BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

Einstein is becoming like the Bible....you can find a quote from him to support almost any position...☺

Personally, I never saw much 'wisdom' in his Science/Religion comparison. It reads well, but has so many "yes, buts" in it, that it goes nowhere. "Science without religion is lame"??? Why? pooh!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

Perfect. Gotta love Mr Einstein.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

"Truth is what stands the test of experience."

"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
   
-- Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

When I was looking for a site to copy that Einstein quote from to save me typing I also found this by him:

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking

Wolfgang (agreeing thoroughly in particular with the word 'refinement')

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

My point is simple, and it is that science does not offer absolute truths, in the deeper sense of that word (M.Ted)

That's exactly the point where I agree and where we part (I just repeat Paul's point with my words, I know). I agree with the first half but I disagree thoroughly with the use of the word 'truth' in the second. It looks the same as it is used in science on the surface, but it is something entirely different, more in the sense of 'it feels true to me'.

I like the following quote of Einstein so much that I have it in my office:
One thing I have learned in a long life: That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet, it is the most precious thing we have.

I think the "opposition" would agree with me up to the last couple of words and then we would part, but for me onyl the last couple of words make the thought complete.

M. Ted, I do not compete with artists because we have completely different aims in our work nor do I compete with writers when writing science texts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

Awwww ... well, here's a much simpler hidden message to decipher then, posted in honourable recognition of the Mudcat *Lonely Digit* Brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

do you suppose it's a sign that I had this spam in my email today?

"Subject: counterpoise hey piece at sagittarius!"

it then went on to say: " boletus. omega at penny or even twice as in bilinear.
castigate was at zomba when that happened inquisitive."

seems like I ought to pay attention, but I'm not sure of the hidden message.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:26 AM

PS I've never come across even a single word from him about astrology, though. HA! No doubt he occupies his mind with much more important things ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM

Iiteresting to see the Dalai Lama (unwittingly) described as "medieval"! He was born in "medieval surroundings", quite literally, to a peasant family who still plowed their fields by walking behind their cattle. ANd he grew up in a pre-technological society, always captivated by the few intriguing trinkets of Western technology his predecessor had left behind -- a telescope, a watch, a movie projecter, a car. But he was educated only as a traditional Buddhist monk, until his exile in 1959.

Since then, he has earned worldwide recognition not only as a spiritual leader for the whole planet, but as avid student of science and renowned scholar. He has studied extensively and developed close friendships with the creme de la creme of Western science -- ie David Bohm, George Thomson, Carl von Weizsacker etc etc. And he is currently working with the planet's top neuroscientists in an ongoing empirical investigation into the effects of Buddhist style meditation on the human brain. The results have been surprising, significant and promising to date.

More info here --- The Mind and Life Institute

"With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things."

-- The Dalai Lama

Better late than never for the Western scientific community, religious fundamentalists, and the rest of humanity to lend him a respectful ear.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:44 AM

Here -- these'll bring us back on track ...


When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

                Walt Whitman, 1865


On a starred night Prince Lucifer uprose.
Tired of his dark dominion, swung the fiend
Above the rolling ball, in cloud part screened,
Where sinners hugged their specter of repose.
Poor prey to his hot fit of pride were those.
And now upon his western wing he leaned,
Now his huge bulk o'er Afric's sands careened,
Now the black planet shadowed Arctic snows.
Soaring through wider zones that pricked his scars
With memory of the old revolt from Awe,
He reached a middle height, and at the stars,
Which are the brain of heaven, he looked, and sank.
Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank,
The army of unalterable law.

      George Meredith


Just one more, for Venus ...


'Twas noontide of summer,
And midtime of night,
And stars, in their orbits,
Shone pale, through the light
Of the brighter, cold moon.
'Mid planets her slaves,
Herself in the Heavens,
Her beam on the waves.

I gazed awhile
On her cold smile;
Too cold---too cold for me---
There passed, as a shroud,
A fleecy cloud,
And I turned away to thee,
Proud Evening Star,
In thy glory afar
And dearer thy beam shall be;
For joy to my heart
Is the proud part
Thou bearest in Heaven at night,
And more I admire
Thy distant fire,
Than that colder, lowly light.

   Edgar Allan Poe

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:18 AM

Not breaking anything to me...

LH and Bill d are spot - on.

It's a choice between letting nature do it (a nature that has been f-ed up by humans btw) inhumanely, or allowing science to help do it humanely. I've posted elsewhere on Earth's long history of population crashes (mass extinctions - of which we are in the midst of the largest/fastest ever).

In either case, it's not scientists who are at fault. It is (as LH and Bill D have put it) the insane/stupid/greedy asses at the top of the $y$tem - who have worked damn hard to ignore, suppress, distract from, or demonize the science.

Depressing thread drift innit?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 12:07 AM

It horrifies me when I contemplate the rather near future, Bill...the next 20 to 30 years. I think we are in very, very deep shit, and it's all because of a worldwide system that basically cares only about economic growth and money. It's like a cancer, and it's expanding out of control, and no one seems to have the will to do one single honest thing about it. The people at the top are either very stupid, or insane, or in a state of denial or despair...or they just don't give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:54 PM

Little Hawk is correct..science could deal with the problem, if people would allow it. There are ways to provide birth control techniques on a large scale, but that is considered interfering with nature or meddling in private matters or 'playing God' or any one of 27 other reasons not to cooperate....and $$$ are ALWAYS involved. Many industries and businesses rely on *growth* (i.e., housing) and would not care to have more dwellings than people.

Sadly, Little Hawk is also correct that population WILL be controlled eventually, even if we make no effort to do it ourselves.
Famine, pestilence, war, riots, pollution can reduce the totals pretty fast. We have seen it happen locally...(Ethiopia, Sudan...etc..) but no one seems to be willing to extend the analysis of the situation to global parameters.
   Not today, not tomorrow...not even in the next 20-30 years(probably).....and most likely not in my lifetime. It doesn't make me feel real confident about the situation in my son's old age, though.

Why can't folks get it thru their skulls that because it has NOT happened, it won't happen? We haven't HAD 20 Billion people before...and we don't know what this Global Warming thing will develop into. What does it take to get people to err on the side of caution?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:43 PM

Science does have ways...but those ways are not encouraged by the $ySStem, because the $ySStem is run by people who are rich and want to get even richer.

This is why television, for example, is largely a mediocre cultural wasteland used to flog commercial products when it could have been used as a great educational and artistic medium that would lead humanity to higher understanding and a better society.

The people running this society are the people with the most money. They (with a very few exceptions) will only fund that which is immediately profitable to them. This means that science will seldom be used for what it might best be used for.

Not a good situation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM

I hate to break it to you, TIA, but non-scientific solutions have been devised and applied. Population Relocation/Dispersal, Mass Starvation, Ethnic cleansing, genocide, infanticide--nothing that science would want to lay claim to--

This is not to mention the more passive "Solutions", such as isolating poor populations in places such as squalid slums or flood plains, where they are at the mercy of the forces of nature.

If science has a compelling way to circumvent any of this, it would be much appreciated--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:48 PM

Yes. Nature will do it. Just wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:38 PM

I agree with the ultimate goal of population reduction. But if they is here and keep on coming, we gots to feed 'em (... or eat 'em according to Swift).

Anyone think population control can be done without the products of science?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM

put rats in a cage...give 'em plenty of food....let 'em breed.....watch the results. Ain't pretty.

I know, humans are not rats, but the slums of Calcutta can give you a feel for what 'might' happen on a wider scale.

All that love and compassion and other 'spiritual' values become luxuries when just surviving the day is an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:02 PM

I think that it is possible to question whether that stupendous growth in population, caused by the intervention of science in agriculture, is a good thing, TIA--Abundance of food increases population, but food is not the only thing that the increased population requires to sustain and thrive--furthermore, an expanding population demands an expanding food supply--as Malthus observed, food supplies grow arithmetically, while populations grow geometrically--

Malthus correctly proposed that when educated, the population would be able to find ways to produce more food--the problem is that the more food (and water) that is available, the faster the population tends to grow--

And it is much easier to increase food production than it is to restructure the social and economic systems to accomodate exponential growth.


We have used science successfully to increase agricultural output, but it is still an open question as to whether we can accomodate the increased, and increasing, populations that have resulted--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

...or scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:32 PM

Then there's the exciting prospect of an entire new industry based on genetic research and manipulation. Can't you just see it all now ....

Order your genetically enhanced custom "Designer" Zygote today, and save 50% on your first 10 litres of hormonally enriched growth-enhancing *HY-CORN INFANT FORMULA!"

Or how about "Need a new kidney, heart, spleen? No more waiting and hoping! Come, view and select your donor from our pristine laboratories today! Our critically-acclaimed selection of healthy living semi-humans are created, designed, cloned and maintained using only the very latest in genetic technology to meet *your* personal medical needs ..."

*sigh*    maybe a vodka with my scientist friends would make everything look brighter. But I doubt it. I can't stand vodka.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

You are correct Bunnahabhain: Likewise for Bhopal and the ozone layer - but in those cases, it was corporate interests that steamrolled over scientific pleading (no doubt aided by buying politicians).

And genetic research????? Most of us owe our lives to genetic research. The world's population is far above what agriculture could have supported even a few decades ago. Put down that ear of hybrid corn before you bash genetic research. Oh, you might say the solution is population control? Science will be involved there too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM

You can't lay all the blame for scientific tragidies at the door of the scientists.

For example, when Chernobyl exploded, there was very little done for several days, despite the scientists and engineers pleadings. The politicans though that a major response to it would create a mass panic, and be an admission that Communist engeneering was not as good as that of the West.

With mistakes of that magnitude, there is more than enough blame to spread round evrybody.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

Agreed about the wealth and political power. Scientists struggle with where to get funding, and whether they can reconcile the source with their personal ethics, all the time. If you want to read about one particular program for funding science research Google ISTC. It's a program set up under Clinton to fund research into humanitarian technologies by former Soviet military scientists (not only a good thing to do in general -- swords into plowshares et. al), but it keeps desperate scientists with families to feed, who know how to make terrible weapons, out of the employ of the bad guys, and funded to help humanity. Quite spiritually informed I'd say. And there's nothing like passing a bottle of vodka and a guitar back and forth with the guy who built the targeting system for the missiles that used to be aimed at my hometown.

So, I'm still not sure why you think scientists are not informed by love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of nature. If you really believe this, I am afraid you do not have enough (or any?) scientists as friends. You should. Your perception of them as people is waaaaaaay off. As for the logic and rigorous methodology part, if you're attempting science without these, you won't last long.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

Hmmmm .... how bout leaving "wealth and political power" right out the equation? Sounds even better! Difficult, though ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

Hi-tech tragedies and atrocities like Hiroshima will be a lot less common when scientific activities are informed and controlled by basic human spiritual principles (ie love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of Nature) as well as by logic, rigorous methodology, wealth and political power.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

Cross-posted ... thanks for the citation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:33 AM

And who is that a quote from?

Whoever it is is quite correct that none of the problems listed would exist if we had simply remained in the Middle Ages or earlier. Too bad about those pesky plagues. Oh well, we'll burn a few witches and fix that right up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM

The quote above is from the Dalai Lama's The Universe in a Single Atom; the Convergence of Science and Spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

"Scientists have a special responsibility, a moral responsibility, in ensuring that science serves the interests of humanity in the best possible way. What they do in their own specific disciplines has the power to affect the lives of all of us. For ;whatever historical reasons, scientists have come to enjoy a much higher level of public trust than other professionals.

It is true, however, that this trust is no longer an absolute faith. There have been too many tragedies related either directly or indirectly to science and technology for the trust in science to remain unconditional. In my own lifetime, we need only think of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, or Bhopal in terms of nuclear or chemical disasters, and of the degradation of the environment - including the depletion of the ozone layer - among ecological crises."

And that's before we even consider the daunting social, political and ethical implications of genetic research.

Today's scientific community does not serve the best interests of all humanity or of this planet. Scientists serve the interests of the political/economic/military/scientific "powers that be" who pay their salaries, give the grants and thereby control and direct their research.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

Wow, I've stayed out of it for a long time now, but that last post is plain nuts. I believe Daylia gets her info on science from "evil scientist" movies. Scientists are as (or more) deeply involved in easing suffering and bettering all humanity (and the planet) than anyone else. Where in the world do you get the idea that scientists are the lackeys of the wealthy and powerful "elites"? If this ridiculous assertion were true, why has the Bush Administration (can we agree that they *are* the "wealthy elite"?) worked so hard to suppress science and stifle scientists? Guess whose team you have placed yourself on!

You claim arrogance and bias on the part of science-minded people, yet you have spent hundreds of posts basing science, spouting bigotry and claiming insult while dishing out more insults than anyone.

Oddly enough you are doing this with a keyboard (little bit of irony there), and blasting the science-minded people who haunt this *music* forum as not having emotions, or not appreciating art or beauty (even more irony).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Just posting to get rid of that scary number - you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

Science may inform these elements, but, it cannot dictate them, any more than they can dictate science.

Yes. And if in turn, the scientific community could be less arrogant and more amenable to being duly 'informed' by the basic tenets of religion/spirituality (ie love and compassion), it's purposes, investigations and accomplishments would finally be directed toward the easing the suffering and betterment of all humanity (not to mention this planet and all the other living things we share it with) instead of just the wealthy and powerful political/economic elites, we would all be enjoying a much safer, kinder and different existence.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

M Ted, now we are getting to the nub of the matter. Science, as you correctly point out, offers little in the way of absolute truth. The trouble is that NOTHING else does, either. So in the end, we are talking about what we mean by truth. There must be thousands of definitions, ranging from an unattainable ideal a la Plato to what's most convenient for the state or the individual.

What science has on offer is an attempt to approach a particular kind of truth- a correspondence between causes and effects, that we can be reasonably sure of (within the limitations) because we can repeat it time and again. When it's right, it works every time, and we can be reasonably sure that it reflects something true about the world in the conditions we exist in. And by "true" we mean that it appears to be something underlying, that would remain true even if people ceased to exist.

Now, the challenge for other kinds of truth is to say what are the limits- is artistic truth (beauty?) something that is independent of people, or is it confined to humans, to some human cultures, to sub- groups within those cultures? How can we tell if taking action on the basis of that truth will help or hinder us in different circumstances? By religious truth do we mean something in the same sense as a scientific truth or a metaphor, an artistic truth? And today that last question is anything but hypothetical.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:00 AM

... love can so easily and quickly turn to hatred or hostility when the powerfully positive thought that brought it forth vanishes and is replaced by fear, disappointment, dismissal, avoidance, blame, rejection.

LH, I think these problems arise when sexual attraction/excitement/infatuation/romance - and most importantly, the unhealthy mental/emotional attachments produced from these - are mistaken for "love".

Relationships based only on these are doomed to fail - see the 50-60% divorce rates in Western countries.   Everything in Nature changes; relationships evolve and go through cycles too. And when the inevitable begins to happen --- the rose-colored glasses come off,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      hormone levels drop back to normal, the kids are screaming, the creditors are pounding at the door, and you find yourself hiding underneath that big ole pile of smelly t-shirts on the laundry room floor to get away from it all, well ... so much for "love".

Western style, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Wolfgang, assure you that I do have a fairly good understanding of science.   My point is simple, and it is that science does not offer absolute truths, in the deeper sense of that word--science, by nature,is a process that gathers information and continually reinterprets the body of information that it gathers.   "Truth", in the broader sense, has moral, spiritual, and aesthetic elements to it that are outside of the domain of science.   Science may inform these elements, but, it cannot dictate them, any more than they can dictate science.

As to your work, it is interesting, but not necessarily a very new idea--all of art is an illusion, a deliberate deception of the senses--events or objects are contrived to evoke real emotions related to real experiences--

You pride yourself on confounding your subjects by causing them experience things differently than they actually happen. Artists are much better than you, in that their subjects often prefer the simulated reality--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

It's exactly the other way around about love and body odors. Love is a state of consciousness, involving profound belief and that belief alters one's reaction to everything.

When you have decided you're in love with someone, it's THEN that you like the way they smell (no matter how they smell). Love transforms the way you react to outer stimulus. For example, you may have always thought you didn't like some nationality very much....let's say...Germans or Italians or English or whatever....then you fall in love with someone who IS German or Italian or English...BOOM! All of a sudden you realize for the first time in your life how totally wonderful the Germans or the Italians or the English really ARE. You become entranced with them. (smile) I have experienced this. So have many others.

You may have always hated Hawaiian shirts. Then you fall in love with someone who wears them as a fairly regular thing, and all of a sudden you realize how great Hawaiian shirts are (until you fall out of love with the person...then you start hating Hawaiian shirts again, only more so).

It's so ironical how subjective we are...how our thoughts control our reactions.

You can be around someone and notice they have some body odor, and it's not too pleasant. You move away a bit. Six months later, for whatever reason (emotional vulnerability? opening of the heart? the right time?) you fall in love with that person. It can happen quite quickly, you just have to be in the right frame of mind, and ready to. Well, the weird thing is, now their body odor smells great! You just want to get closer to it.

That's how love works. It alters one's perceptions of reality.

The really ironical part of all this is that a couple of years later the relationship may have fallen apart...and you notice that, hey, YUCK! They DON'T smell good at all anymore. Sad, isn't it?

The smell of a person is NOT what attracts you, the fact that you ARE attracted in the first place is what makes you think they smell so good.

*****
One possible exception to what I'm saying here: If you're one of those types who is basically attracted to virtually ALL women, though, let's say, which can happen....or all men, which is a bit rarer, then they will probably fairly much all smell good to you.....I've seen some people who think that way. They appear to be pretty much happy with just about anything of the opposite sex, within certain limits of age and appearance. I don't get how they can see it that way, but they do.) *****

It's all subjective. As is love. It's a thought pattern, and it changes everything, every sense perception, every observation, to suit its own present levels of belief and its own interpretation of reality. And that is why "love is blind". That is why love can so easily and quickly turn to hatred or hostility when the powerfully positive thought that brought it forth vanishes and is replaced by fear, disappointment, dismissal, avoidance, blame, rejection.

Thought is the king of our reality. Sense perceptions are merely the menial servants trudging around the castle, carrying plates and sweeping up for the royalty.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:56 AM

Whether you (or Barnum) like it or not, Alice, the personal daily horoscope readings at Astrodienst are much more meaningful and accurate than those typically in found in newspapers etc. Why? Because they are, in fact and in reality, based on one's complete and unique personal natal chart and not just on the sun-sign shared with 1/12 (approx) of the human population.   

It doesn't require alleged "effects" or "scientific hypotheses" to observe or understand or explain this. IN fact, I've discovered the differences in horoscope techniques simply through direct personal experience and observation over the years. Do the same, and you'll eventually learn all about it too. Till then, you can devour scientific articles and journals till they're comin out your yin-yang -- and you'll still know diddley-squat about astrology.

Except that you know you feel sooooo smart when you attempt to sling mud at it. And with the bulk of the scientific community supporting you, too! Oooo ... the OmniScient One of the 21st Century is still on your side to date, after all - what more could you ask for!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

Oops -- GUEST above is me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:30 AM

That's right, B. Sure, emotions and brain chemicals go hand in hand, but those chemicals are only one very small part of the whole human picture, as you pointed out.

Then there is the dangerous problem of reducing the whole gamut of human experience, and indeed human beings in general to nothing more than the random products of biological evolotion, of the elements (chemicals) that make up our physical bodies.

That's what science would have us all believe. And I, for one, simply refuse. It's easy, I suppose, to mistreat or enslave or torture or rob or kill or otherwise harm oneself and others if human beings are understood only through Western science's construct of "reality" -- ie human beings are random products of evolution, nothing more than biochemical machines.

WHy should I bother to treat some conglomeration of chemicals with compassion or kindess, after all?

On the other hand, if I view myself and all other people as priceless and unique "souls", with exactly the same rights to have their needs met and to be happy / free of suffering as I do, well ... I'll be a lot less likely to cheat them or drop bombs of any kind on them etc.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

The Barnum Effect also appears on an interesting page listing cognitive biases under the heading social biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

One of my favorite titles on the list - Lake Wobegon effect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Found Derren Brown's web site. Reminds me of the Amazing Randi.

By the way, from Wikipedia, the search on Barnum effect brings up the 1948 demonstration of this effect by Bertram Forer. You can see a real audio demonstration of the effect using horoscopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect Click here

"The Forer effect (also called personal validation fallacy or the Barnum effect after P. T. Barnum) is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. The Forer effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some pseudosciences, such as astrology, graphology and fortune telling."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:00 AM

Well, does the idea that love is nothing more than the product of body odours, firing neurons and brain chemicals sound as "special" (or even as realistic) as say, a romantic sonnet does? Do you find the current scientific view of "love" wholesome, meaningful, inspiriting? Or even just satisfactory??

Well, all I really know about our scientific understanding of love is that we have only just started to make any real headway on it, and it is a huge subject. People are incredibly complicated, and react to all sorts of things. I don't see why both brain chemicals and sonnets can't be part of the answer. We can think amazing thoughts, on the most intangible things, but they are happening in a mush of cells.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:59 AM

ANd my question is, once again -- how are subjective experiences any less "real" than empirically reproducible/verifiable ones? WHy do you think the wonders of human life and consciousness must conform to the rigours of Western scientific investigation to be "real"?

My observations and personal experience with transiting Venus this weekend are absolutely real. To me, to my students and their parents (a couple of whom were still beaming this morning in fact - and so was I! :-) and to anyone who reads my posts here on the 25th as well.

YOu can hypothesize about the "accuracy" of that experience being due to my (limited) knowledge of astrology - but I didn't even know about that particular transit till yesterday.

And that's why I usually check the transits/personal daily horoscope only when the day is over (if I feel like checking it at all, that is) -- to avoid the "self-fulfilling prophecy" thing and in so doing, to directly observe and discover more about how the position and movements of the different celestial bodies correlate (please -- not predict or influence or cause or effect, but correlate!) with my own moods, attitudes, and personal daily life experiences. And my ongoing studies, observations and discoveries never fail to amaze and delight me - that's why I love astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

"Did anyone watch Derren Brown last night?"

----
Is Derren Brown a BBC program? More info, please.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

Your feeling that the stars give insights about you is real to you. What we have been trying to say is that this is not because they provide a concrete and testable prediction, but that you can interpret your chart, to tell you what you know. It may only be telling you what you already know deep down, and the language used allows it to be applicable to very many situations.

WEll, that feels right, B!    :-)   Sometimes those daily horoscopes don't seem to apply, but more often than not they do. And the 25th was a great example of that -- I just realized that all my posts here that day were about current scientific investigation/hypotheses of "love". All while, unbeknownst to me, transiting Venus was conjunct "her" position in my own natal chart - in the 10th house, too. THe house of work and career. And look what happened at my oh-so-loving performance class yesterday!    :-)

Oooo ... way to go, Venus -- you absolutely beautiful thing!

(hat e to disappoint the scientific community but apparently smelly t-shirts were never her style anyway)

how are the wonders of the universe any less special if they run according to a handful of basic laws

Well, does the idea that love is nothing more than the product of body odours, firing neurons and brain chemicals sound as "special" (or even as realistic) as say, a romantic sonnet does? Do you find the current scientific view of "love" wholesome, meaningful, inspiriting? Or even just satisfactory??

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM

K, here's an opportunity for Wolfgang to inform me, expertly of coure, that my personal observations, experiences, feelings and memories are not factual, and therefore not real.

What Wolfgang said was, ( to paraphase) that your feelings of something are real to you, but are may or may not be based on reality.

Your feeling that the stars give insights about you is real to you. What we have been trying to say is that this is not because they provide a concrete and testable prediction, but that you can interpret your chart, to tell you what you know. It may only be telling you what you already know deep down, and the language used allows it to be applicable to very many situations.

What an impoverished, limited view of "reality" - and how are the wonders of the universe any less special if they run according to a handful of basic laws. The more we know, and can question, the more we understand, and find some amazing link between things we never expected. Is it too much to ask these wonders to be real?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:39 AM

Did anyone watch Derren Brown last night? It was a great example of the Barnum effect at work.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

Sh-booom, sh-booom, da-dum, da-da-dum...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

K, here's an opportunity for Wolfgang to inform me, expertly of coure, that my personal observations, experiences, feelings and memories are not factual, and therefore not real.

Yesterday, I hosted a performance class for my students. MOst of them are competing in the local music festival over the next couple weeks, so the pressure is definitely on. Well, yesterday's class was one of the easiest, most relaxed and enjoyable ever. I found myself unusually affectionate with and appreciative of them -- even the less accomplished, more unco-operative students who usually frustrate me to no end got nothing but endless patience, kindness and smiles from me. ANd their performances were very pleasing on the whole, too -- afterwards, a couple of the parents even took a minute to tell me how much they appreciate my efforts, complimenting me, telling me what a (favorable) difference they see (or rather, hear) between how their children sound now compared to when they took lessons with someone else, how much more they enjoy their music these days. One mom even gave me a big hug on the way out the door!   :-O

Well, believe me I was walking on clouds after that -- the rest of my day just sparkled it seemed. And last night, I checked my "Personal Daily Horoscope" at Astrodienst. Here's what it said ....

"Things of beauty *
This is a time to take the initiative in all kinds of relationships, especially love relationships. If you reveal your love for someone at this time, it may turn the relationship in a new direction.... The desire for beautiful things is strong during this time, influencing you to buy things of beauty, such as clothes, cosmetics, objects of art, things to beautify the home, or works of literature and musical recordings. Surround yourself with beauty and take advantage of the lighter and more pleasant aspects of life. Under this influence you are affectionate and want to be with friends. You will be in a good mood and able to enjoy almost anything that comes along.

Interpretation above is for your transit selected for today:
Venus Conjunction Venus exact at 07:19
activity period from 24 March 2006 to 26 March 2006."

Venus conjunct Venus, huh? :-) Ooooo .... love, love me do! And as for yesterday's experience, well! How very unfactual, unscientific, unrealistic, and yet amazingly accurate of me (and Venus).

Ok Wolfgang -- lock and load!   ;-)