--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > Do tell us about the actual principles that I haven't > > understood in all these years reading about it. > > That's been done already hasn't it? > > To repeat: > > "The positions of the heavens at a particular moment > in time, by reflecting the qualities of that moment, > also reflect the qualities of anything born at that > moment. [...] One does not cause the other; they are > synchronous, and mirror each other." > http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm > > In reading your objections to astrology, I fail to > see anything except objections to the *causal* way > of looking at it. An Aunt Sally.
Are you sure you've been reading them? It doesn't matter if the planets *cause* the effects if it's the planets that can be used to *measure* the effects. Do you get that, it's pivotal. You can claim it's got nothing to do with planets until you are blue in the face but go see an astrologer and they will cast a chart of the positions of the planets at the time of your birth. So cause or not they are interlinked in what should be a measurable predictable way. Even if it's all just happening at the same time in some mysterious synchronicitous way. > My impression is that you are *not* familiar with > the synchronicity approach. Or are you? If you are, > what has all the wittering on about missing planets, > bronze age astronomy and the like got to do with it? Ooooh, wittering on is it? Being familiar with another explanation doesn't remove the relevance of missing planets etc. Remember point one above. > > (By the same token, this also addresses the issue of > induced birth I would have thought). > > I am suggesting that astrology subscribes to a > metaphysics of the World as a "totality". It *is* > a metaphysics (but then so is your naturalism). > But quite an appealing one. It's an appealing view of the world for sure but the fact the world may be a totality in this way does not contradict the ability of someone within that system to make predictions using that total oneness. As I say in a post to Ravi, you may not want to make predictions but if the position of planets indicates (by whatever mechanism or metaphysics) a predisposition for a particular illness then you should be able to predict that illness in others with a similar planetary arrangement in their chart. Simple enough. Either that or you want a unique planetary synchronicity for everyone, but that isn't what Jung was postulating. He thought we shared at some sort of level beyond matter that minds were connected. I always thought he was the closest any western philosopher ever got to the vedic viewpoint espoused by Marshy. I'd sit and tell you my amazing synchronicity experiences as they are most interesting and made me stop and think for a while about the fundamental nature of reality and mind and how they might intersect, but there is a programme about alien abductions on channel 4 at 9 tonight so as a Fortean I feel duty bound to sit and watch. > > FWIW, my experience of astrology is that I have > been convinced that there is "something going on". > But its practical use may be zero. Which is another way of saying it's all in the mind.
