth*. > > What's absurd is to pretend that an outdated way of looking at > the world is still somehow relevant, because any effect they > claimed was due to the way they saw the world operating is > redundant knowing what we do now. That may be, but I wasn't addressing its relevance or validity (see my "Caveat" above). I'm just pointing out that the specific objections you made in the post I was responding to were irrelevant. Your Mars in Leo is getting annoyed about the wrong things. > > Lightning isn't caused by clouds bumping together, babies > aren't delivered by storks. There comes a time when you have > to move on. >
