--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think I understand your point about Kurtz and astrology. > > Astrology's heavenly omens and signs were replaced by > > > the regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. Science > > > abandons occult for material causes." > > His other examples seem clearer. He may mean that the focus on > planets shifted from the value-laden astrological interpretation of > the meaning of planetary motion, to the measurable physical motions > focus of modern astronomy.
Perhaps; the way you put it makes more sense, but I'm not sure how significant a point it is. Why is the shift away from values and toward measurement a Good Thing, necessarily? Why can't there be both? > But I think he makes this point poorly for > Vedic astrology which obviously focuses on planetary motion as well > as they could with the tools they had. The case for western > astrology seems better. In western astrology the 30 degree arch > system is a complete fabrication and does not relate to the > physical positions of the stars and planets. Here the focus is on > the convenience of a simple consistent system and abandons the > regularities discernible by physics and astronomy. I'm not sure I'd say it's a "complete fabrication"; it's just based on a different frame of reference. It is a more human-centered one, though, so in that sense you could say it was less scientific. > Perhaps he needs a better editor...know any? Heh... > I'll give your other points some more thought. > > I was interested in these points but I can't figure out what I think yet: > > And they can and should be applied to "subjective sciences" > > > > I agree, but I very seriously doubt that Kurtz would. You might enjoy Ken Wilber's discussion of "subjective science" in his book "Eye to Eye." (It's one of his older works, but it holds up very well, I think.) He makes the case for the basic principles of the scientific method being applicable to the exploration of subjective experience--not in terms of measuring physiological correlates, a la TM, but purely on a subjective level. He's quite rigorous about it. I'd love to hear Kurtz's response. > > I have to say, based on these excerpts, at least, that > > Kurtz's thinking in this area is rather strikingly > > limited I'm finding it hard to nail down my own reaction, and I don't have the time now to spend trying to analyze it. It's in the general area of his apparent feeling that science somehow trumps "magical thinking," that the two can't coexist, and I just think that's incorrect. Be interested to hear anything you come up with. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
