What star sign are you...

Should the fact that I hate my star sign make any difference to how I behave or will my essential Leoness always shine through?

Have Too Much Knowledge on this, Official, due to astrologer grandfather (Leo). And mother (Taurus) who bought January US Cosmo every year to get the Horoscopes For The Year with what sign was most compatible in the sack, etc. Also, my Indian friends are VERY horoscopey.

Kate, what about you?

I'm not sure how accurate this is, as Ned could tell you I'm probably as far from outgoing as humanly possible.

However, whenever anyone points out that I'm far too neurotic to be a true Aries, I point out my unfortunately Cancer rising.

"When the mewn iz in the thirteenth hahse..."

what's everyones chinese star sign?

i'm a sheep or a goat or something. i think its supposed to mean that i'm very quiet and reserved. ie everything that i am not!!!!!

Year of the rooster.

Cock a doodle doo!

And scarey star-sign coincidence, every girl I have been out with seriously has been Gemini. Including two girls with the same birthday. Is this wierd?

I'm on the cusp between Aries and Taurus. I tend to be Aries in most UK horoscopes, but people who believe in these things tell me I'm far more like a Taurus. Sometimes they tell me that since I was born prematurely then they should obviously go by the starsign I should have been born in rather than when I was actually born; at these times it's normally best not to mention that I was probably actually due during whatever the one after Taurus is, but just to nod and make agreeing noises.

Going out with someone who shares your birthday: dud. Although its dudness had very little to do with sharing birthdays and more to do with not being able to understand each other's general life outlook at all, but I like to think that disproves the whole astrology thing. Well, being born on the same date as Hitler, I would want to think that, really, although I also shared my birthday with the most fastidiously neat and organised and logical maths teacher at my school, and neatness and organisation and logic aren't me at all.

(Grr. The shift key on this computer is knackered and I'm in severe need of caffeine but have been placed in a no-food-or-drink office.)

(xpost)

In meantime, scientists keep inventing, improving, explaining, and changing the way we all live on this planet in fundamental ways, usually for the better (though sure, they occasionally invent, say, nuclear energy). Let the people have their religions. Truth is, they probably won't ever *have* to understand the way a television set works, or that the fact that it does work establishes certain principles of physics that blow their worldview to bits.

It doesn't just say they are unprovable, it says they are completely contradictory statements. Which is to say they are impossible in the context of the system even though they are correctly generated by following the rules of the system itself. And more to the letter, it says you can't have a consistent system that represents every possible theorem and you can't represent every theorem in the same system without introducing inconsistency into the same system.

What's more, Gödel's Theorem applies to logical systems, so what does it have to do with Astrology (or any other non-scientific approach to the way the universe "works")

Gravitational and relativity theories explain the movement of the planets. They also state that the variation on gravitational forces on our bodies caused by planetary motion is less than that caused by the objects around us. For there to be an alternative gravitational theory that also explains astrology, it has to have the same effect as gravity on astronomical bodies, but an entirely different effect on us.

There's no way to proove that this alternate theory isn't possible if the assumption is made that it's not a system that can be modelled with [traditional or existing] logic or math. Which is to say I completely understand your argument, but it's kind of moot given that none of the people defending Astrology have even implied that one can accurately model it with science as it manifests itself normally.

It's like someone is saying "Astrology is a valid alternate way to view the world even though it's not the same as your Objective Science," and then you're retorting with "But it cannot be a valid alternative because it can't be explained by Science."

In how many places? I was under the impression that all genital mutilation took place between the legs.

(it seems to be a disease that affects British politics an awful lot. "We've had a Lord Chancellor since the 9th century - splitting his roles up must be a bad idea!")

(xpost)

Reading back, what annoys me most about the things Vic writes - and the reason why he gets such a strong reaction, I assume - is that he accuses us of not understanding Vedic astrology; but then is just as closed-minded (and, often, wrong) when it comes to scientific theory.

(and frankly, I feel bad about feeling I have to post on subjects liek this because I'm certainly not someone who considers the world to be purely unspiritual in the same way as, say, Richard Dawkins.)

with
http://us.greet1.yimg.com/img.greetings.yahoo.com/g/img/sanrio/scorpio_tn.gif
rising

and
http://us.greet1.yimg.com/img.greetings.yahoo.com/g/img/sanrio/gemini_tn.gif
moon

(ho ho, I'm a Kenneth Anger film)

I was initially upset that this discussion turned into a discussion of science vs. astrology because I would have preferred it to stay more along the lines of "list your [Western] astrological sign here so we can do silly slumber-party giggle type things like point out what a bossy asshole you are because you're a leo." The reason I'd have preferred to keep the spiritual vs. scientific out of it is because those arguments rarely advance anything since everyone comes in totally charged with their own beliefs and many folks don't back down.

I dunno... I don't think that Godel, Escher, Bach describes an accurate theory regarding AI (and neither does the Artificial Intelligence philosophy community at large), but it's still a fun read, thought provoking, and genuinely interesting. I feel kinda the same way about [Western] Astrology, to be honest.

I like Dawkins, and spiritual is where you find it. There is no small amout of awe to be felt and gasping to be done over the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. It's not like he imagine a cold, dull world.

But then, Leos have a thing for childishness and silliness. Or so I've read.

you certainly are.

Actually, I like Caitlin a lot and that hasn't been changed by the fact that we're on different sides of this argument. It isn't conflicting views that might make me dislike someone, its the smug and condescending tone evident in posts like yours that are more likely to do so.

I share my birthday with Eminem. He's two years younger, tho.

FWIW, whenever I read about Virgo characteristics, they all seem very applicable to me. I accept the argument that often these things are written in a vague way to be applicable to everyone, but if I read other sign traits, they just don't seem to fit.

sagittarians are advised to steer clear of taureans, which i find interesting because throughout my life i've had a series of weirdly antagonistic friendships/rivalries with taureans.

i'm supposed to get along with leos, but we're both hotheaded fire signs and that inevitably ---> trouble.

not saying any of this means anything, but sometimes patterns do emerge.

if a system of gathering wisdom/knowledge should apply to one part of the world, why not all of it -and the Method should, in essence, be able to explain religion and all its unexplained mysteries if it has any true value, ultimately.

Um, would you care to elaborate what these "unexplained mysteries" are, because I haven't heard of them? As for the study of religion, modern science has certainly done it's part on it - starting from Feuerbach and Durkheim and continuing to almost every major sociologist and anthrolopologist of the 20th and 21st century. But the problem is, that unless you count theology (which can hardly be called "objective" in any way), the study of religion mostly falls to the hands of social scientists (because religion is by definition a social phenomenon). And social scientists can rarely, if ever, come up with such accurate descriptions and predictions as the natural sciences (I should know, because I'm a social sciences student myself). Why is that? Because, a) human beings and their interactions form such chaotic systems, that any types of "laws" or "predictions" about societies are extremely hard, if impossible, to come up with. And, b) unlike natural scientists, social scientists are a part of the system they study, so they can never reach the same amount of objectivity. This doesn't, however, mean that there aren't many good and illuminating descriptions and theories of religious activities. I've found out that sociological and anthropological (and psychological) theories can bring a lot of light to the phenomenon we call religion, and to me they can in a sufficient way explain the "unexplained mysteries" of religion Vic was talking about.

As far as I can see *you* never suggested that your way of interpreting existence was the only conceivable viewpoint and that all others were, at best, deluded and at worst 'crackpots' (actually, I'll take the 'hippies' part as a compliment).

Its one thing to suggest that you don't agree with a system of interpretation - as you did. Its quite another to say that because that system doesn't fall within your mindset that everyone who follows it is some sort of weak-minded, deluded fundamentalist. THAT is where it becomes offensive.

As far as I'm concerned, it is completely possible to follow science and have an open mind about religion. Just as far as its completely possible to be religious, and a scientist. The fact that we can explain HOW things work - that we can look into things, and derive a sense of accomplishment from determining the forces behind their interactions doesn't necessarily mean that there's nothing that might fall outside our skills, that might not be measurable using our system. To me, learning more about how things work simply increases my awe that they have come together as they have.

Essentially, certain others (well, one other person, actually..) on this thread appears to be guilty of Science As Religion, and fundamentalism - i.e. a refusal to accept that ANYONE else might have access to another sort of truth.

Caitlin, you made such a grevious error in your understanding of my (perhaps unclearly articulated) points, I don't know where to start...but I hope to end things with this post, since there's really no point in continuing when there's no common language (accepted defintions of terms) we can even communicate in.

If you want to say that the movement of the planets is caused by some unknowable metaphysical force, that's fine, but you have to replace gravity

What a ludicrous dichotomy you're setting up; it's almost like you're saying that I bounced over to this thread and like an exuberant crazy old lady waved my arms in the air, proclaiming Oh children, Gravity is irrelevant now, it's KARMA that's causing the planets to move!! When did I ever dispute the objectively proven effects of the force of gravity ?

Let's see what I actually said. the planetary positions reflect karma metaphysically, but gravity is the physical force that is causing those movements in the physical world. i fail to see the conflict.

I'm not - and never was - arguing that the forces and laws you studied in physics class were invalid, inaccurate, or inapplicable in describing the physical world; metaphysics concerns itself with abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience (defintion 2B according to Merriam-Webster). Different domains, but you've been unsuccessfully trying to set up an either/or dichotomy in all of your posts on this thread (stretching back to Either a) the relative angles of the planets affect events and the "challenges one has to face during life's pilgrimage", or b) they both reflect a common, underlying cause...), and let's see who first brought up Gravity? Was I even ever disputing it ?

Why no, it was you, right in that same post: Of course, there already *is* a force field that determines the positions of the planets. It's called gravity. That's wonderful (and nice to learn for the first time), but I believe I've made clear enough times in this thread that my beliefs regarding karmic congruence with birth time have no conflict with the already accepted and proven laws of gravity that cause the planets to remain in their orbits on the physical plane. You kept trying to set up this irrelevant dichotomy, however, either by stuffing concepts in my mouth (hands?) or applying it to quotes I posted here, which you apparently misunderstood in your attempt to discredit my beliefs (which all of you are showing a flagrant disrespect for in the first place, in your attempts to "disprove" them). Okay, you want to keep bringing up physical concepts perhaps to inexplicably dispute metaphysical ones, but when I, or the beliefs that I am discussing, have no disagreement with the given physical concepts in the first place, what exactly are you going to "prove" ? The astrological planetary effects are not coming from "millions of miles away" which would complicate the matter of gravity, but from the astral plane which exists outside of (and yet encompasses) the physical one, and you're going to laugh at that now, but I hope you realize that the physical planets may be subject to the gathering of empirical data, but their metaphysical representations remain impervious to such measurement. Call it a cop-out, but if nothing else, I don't understand why it's so hard for anyone to recognize the symbolic benefits of using astrology as nothing more than a semiological tool, even in such shakily-defined (western) processes as psychological classification, like Jung did (despite how I prefer the vedic emphasis on one's karmic lot and prognostication; chalk it up to eastern civ's collectivist lack of the long-standing tradition in the power of "free will" that the west has enjoyed).

WHY can't we just agree to disagree as coming from two different world-views? Wait, I did mention that above, but you're adamant to prove me "wrong," which is a curious motivation for those who so secrely stand in the trenches of the current Establishment.

To top it all off, when you say this: Reading back, what annoys me most about the things Vic writes - and the reason why he gets such a strong reaction, I assume - is that he accuses us of not understanding Vedic astrology; but then is just as closed-minded (and, often, wrong) when it comes to scientific theory. it's kind of bewildering for a number of reasons, including:
a) I never assumed that anyone else here would understand Vedic astrology, as I was initally just expressing my (admittedly deep) frustration at the predictable dismissals Tuomas' post first evoked and attempting to explain a differing position (which was overshadowed by my dramatic exasperation), and for that matter,
b) From the onset, I evinced a sense of resignation with my writing, as i had no other desire than to defend my (yeah, say "religious" here) beliefs out of a sense of dignity from being off-handedly attacked by those who haven't even come close to really studying that which they're attempting to eviscerate; I was not trying to persuade or convince anyone as i knew that'd be hopeless, just defend. And this resignation can be demonstrated here, where I stated: i've learned the hard way that's it's just futile to have a conversation on metaphysics with a materialist or one who doesn't even recognize the existence of the soul; I know this would exclude a large amount of people in present society, but I believe it's a circular discussion using conflicting definitions on essential terms ("self," "God." " world" etc), that goes nowhere, and furthremore, also when I signed my name "Agreetodisagree," hoping that the discussion might end (as opposed to "close-mindedly" trying to prolong any dispute). But you all continued...

I apologize if I myself may have annoyed you/r own beliefs in Science...if I want respect I'm certainly willing to give it in return...

But let's face it. None of you were ready to openly discuss anything with the hopes of creating an honest dialogue or exchange in the first place, you had your preset ideas, as did I, and were trying to dismantle mine when confronted with them in a way that revealed the subtext (and occassional text) that anyone with a mindset such as mine has to be intellectually inferior, incapable of rationality to start with. Oops may want to grant my beliefs the description of the word "religion" (with the connotation of mindless faith and illogic), but the irony is that if any such condescending questions like "why?! would anyone believe THAT" were put to any other "religion" 's beliefs (even the demonized Xianity) on ILX, a complaint to the moderators would ensue, and justifiably so. I don't think Oops cares to resolve this specific contradiction, however, I may be wrong.

I hope with this post, we can end this futile conversation, and walk away with if nothing else, a reminder of just how stubborn the other side can be. Caitlin, I respect you as a poster, and should have known that you'd be adamant in your 'reason'able disgust at my postings after i went back and read your response here from last year (The whole point of modern science is that it *isn't* intuitive; it's a recipe book of practical methods for finding out secret information. There are places for intuition in science, but only very rarely, and only if it doesn't conflict with the scientific method itself. If you think intuition should take priority when trying to find something out, try a gnostic belief system such as alchemy or astrology.) to my novella-like post on that thread, remembering how you'd misunderstood my point regarding intuition in that one. So when I saw you start to post on this one, i simply shouldn't have clicked on it again, but regardless, I hope you will just email me in the future if you want to seriously discuss this further in any detail.

As for Oops and Kenan, it's hilarious that they've never responded to a single one of my postings in whole, but find piecemeal things to take and twist out of context, when they do their trashing. Oops, he certainly got a lot of mileage out of this well...is being born into a culture that's praticed astrology uninterruptedly for the past six thousand years good enough?
No. There's no logical reason why something which is old should be more valid than something which was invented yesterday...... I'm still boggling at the notion that because astrology has been practiced for thousands of year, it is valid and should continued to be practiced. No disrespect, but it's logic like this that makes me want to just throw my hands up and surrender. when he forgets that I was just trying to answer his extremely arrogant "WHY?! WHY WOULD ANYONE EVEN BELIEVE IN THAT?" question in the first place that I didn't need to (as it contained the subtext of intolerance that I''d feared from the start) - but as far as the whole "just 'cause it's old so continuing to accept it = illogical," you can already read my old post on that Aquarian thread where I discussed my problems with accepting a linear_and_progressive view of human history (I prefer cyclical), as I don't care to ruminate on it again. [Link: is ILX run by Aquarians? ] No, I'm not saying that just because something has been adhered to for a long time, it's correct, but I could easily twist the question around to you: why should relatively _new_ findings in one civilization trump a system of knowledge in another, when the fields and parameters of defining "knowledge" and "the known" are so different from one to the other? There are more than enough unsubtle shades of imperalistic thinking here ("losing civ abdicates and abandons its beliefs to the victors," oh, and Max Muller to thread plz ), but i'm not going down that road right now; you can check the older thread. I must add, for the sake of propriety, that saying any of this I mean no disrespect to the considerable contributions of modern Indian scientists such as Bose and Raman who probably would disagree with many a word I've posted. =)

As far as cop-outs or contradictions go though, this is a pretty large one in itself: I think a hallmark of modern science that it admits that some things CAN'T be explained &
currently not explainable by scientific means != outside the realm of science. nothing is. You can't have it both ways: if _nothing_ is outside the realm of science, theoretically speaking, then there cannot be any of these mysterious "some things" that just CAN'T be explained. If Science is flawless, then it should be able to explicate the complete nature of Light, Time, Death and Consciousness, but there's still so much debate over all of this (and the parameters), and you're going to cling so hard to the "wait until the future!" strain of _faith_ , er, thought that there's nothing more to say. I don't have a battle with science's contributions in the physical world, and wouldn't mind defining its domain as you did in that first quote Oops, that would be fine with me. If you have anything else to add, I hope you'd email me too (especially as I can't email you, despite how i'm not a nice lady).

Kenan says he agrees to diagree, but in paragraphs like these:I'll agree to disagree, I guess, but that statement... gah. It's deliberate nonsense. It'complete gibberish; so it's no wonder why i decided to disregard his posts here in toto, even before he turned totally obnoxious here: Those damn people with their "science" and their "reason" and their "increased food supplies" and their "extended lifespans." They've really done more harm than good. This whole "knowing" thing is leading us down a blind alley! Praise Jesus, he's basically regurgitating Evangelical talking points, but for the sake of Science! When he's been so disrespectful I have no intention of paying him any further mind; People need to believe in something, even if you can prove to them beyond all reasonable doubt that it's complete hooey. Your science is only going to threaten their worldview and make them dislike you.. And no asshole, you haven't proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt to me (and your very desire to evokes repulsion), and as far as disliking you goes, I've had all kinds of contradictory feelings since that " do women secretly want to be dominated thread?" But I'll let you keep thinking that it's because my worldview is threatened; if you had it your way, it would no longer exist.

On a final note, you seem to have a vendetta against modern Western thought - perhaps, and if so, it's for both a very good, and an extremely personal reason. But to get all Socratic, how about ending with a question: is modern Western thought indisputably greater than the legacy of antiquated Western thought in the first place, if you can include spirituality in your answer? I hope you don't simply include the past few centuries in which the intellectual elite "progressively" decided to strip away the rich tradition of the metaphysical in Western civ, which has contributed so much to the world, from Pythagoras himself all the way to St. Francis of Assissi.

The moon effects tide & consequently the Earth's weather cycles. Weather cycles effect the lives of humans.

This is one of those discussions I'd be far more willing to participate in if people involved on all sides weren't so knee-jerkishly condescending.

Vic, if you're still reading, I'm sorry that I have to reply to small bits of your posts, and I'm sorry if you think that I'm quoting you out of context. However, we can't really reply to your posts point-by-point; if we did this thread would be megabytes already. I don't like the way, though, that you seem to imply you think I'm a complete materialist who doesn't believe in the soul. Even though you're probably not reading any more, I'm going to annoy you by picking out one or two sentences that I'd like to respond to :-)

If Science is flawless, then it should be able to explicate the complete nature of Light, Time, Death and Consciousness, but there's still so much debate over all of this (and the parameters), and you're going to cling so hard to the "wait until the future!" strain of _faith_ , er, thought that there's nothing more to say.

Go back to what I said ages ago about the nature of science. It's *not* a belief system that can give you instant answers. It's a method for finding things out. Science itself isn't flawless, but the corpus of knowledge discovered by science contains many fewer internal contradictions and flaws than just about all religious belief systems. primarily because if someone finds a flaw then that's probably a good sign that ideas are wrong and need to be changed.

I hope you realize that the physical planets may be subject to the gathering of empirical data, but their metaphysical representations remain impervious to such measurement.

What's a measurement, though? If the metaphysical planets can't be measured, how can they have any effect on the physical world at all? You might say "but they don't *have* to have an effect on the physical world" - but there has to be a connection *somewhere* between the physical and the metaphysical.

My standpoint is this: Some things are not true, and can be disproved. Some things are true, and cannot be disproved. Some things may not come under either of these categories - but if you believe that something is true but not provable, you have to accept that this is a *belief*, and might be wrong. Indeed, you have to accept that your own conception of something unprovable is almost certainly wrong, on pure grounds of chance.

I would go into why I believe all this in depth, but nobody probably wants to read it. I have a wonderful proof of it all, but this margin is too small to contain it.

WHY can't we just agree to disagree as coming from two different world-views? Wait, I did mention that above, but you're adamant to prove me "wrong," which is a curious motivation for those who so secrely stand in the trenches of the current Establishment.

I'm a fundamentalist agnostic. I'll agree to disagree when you agree that there's a high probability of you being wrong.

The only famous people who share my birthday are Charles Lindbergh and Natalie Imbruglia. I'm off now to fly across the Atlantic whilst recording some MOR pop hits.

(has anyone done any research as to whether people born at the same place and the same time, but to different families, have remarkably similar psychological profiles? No? Surely, if someone did, it would help sort out whether the whole natal chart thing is bollocks or not.)

There is quite a bit more to astrology than the natal chart. Perhaps someone else who cares more about convincing others will say some more. Personally, I'm not going any further with this discussion in this forum. I'll gladly debate this in private e-mail with anyone who cares enough to do so, as long as there's some respect on both sides. I don't see any good coming out of going into it further here.

Caitlin, you know I HEART you, but I did think your comment about agreeing to disagree when vic admits there's a high probability of her being wrong was a trifle disingenuous.
Personally, I'll admit there's a possibility I'm wrong, of course there is - there always is. Will you do the same?

Oops - just read your statement. If you aren't willing to argue with someone who can have faith in a religion, then you aren't willing to argue with me, and it will serve no more purpose to do so.

Caitlin - I think we can agree to disagree without either of us actually having to back down on our arguments - that way, we can both go away, assured of our own correctness.

That was a joke, btw. I think perhaps you were joking too, though.

That's all from me.

I reserve the right to totally go back on that last statement, for no good reason. Otherwise, what's the good of being irrational? :P

Not true. I'd say the same about any religion or any rigid belief system.

I shouldn't have asked "why?" though, you're right. Cause as a student of the science of psychology, I already have a good idea of what the answer is ;)

http://pr.caltech.edu/commencement/02/alda.html

But right now, instead of reason, a lot of people are making use of wishes, dreams, mantras, and incantations. They're trying to heal themselves using crystals, magnets, and herbs with unknown properties. People will offer you a pill made from the leaf of an obscure plant and say, "Take it, it can't hurt you, it's natural." But so is deadly nightshade.

Interestingly, they expect the plant to have active properties to cure them, but they're certain it has no active properties that can harm them. How do they know that?

I mention this, not to denigrate anyone's beliefs — I feel strongly that we're all entitled to our beliefs, just as we're entitled to our feelings — but I bring it up to point out that we're in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another belief. And I guess it's easier to believe something — anything — than not to know. We don't like uncertainty, so we gravitate back to the last comfortable solution we had, no matter how cockeyed it is.

But Feynman was comfortable with not knowing. He enjoyed it. He would proceed for a while with an idea as if he believed it was the answer. But that was only a temporary belief in order to allow himself to follow it wherever it led. Then, a little while later, he would vigorously attack the idea to see if it could stand up to every test he could think of. If it couldn't stand up, then he simply decided he just didn't know. "Not knowing," he said, "is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

Not sure, but Dave Gorman did a show a couple of years ago where he and his twin brother followed/didn't follow a set of newspaper horoscopes for a period of time to see what effects were had on their lives. It was shit, but there is some stuff here about it if you want.

Hi.

It looks like shit, but I'm still pissed that I have to buy it to see it. Can you give us maybe a summary?

Does karma and other such things affect animals? Plants too? or only sentient beings? If plants, what would be considered their "birth"? What about animals that hatch? Is the important moment when the egg is laid or when it is hatched?

And I loved all his other shows.