EVERY "system" is simplistic. The map is not the territory.
First, astrology IS fairly simplistic, as systems go. Compared to, say, quantum mechanics. But more important, NO "system" can EVER "explain" reality because it is by definition lesser than reality, and only a crude approx- imation of reality designed by crude human minds hoping to "understand" the non-understandable. Now if you want a definition of "simplistic," it's the people who believe in "systems." :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > (snip) > > Some go as far as to describe the grade-school math > > of astrology as non-simplistic. Clearly anyone who > > believes that (I taught myself how to "cast charts" > > in less than an hour) has never worked with linear > > and non-linear math programming, quadratic program- > > ming, and optimization/predictive algorithms based > > on chaos theory. Now THOSE are "non-simplistic" > > maths. > > I love this. It's *so* revealing of Barry's chronic > dishonesty and his deathly fear of being found to > be wrong. > > Nobody said the math was "non-simplistic." Barry's > lying in an attempt to cover up this gross blunder: > > "Astrology strikes me now -- and always has -- as a > pseudoscience aimed at those who believe that the > infinite complexity of human behavior can be explained > by a simplistic system." > > He wasn't talking about the math here, obviously. He > never did enough astrology to have realized that the > *system* is, as I said, infinitely complex in its > ability to describe human characteristics and behavior > (accurately or not, pseudoscience or not). > > In this context, the math to cast a chart is irrelevant. > It's annoyingly detailed and tedious (as salyavin > pointed out) but not complex, just a series of simple > arithmetical calculations. I did a lot of that myself > many years ago (pre-TM, and pre-software), having > taught myself as Barry claims to have done. > > But the calculations are the easy part. The more you > study astrology, the more you realize that you could > literally spend your life exploring the features of a > single birth chart and still not exhaust the > possibilities of interpretation the chart provides. The > astrologer has to pick and choose which features to > consider (as Ravi explained). > > As I said, I have no problem with folks being skeptical > of astrology; I'm not at all convinced of its validity > myself. > > What's shocking is that the most scornful of its critics, > as Barry has demonstrated, understand the least about > what astrology involves and how it's done. Anyone who > would call astrology a "simplistic system" is just plain > ignorant. > > The only way to *legitimately* criticize astrology is > with regard to the accuracy of its results. And astrology > is highly vulnerable to such criticism. It just takes a > little more effort than the straw-man attacks favored by > many skeptics. >
