Re: Unconscious Communication and Astrology
Apollia
Well, I've been trying to avoid posting to message boards in
general, but, I can't resist replying to this, despite the fact
that I've been enjoying my respite from most internet
communications... :-)
I'm also replying to your Hestia thread. My replies are both
pretty long, no problem if you can't reply to them in depth (or
at all).
"Hermes" <her...@exactphilosophy.net> wrote in message news:hermes-
B85542.093...@news.bluewin.ch...
>This post is based on this simple assumption:
>
>People that are close can feel each other directly,
>even if they do not see, hear, smell, each other,
>and (to some degree) even if they are miles apart.
I've had plenty of weird experiences which suggest this is
actually true.
Years ago I considered this idea (and astrology, and pretty much
everything else which is rejected by the skeptical/scientific
mainstream) totally unbelievable and "insane"... but, could do
so no longer after too many rather odd things happened to me.
More often than not it has involved dreams rather than intuitive
feelings felt whilst awake, though I've had that happen as well,
and also sometimes had some confirmation that my feelings were
accurate.
I found these experiences so remarkable and bizarre that it
inspired me to try to write a massive book about it. (Not
intended for publication... it was something I was doing for
myself).
Never finished it, though, because my computer broke down in
July 2006. Which was actually probably a good thing, since I
was kind of stuck in a rut of writing about my life more than
actually living it. (A hard habit for me to break,
actually... :-) )
Anyhow, I'd say the transit that correlates most with all this
stuff in my life, and my change of outlook regarding paranormal
things, etc., was probably transiting Pluto opp. natal
Mars/Mercury in 9 and conjunct n. Neptune in 3.
My t. Pluto opp. n. Mercury is still ongoing. The transit will
become exact for the last times in late August 2007, and around
Sept. 18, 2007.
I wonder what will happen... hopefully nothing bad. I feel like
just hiding until it's all over. Then I'll have t. Pluto opp.
my MC and sun to "look forward" to, ha, ha... :-)
>That assumption, although (like astrology) at odds
>with contemporary wisdom in the exact sciences, is
>one that is often made implicitly in everyday life:
>
>- If your lover is out of the house, does the felt
> connection suddenly disappear ? Is all that remains
> of your lover once she/he leaves the house just a
> bleak memory ? Could you not tell if something did
> happen to her/him once she/he left the house ? Would
> there be no difference if suddenly a heavy accident
> or even death occurred ?
>
>- Or what about the same with mother and child, etc.?
> Is there no real connection, is it just a naive wish
> of being connected, just something we would like to
> believe ? Just a naive superstition (like astrology)
> in the eyes of modern science ?
It's something I would like _not_ to believe... :-) I _like_
modern science's idea of how the universe works... :-)
>- More astrologically formulated, feelings are about
> the element Water, i.e. about Cancer, Scorpio and
> Pisces. Do feelings remain in the "crab's shell" or
> are they universally connected (Pisces) ? Probably
> a bit of both, one would assume (Scorpio)...
Yes, that's what it seems like to me.
>But let me take a step back and simply assume that
>people can feel each other directly (without a need
>to communicate explicitly via speech, vision, etc.),
>and see where that would lead...
>
>This means simply that people's brains are connected,
>just like individual brain cells in people's brains
>are connected to each other. In other words, the brains
>of all people form a large brain, an entity of its own,
>with not unlikely its own intentions and feelings, etc.
My guess is, this kind of communication isn't the result of
anything physical.
I speculate that there might be such a thing as a "soul", and
perhaps this manner of communication might be intrinsic to
souls.
>But that is maybe a bit too simplistic: Any individual
>is mostly closest to just a few people, family, lover,
>close friends, then colleagues, casual acquaintances,
>and so on. So, you would expect not to have just one
>large "megabrain", but different "clusters" at different
>length scales.
Very interesting. Kind of reminds me of the New Age concept of
"soul groups".
Whew, looked up the term "length scales" in Wikipedia, and I
still am confused. One of these days, I really need to get
around to reading an entire physics textbook (instead of just
the first chapter or so, then drifting away from it). :-)
Either that, or figure out how I can read the mind of the
newsgroup brain, containing your brain which knows all about
physics... ;-)
>So there would often be a "family brain",
>composed essentially of the members of the family. Also,
>one could assume that certain interest groups, like, say,
>even a usenet newsgroup, could develop its own identity,
>with its own intentions, feelings, even fate.
Hmm, neat. I wonder what the intentions, feelings, and fate of
our newsgroup might be.
This also reminds me of the concept in "chaos magick" of the
"egregore".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
>That is, of course, a concept that is not so unfamiliar
>to astrologers. Any entity like a family or a newsgroup
>has some kind of creation/foundation moment that (via
>the chart for that moment) gives that unity an individual
>soul and an individual fate (via planets at birth, and
>then transits, synastry, and so on).
>
>I will come back to astrology in a moment, but let me
>think the consequences of people feeling each other
>directly a bit further...
>
>Any such "larger brain" composed of many people's brains
>would know more things than each individual that is part
>of it. Some private thoughts of members of your family,
>for example, would not be available directly to yourself,
>but would be to the "family brain" as a whole. And, if
>you would somehow touch a theme that stirs up a "family
>secret", you would still feel something, maybe shy away
>from it, maybe get angry, etc.
>
>Now, the "family brain" might also have intentions that
>you are not aware of, maybe even intentions that are more
>complex than you can understand with your little single
>person brain. (Imagine maybe ants. They can solve quite
>complex tasks as a group, but the individual ants have
>no chance at all to understand these group purposes.)
I wish we could ask an ant what they think of this
statement... :-)
>Such collective intentions can appear as *precognition*
>to individuals. For example, two "family brains" might be
>in contact and might arrange some meetings between some
>members of the family. For example, a guy and a gal could
>meet "by chance" somewhere in the middle of town, so that
>the meeting would appear like "fate" to them, and via
>emotional feedback from their environments, they would
>maybe think that it "was meant to be".
>
>And, in a way they would be right!
Hmm, interesting. What kind of emotional feedback from their
environments?
I've had experiences like that, but I'm endlessly suspicious of
any kind of impression that anything is "meant to be".
I'm always worried about at least two things: 1) am I fooling
myself, 2) is something else fooling me? :-)
>That is, if you count family (or other group's) intentions
>as a miniaturized, limited form of fate.
For some reason, the entire idea of fate annoys me.
Predestination and precognition, too. I don't know, maybe I
just don't like feeling like a pawn of forces beyond my direct,
immediate control... :-)
>Face it: You can sometimes do things that you do not feel
>like doing for some time, but mostly you do what feels
>good and try to avoid what feels bad. ;)
Sounds like something I should try more often... :-)
>Thus, if feelings are not local, but directly influenced
>by what others feel about what you do, what you end up
>doing is quite heavily influenced by what others feel and
>want.
Hmm... I wonder if some people might be more receptive to such
external influences than others. Or, is this something that
might affect everyone equally no matter what, even if they
resist it?
>Of course, that can be somewhat schizophrenically
>turned around, too: The family
The individual family members, or the "family brain"?
>could want you to be sort
>of an individualistic person who strives away from how
>things are usually handled in the family, i.e. as it often
>is with feelings, different and even opposite trends could
>mix up and result in some quite ambivalent situations. For
>example, the strict self-control of a Capricorn is often
>fueled by fun derived on the inside (i.e. via feedback from
>the family etc.),
>From the "family brain" or the family members themselves?
>from not doing what one likes. (This is
>what Freud called "Triebumkehr", reversal of instinctive
>drives).
Hmm... so, is this Capricorn defying the "family brain"'s
desire, or fulfilling it? And what are some reasons why the
family brain might want this?
>So, thus far the simple idea explains things that resemble
>"telepathy", "precognition" and even "fate".
>
>Let me add two more or so before returning to astrology.
>
>Why stop at humanity ? People often also feel quite a bit
>connected to their pets. Why not include also animals and
>plants into the picture ? Living and loving (feeling) are
>etymologically so close that there might be more to it
>than just mere superstition (like astrology in the eyes of
>contemporary science). And then, maybe all of nature is
>alive to some degree as often assumed in the past, and
>maybe even these connections reach out into space...
Yes, I'm inclined to suspect that possibly the idea that
everything in the universe is a facet or fragment of God
(which Gail described a while back) might be true.
>Now, with that picture, assume you take a few yarrow sticks
>and toss them to do some "divination", to query the ancient
>Chinese oracle "I Ching". The results are often in the eyes
>of the querent more than just "chance" or a "random result",
>but a meaningful description of the situation at hand.
>
>What if the result is influenced directly by feelings, by
>your feelings and by the feelings of people close to you,
>and extending to humanity, living beings, nature at large ?
>I cannot get much into quantum mechanics here, but what is
>an integral component of quantum mechanics is that what
>happens, what is measured (like when tossing yarrow sticks)
>is fundamentally indeterminate (with qualifications that
>would lead too far here), has some element of "chance" or
>"randomness" in it that is not explainable by lack of
>knowledge of an internal clockwork. But, if that element is
>covered by individual and collective intentions and feelings,
>it would become clear why the querying the I Ching or other
>divinations techniques just "work", as follows.
>
>The result of "divination" would then simply be the sum of
>all influences, with individual and close groups having often
>more influence (depending also somewhat on the question asked).
Fascinating. Maybe that's one reason why I instinctively
mistrust divination. I always think, even if it _does_ work and
isn't just random - what exactly is giving me the answer, and
what if it has motivations which aren't in my best interest? :-)
I have little trust for humanity in general (or even nature and
the universe in general), so, I tend to dread the idea of the
collective having any kind of a strange metaphysical influence
on anything.
Even if there is a collective mind, and it knows more than any
one individual on their own does, I still don't think it's
necessarily going to be capable of making good decisions, or
that it's going to have any interest in giving me good
divinatory advice...
These pages (at least, at the moment) explain some of the
reasons why I mistrust anything collective (including Wikipedia
:-) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality
Rather different concepts from a collective mind (a concept
which I guess could be summed up as "a network of unconsciously
psychically-connected minds somehow influencing everyone from
behind the scenes"). But, at least those pages give some idea
of why I tend to regard things that are collective with
suspicion (and even loathing, at times).
I would prefer to believe that there is an all-benevolent God in
charge of everything, rather than "the collective" or anything
like that. Which doesn't mean that I _do_ believe that, just
saying that I'd prefer to (but only if it's true... :-) ).
>Now, the word "divination" hints also at religion. What if
>the plethora of ancient Greek gods and myths was just a way
>of expressing the existence of different interest groups
>and concepts of collective psychology? That concept is not
>too unfamiliar, think C.G. Jung and psychological astrology.
>
>Taking it even further, what about a shell model of "God",
>with small gods ("family", "bridge club", "work pals") and
>then up to living nature in its entirety and self-created
>(the invisible, unique god jewish/christian/muslim religion)?
Reminds me of the concept of "godforms" in "chaos magick".
Wow, I actually can't find that in Wikipedia. Next best thing, maybe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtform
Someone's page explaining one outlook on how "egregores",
"godforms", and a couple of other things in "chaos magick" might
relate to each other:
http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fen-egre.html
>But let me get back a bit more to the ground and try to
>explain something that maybe many astrologers will not like
>too much, because it detaches astrology somewhat from the
>stars. However, logical evolution of the presented idea
>leads quite naturally to it.
>
>Remember planet Pluto ? Discovered in 1930, it was initially
>thought to be as big as planet Earth, but today we know that
>it is just a small lump of ice and dirt,
With an atmosphere... :-)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_seasons_030709.html
Mere asteroids apparently don't have atmospheres.
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/asteroids_and_comets/facts.html
That's one thing that distinguishes Pluto from just another
lump of ice and dirt. (Um, unless I'm mistaken... :-) )
>smaller than even
>that our moon, and just one of several similar lumps of ice
>and dirt in a similar orbit beyond Neptune. (Pluto is now,
>by a narrow margin, the second largest Kuiper Belt Object,
>the largest being Eris). And last summer in Prague, as a
>logical scientific consequence of the literal facts, Pluto
>lost its status as a planet.
Well, I already explained my perspective on that quite a while
back, so, I guess I won't repeat myself... :-)
>But that is only half of the story. People liked Pluto, many
>school kids wrote letters to keep Pluto in the NY planetarium.
>And, astrologically, Pluto has certainly strongly shaped the
>20th century, with its wars and other important transformations,
>and, of course, also strongly influenced individual lives.
Hmm... well, I prefer to regard astrology as maybe only
symbolically mirroring what happens, not influencing or causing
it.
But, unfortunately, the universe doesn't usually seem to go out
of its way to please me, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm
wrong... :-)
>But, in light of the idea of people feeling each other, what
>if people just collectively *made* Pluto that strong, because
>its properties summarized some common needs and desires, at
>least for the time between about 1930 and now ?
Wow, that's actually kind of disturbing... what if the
collective, behind the scenes, somehow actually orchestrated
some of the various horrors that "confirmed" Pluto's
astrological validity?
And, if Pluto had been named Marshmallow, would those horrors
have never happened? :-)
>But, in that case, why not consider astrology as a whole as
>being mainly driven by collective wishes and intentions ?
>Maybe humanity as a whole has chosen to accept the balanced
>diversity of astrology, because it helps to survive in the
>world and to evolve ?
I still never did look up an estimate of how many people there
are in the world who believe in astrology.
But, on the other hand, maybe it's not important to know that in
order to gauge what the collective might want.
As was mentioned a long time ago in the old "Pluto" thread,
maybe what the collective "wants" doesn't actually depend on a
numerical majority of people desiring/believing a certain thing.
(But in that case, what _does_ it depend on?)
>Let me try to reformulate that in a
>bit more simple words:
>
>What if astrology is mainly driven by collective wishes ?
Well, in that case, I'm suddenly more interested in collective
wishes than astrology... :-)
>What if astrological systems are just too useful for life
>that they are kept intact by collective feedback, even if
>they have somewhat detached from what actually happens in
>the sky above ?
I'm not sure I understand why that would be useful for life,
though.
Oh, except for the fact that it does provide a perhaps
reassuring impression that what takes place in life and the
universe isn't just random and "meaningless".
It provides an interesting mystery to attempt to solve.
>For example, there is no 12 constellations on the zodiac.
>There is just a bunch of stars scattered around the ecliptic
>that can be grouped into signs by cultural preference (for
>example, Western and Chinese constellations differ). And
>even if you would take the Western zodiac constellations
>as given, they are *far* from forming 12 equally spaced
>sectors on the ecliptic, and (due to precession) do not
>coincide with actual constellation in any significant way.
Ah, so not only does astrology not coincide with the stars now,
it never did to begin with... :-)
So much for some skeptics' argument that precession logically
invalidates astrology.
>Face it, astrology as it is used today, is largely a more
>abstract, psychological concept that has already largely
>detached from the actual stars. (That is not to say that
>there are no more natural connections to the stars, only
>that astrology as it is practiced today, has largely
>detached from nature in the concrete sense). ;)
I agree.
My guess is, if humanity somehow were able to leave the solar
system and take up residence somewhere extremely far away, with
all different constellations, etc., it would probably be
possible for a variant of astrology to work there too in much
the same way that our astrology "works".
(Except, in a solar system with too few planets, or even,
someplace in deep space, not even in a solar system... hmmm...
wow, maybe they'd actually have to use "hypothetical" planets...
or something... hmm...)
My guess is that the underlying causes of astrology (possibly)
working are probably not local/limited to our solar system, and
probably not physical at all.
>This post is inspired by the title of a seminar that US
>astrologer Michael Lutin is scheduled to give tomorrow at
>CPA London: "The Effects Of Unconscious Communication in
>Astrological Delineation and Interpretation".
Sounds quite interesting.
>I first published the above idea 2002, see discoveries.pdf
>contained in www.exactphilosophy.net/odyssey.zip . That
>document is denser and I am much more specific about the
>details of how the connection is structured, in ways that
>go beyond what has even been said before about the subject.
>
>Liz Greene apparently saw the document in 2002 and called
>it "too theoretical" (private communication), which is both
>true and completely wrong in a way: It is *abstract*, but
>very much based on experience and the deductive mind of an
>experimental physicist (me).
Someday, I need to read that with the undivided focus and
attention it deserves.
Best wishes,
----
Apollia My website: http://www.astroblahhh.com/
Birth data: -qa July 3 1981 12:50 EDT 79:59W 40:26N (Pittsburgh, PA)
tmo
To me it raises questions that may or may not belong in this forum. In
particular, what is the role of astrology, within the total of human
experience?
My own view that astrology encompasses/or has the potential for
encompassing this large view. However, for it to do so, it must itself
become free of the models/metaphors/myths that circumscribe much of
reality for peoples.
Specifically and only one example, science as we know it is limited by
the particular philosophy of science that is part of a consensus as to
what is true. Of course in modern times we have seen astronomers vote
out Pluto as a planet--that was of course by a majority vote.
As for the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, a dominant personality in
this field, has constructed a philosophy of science that rests on
"shifting sand"--his words. Alternately Leibnitz, writing way back in
the 1500s has a view of "monads" or what Carl Jung might call a
"collective unconscious" or others might call a collective soul--we are
all one. However, that doesn't preclude individuals as
independent--they are clearly interdependent with the collectivity. The
joining of the individual and collectivity is according to some, based
on the working of Synchronicity--assuming at least a four dimensional world.
But, how far can astrologers go in expanding and working within such a
broad world view? In my view, these multiple levels of consciousness
and experience and their interactions are all available within a chart
and its unfolding--but just one opinion.
On "thought forms"--Fleck,{1979). Genesis and development of a
scientific fact. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, among others,
discusses what a "scientific fact" is. Anthony Giddens in some of his
works discusses the "postmodern" idea of "abstract systems" that are
essentially thought forms that are/and/or become systems of thought that
underlie our conceptions and beliefs about what is real or perhaps what
is true!
Again, thanks for a very stimulating dialogue!!
Thomas
Hermes wrote:
> In article <1180123726.6...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Apollia <xerx...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Hermes. :-)
>
> Hi Apollia :)
>
>> Well, I've been trying to avoid posting to message boards in
>> general, but, I can't resist replying to this, despite the fact
>> that I've been enjoying my respite from most internet
>> communications... :-)
>
> Pretty much the same for me. Actually I have even stopped
> of looking at the "stars". From the date I know that the
> sun is in Gemini and, since I saw yesterday evening that
> the moon is already more than half full, I assume the moon
> is Virgo, maybe already close to (or in) Libra. Makes me
> feel better not to know all positions of all planets in
> detail. When I know, I tend to assume that this or that
> should happen or that I should likely do this or that, but
> when I don't know I gain exactly the time it took me to
> consider these things to live and maybe intuitively find
> more creative and open solutions to the current situation.
> I relate this to n.node currently in Pisces. In a way,
> astrology in its fullest, is maybe really mostly something
> "medical", i.e. for situations in someone's life where
> things do not go well, do not sort out themselves, and,
> of course, for the "doctors", the astrologers who feel
> that they have to do it. I guess generally, it is likely
> something that women like to do more on a regular basis
> then man. But I am already deviating - stupid usenet. :)
>
>> I'm also replying to your Hestia thread. My replies are both
>> pretty long, no problem if you can't reply to them in depth (or
>> at all).
>
> I think I will essentially only reply here, although I read
> the reply to the Hestia thread in detail. Issues from there
> will still flow into here, stuff like the difference between,
> say, "useful reality" and "ultimate reality" (Saturn/Neptune).
> After all, the sun is in Gemini. :)
>
> Generally, in the Hestia thread, there would mostly be two
> kinds of answers:
>
> a) That is answered in discoveries.pdf
> b) I don't really know, would have to think about for quite
> a while, I guess, or even more than that
>
> There are more b)'s than a)'s...
> In my feeling and experience, transits are also related
> to their number: The first transit of a kind and the
> second etc. are different from each other. I tend to
> consider these relations (which, by association, apply
> also to aspects, planets, elements):
>
> 1 - sun - Fire
> 2 - moon - Air
> 3 - Venus - Water
> 4 - Mars - Earth
> 5 - Mercury - Transformation of Elements
> 6 - Jupiter - Transformation of Air (6=1+2+3)*
> 7 - Saturn - Transformation of Fire (7=4+1+2)*
> 8 - Uranus/Nodes - Transformation of Earth (8=1+4+3)*
> 9 - Neptune/Nodes - Transformation of Water (9=4+3+2)*
> 10 - Pluto - Transformation of Transformation of Elements
> (or more loosely "transformation of the rules by which
> the elements transform into each other)
>
> (For more detail, see also section titled "book" in the
> old/large odyssey.zip; or directly some relatively
> focused posts to aat at the beginning of 2005 that I
> then assembled into that text.)
>
> * From my model of the star signs, for example:
> 7 - Saturn - Transformation of Fire:
> - in the model, Fire signs are Earth=>Fire=>Air
> - Earth=4, Fire=1, Air=2
> - the model describes a transformation in the life
> of Fire signs
> - number of the transformation is: 4+1+2 = 7
> - there is also an interesting correlation with the
> chinese I Ching, but...
>
> Deviating again, I guess - stupid usenet.
>
>>> That assumption, although (like astrology) at odds
>>> with contemporary wisdom in the exact sciences, is
>>> one that is often made implicitly in everyday life:
>>>
>>> - If your lover is out of the house, does the felt
>>> connection suddenly disappear ? Is all that remains
>>> of your lover once she/he leaves the house just a
>>> bleak memory ? Could you not tell if something did
>>> happen to her/him once she/he left the house ? Would
>>> there be no difference if suddenly a heavy accident
>>> or even death occurred ?
>>>
>>> - Or what about the same with mother and child, etc.?
>>> Is there no real connection, is it just a naive wish
>>> of being connected, just something we would like to
>>> believe ? Just a naive superstition (like astrology)
>>> in the eyes of modern science ?
>> It's something I would like _not_ to believe... :-) I _like_
>> modern science's idea of how the universe works... :-)
>
> My feeling is also that the connections actually exist,
> otherwise I would not have proposed that in discoveries.pdf.
> But, as I write in review.pdf, an entirely local model with
> "resynchronization" at some points might have largely (but
> not fully) the same effect, at least in many circumstances:
>
> Whenever I talk to a person, see her/him, there is all kinds
> of input about how that person is, how she/he feels at the
> moment, and so on. Maybe my brain is smart enough to sort of
> create a "model" of that person and her/his current state in
> my mind (in a way that is likely not fully accessible to me
> in a conscious analytical way, but rather in form of feelings,
> intuition, etc.). Now, when the person is away, that model
> might still allow to predict/simulate what the person might
> feel like at a given moment. That might explain things like
> "I was just thinking about so and so, and then the phone
> rang and, guess who, it was so and so that I had just been
> thinking about".
>
> But again, I do think that there is quite a bit of the
> above, but that alone would still not explain some things
> that happen in a satisfactory way.
>
> Still, even if there are direct connections, they are not
> complete and what one the feels and imagines does not fully
> correlate with what happened to the other person once one
> meets her/him again. Some things will be astonishingly
> well correlated and other will be "out of sync", but in my
> experience at least, in ways that maybe mostly rather
> reflect my wishes with regard to what I would have liked
> things to have been.
>
> Again, that is also compatible with a largely local model
> that does not require any "spooky correlations" a long
> distances. Very difficult if not impossible to prove things
> to be either way.
>
> In a connected world it would, of course, also be very
> difficult to distinguish the origins of what is felt.
> It could be mostly from a single person or many people
> further away or less directly connected to me could have
> quite a similar effect. Often one does hear of it if
> people you know do not feel well, have an accident, or
> just had a very busy troubling day at work, but you can
> never be sure. Maybe people were at something quite deep
> and dark before you meet them and then (also because the
> situation with me now there is different symbolically,
> say synastry, composite, etc.), everything is just fine
> and bright. Sometimes then if you are a bit more that
> just a short time that day with these people, some
> issues come up, sometimes not. Very difficult also in
> personal life thus to be sure if the connections are
> real or imagined locally in one's own brain.
>
> There is some approach to enciphering secrets that is
> a bit similar in a way. The idea is roughly as follows:
> You have a rather large steel plate (say) and place a
> number of lit candles below the steel plate. These
> candles heat up the steel plate and the steel plate
> will also conduct some heat. So, over time there will
> be a thermal equilibrium with a certain temperature
> distribution on the steel plate.
>
> Now the trick is that if you know exactly how hot/big
> each of the candles is and where it is, that then you
> can calculate quite easily that temperature distribution.
> But the other way round, if you only have the temperature
> distribution, it is very hard (and maybe even not fully
> determined) where the candles are and how bright they are.
>
> In analogy, with close people being big/hot candles and
> me not always knowing where exactly they are and with
> other people being smaller candles, most of them at a
> relatively large distance to me, and me even knowing
> less where exactly they are, it is very, very difficult
> to untangle the received mixed-up sum of influences from
> all these people. Did I feel mainly person so-and-so that
> I love above all (or imagine to do so), or was it just
> the premiere of a new blockbuster movie that opened
> globally this weekend ?
>
> So, even if connections are real, it is very hard to tell
> with certainty who/what one does feel. However, personally,
> I still think that close people have a bigger effect and
> also that there is love and that it is real and can be
> clearly the strongest influence outshining the others and
> sort of incorporating them rather as a shared inclusion
> and romantization (is that an english word?) of the other
> influences by making them part of the relation, part of
> what makes it special, beautiful, etc.
>
>>> - More astrologically formulated, feelings are about
>>> the element Water, i.e. about Cancer, Scorpio and
>>> Pisces. Do feelings remain in the "crab's shell" or
>>> are they universally connected (Pisces) ? Probably
>>> a bit of both, one would assume (Scorpio)...
>> Yes, that's what it seems like to me.
>
> About source-river-lake. Rivers merge with other rivers
> until it comes all together in one ocean. A river grows
> by literally incorporating influences. That is related,
> say to Scorpio's issues with an urge to penetrate to new
> things, to make them part of himself, i.e. also to try
> to put them somewhat under his own control, thus to expand
> his influence (same word again). Of course, that is a give
> and take, the influence also influence the river, change
> it, take away some of its freedom, bind it. Also, Scorpio
> due to his limited and thus bias influences into the river
> has the illusion of having gotten to the bottom of an
> issue in a fundamental way, although in terms of more
> fundamental reality, he has only solved a local, thus a
> more practical problem, related to his own influences.
>
> One he grows into a large stream, he loses momentum,
> and purpose, a bit like Microsoft (a quite scoprionic
> company) has lost purpose.
>
> The best example for this end of scorpio in my view is
> the "autumn floods" by taoist philosophy Chuang Tzi
> (can be spelt in many ways), where a river arrives at the
> ocean and talks to the ocean, learns about the relativity
> of big and small and what is important.
>
>>> But let me take a step back and simply assume that
>>> people can feel each other directly (without a need
>>> to communicate explicitly via speech, vision, etc.),
>>> and see where that would lead...
>>>
>>> This means simply that people's brains are connected,
>>> just like individual brain cells in people's brains
>>> are connected to each other. In other words, the brains
>>> of all people form a large brain, an entity of its own,
>>> with not unlikely its own intentions and feelings, etc.
>> My guess is, this kind of communication isn't the result of
>> anything physical.
>>
>> I speculate that there might be such a thing as a "soul", and
>> perhaps this manner of communication might be intrinsic to
>> souls.
>
> I guess that is a matter of perception or even taste. From
> my experience in physics, i.e. with nature, I think that
> this is a situation where one can make experiments and find
> mathematical models that correspond to what is observed.
> However, although the math works and is thus of practical
> use, this does not make much of a fundamental statement
> about how the world is. Again, implicitly referring a bit
> to the Hestia thread...
>
> I think there is a soul. But whether it is bound to matter
> and just connected to other souls that are also bound to
> matter (the respective bodies of the respective persons),
> and thus the soul would die when the body dies, or whether
> the soul is really immortal, is more difficult to estimate.
>>From a physical perspective, I would assume that there is
> at least a concept of conservation of the elements that
> make up a soul, like there is conservation of energy. In
> other words, just like the atoms of the body are recycled
> atom by atom and end up in other things and other living
> beings again, maybe the "elementary particles" of the soul
> are also reused in small quantities.
>
> But then again, the concept of a soul is essentially an
> integral one, imagining a soul as composed of many small
> pieces that lack in individual distinction does not fit
> at all. Leo-Aquarius, Neptune/Apollon and Hestia, I guess.
>
> Reminds me of the movie "Death Becomes Her" where two
> women achieve eternal life of the body, but their bodies
> decay, while a man that seems rather weak in the beginning
> (played by Bruce Willis in a very unusual role for his
> life) finds a more creative solution, writes books, finds
> a woman, they get married and have children. An, of course,
> he reaches a kind of immortality by his children who sort
> of carry part of his soul and also by his books, which are
> read by many people of which some incorporate some of the
> ideas and images of the book into their own souls, I guess.
>
>>> But that is maybe a bit too simplistic: Any individual
>>> is mostly closest to just a few people, family, lover,
>>> close friends, then colleagues, casual acquaintances,
>>> and so on. So, you would expect not to have just one
>>> large "megabrain", but different "clusters" at different
>>> length scales.
>> Very interesting. Kind of reminds me of the New Age concept of
>> "soul groups".
>
> Never heard of that. Will probably look it up sometime...
>
>> Whew, looked up the term "length scales" in Wikipedia, and I
>> still am confused. One of these days, I really need to get
>> around to reading an entire physics textbook (instead of just
>> the first chapter or so, then drifting away from it). :-)
>
> That is something very simple. If I simplify it even a bit
> more, things are very clear: Say, the size of a human being
> (very roughly a yard or a meter) is length scale 0. Then a
> house (which is maybe on average 10 times bigger) is scale 1.
> A group of houses might be 10 times larger again, scale 2.
> And so on. The earth has a diameter of (again *very" roughly)
> 10'000 km, or 10'000'000 meters, thus scale 7.
>
> Formulated that way, the universe is very small, maybe scale
> 20 (I am too lazy calculate in detail) or so, and also the
> smallest things that have been explored are maybe scale -20*.
> Interestingly, man is in the middle. Very much a Libra concept,
> but also understandable, because that is where exploration of
> the world starts from.
>
> * Negative scale is smaller things. Human organs are maybe a
> length scale of 10 cm, i.e. 1/10 th of a meter, scale -1,
> cells are maybe 100 micrometes or so, scale -4, atoms are
> about scale -10, etc. Mathematically it is just a logarithmic
> scale for things (with basis 10 here, but that is arbitrary).
>
>> Either that, or figure out how I can read the mind of the
>> newsgroup brain, containing your brain which knows all about
>> physics... ;-)
>>
>>> So there would often be a "family brain",
>>> composed essentially of the members of the family. Also,
>>> one could assume that certain interest groups, like, say,
>>> even a usenet newsgroup, could develop its own identity,
>>> with its own intentions, feelings, even fate.
>> Hmm, neat. I wonder what the intentions, feelings, and fate of
>> our newsgroup might be.
>
> Why did I see your replies the same day yesterday, even
> though I had not looked here since shortly after posting
> them and even though from experience the chance of replies
> is very small if they do not come relatively quickly (at
> least in this group). Was it maybe just because it was the
> first day of the weekend and I had more leisure to think
> "I wonder what happened at aam", or was there I direct
> connection.
>
> To me it often feels that I can feel when people read my
> posts, whether they like it or not, whether they get angry
> and I stirred up some issues in their unconscious that then
> I am sort of also responsible to comment on in a way or at
> least to consider to myself, etc.
>
>> This also reminds me of the concept in "chaos magick" of the
>> "egregore".
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore
>
> Friday I have been at a conference called Tweakfest, see
> site at www.tweakfest.ch, about virtual worlds, like Second
> Life (which I know you know well) and furniture with virtual
> content, etc. A lot of Gemini or at least Air in these things
> (and, I guess, with Neptune in Aquarius, also quite some
> illusions about what it will achieve, but that would again
> be in "real life", not "ultimate life").
>
> What's the difference between a virtual gathering in Second
> Life or so and a real gathering ? In my model, in Second Life
> people would feel each other less because they would still be
> physically separated quite a bit (in most cases). I guess this
> has both advantages and disadvantages.
> Sure, ultimately there is no answer.
>
> Maybe the ants are just to smart to respond to our naive
> human experiments and observations. Remember the role of
> mice in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ?
>
>>> Such collective intentions can appear as *precognition*
>>> to individuals. For example, two "family brains" might be
>>> in contact and might arrange some meetings between some
>>> members of the family. For example, a guy and a gal could
>>> meet "by chance" somewhere in the middle of town, so that
>>> the meeting would appear like "fate" to them, and via
>>> emotional feedback from their environments, they would
>>> maybe think that it "was meant to be".
>>>
>>> And, in a way they would be right!
>> Hmm, interesting. What kind of emotional feedback from their
>> environments?
>
> All kinds of things, just the reaction that what you see,
> hear, smell. If you see something somewhere, what you will
> do about it, depends on how you feel when you see it (or
> him/her etc.). Or maybe just a general state, some calming
> influence, or some nervousness, that would make the two
> persons more likely, say, to bump into each other at the
> fruit stand in a super market, or something like that.
>
>> I've had experiences like that, but I'm endlessly suspicious of
>> any kind of impression that anything is "meant to be".
>>
>> I'm always worried about at least two things: 1) am I fooling
>> myself, 2) is something else fooling me? :-)
>
> I know. I feel it depends also on the times. I remember
> in the Matrix movies that Neo (the chosen one) at the
> beginning had a good feeling/intuition about what to do,
> what would be the right thing to do, etc. But also in the
> end, quite a bit of that was an illusion. In my feeling,
> in the contemporary world, there used to be sort of a
> collectively stable situation until about 2000 or so,
> then a quite chaotic phase after about 9/11 (egnited by
> that event, but not caused by it) and that now the
> "collective sea" is getting calmer and more organized
> again. I can see several factors in is, Saturn-Pluto,
> Pluto in Sagittarius and then soon into Capricorn, and
> probably quite a few more things.
>
>>> That is, if you count family (or other group's) intentions
>>> as a miniaturized, limited form of fate.
>> For some reason, the entire idea of fate annoys me.
>> Predestination and precognition, too. I don't know, maybe I
>> just don't like feeling like a pawn of forces beyond my direct,
>> immediate control... :-)
>
> Fate is related to water, is female, bound to some things.
> The male elements are more free, although in a way their
> freedom is limited, everybody comes from Earth (born from
> a woman, or some artificial hatching device) and goes back
> to Earth in the end. In that sense, the female elements are
> stronger than the male ones in the end, but the phase in
> between can be a large part of life, so that is in a way
> rather a matter of perception.
>
> Also, in my model the fate made by human beings would still
> only be part of the world, not stronger than matter, than
> physical reality (of course again assuming that there is
> such a thing).
>
> Here is a model from section 4 of discoveries.pdf:
>
> 1 - Fire - personal imagination
> 2 - Air - Logic/Reason
> 3 - Water - Collective Wishes
> 4 - Earth - Physical Reality
>
> In a way, Earth would be the strongest, but in another
> more circular way, Fire is again stronger that Earth.
>
> What I dislike maybe most about the work of Liz Greene
> is exactly that there is in a way no real "exit" for the
> client, for the patient. I hope I could transcend that a
> little bit with my work. :) I should also notice that her
> progressed sun is in Scorpio (was in Libra when she wrote
> her best work, the Astrology of Fate). Also Libra tends to
> go as a the middle Air sign from Fire to Water, i.e. even
> though the name "Libra" suggests freedom, in way, Libra's
> own path in life is rather towards less freedom.
>
>>> Face it: You can sometimes do things that you do not feel
>>> like doing for some time, but mostly you do what feels
>>> good and try to avoid what feels bad. ;)
>> Sounds like something I should try more often... :-)
>
> Yeah, in my view, that is often easiest with the nodes.
> Maybe it is only because I have Scorpio conjunct the
> s.node that I do at times feel strongly attracted to
> rather dark things, like posting to a Scorpio usenet
> newsgroup, and even though doing this from time to time
> is also necessary, doing more practical things and doing
> these rather privately (at least not caring much about
> any kind of collective responsibility or something like
> that) always makes me happier, even though it requires
> usually a conscious effort to do so.
>
> I guess with your nodes conjunct the ones of the USA,
> you are likely to be bound in the Aquarius stuff of
> either following conventions or fighting them, while
> it might really make happier (not only you personally,
> but also every US citizen) to ignore that.
>
> (Again an implicit, unplanned reply to your reply to
> my Hestia post. I really miss aat with its magic where
> things just evolve automatically, although it was also
> very heavy and often not controllable, a step back to
> the times just after 9/11, aat was founded a week after
> that - I was not posting to astrology newsgroups then,
> yet, that only came in June 2002)
>
>>> Thus, if feelings are not local, but directly influenced
>>> by what others feel about what you do, what you end up
>>> doing is quite heavily influenced by what others feel and
>>> want.
>> Hmm... I wonder if some people might be more receptive to such
>> external influences than others. Or, is this something that
>> might affect everyone equally no matter what, even if they
>> resist it?
>
> I think at least consciously there are large differences.
> I know a guy who has a grand trine in Air signs. When I
> am around that guy, the feelings tend to disappear quite
> a bit. But I guess beneath the surface, this does influence
> him at least considerably, too.
>
>>From the point of view of a physicist, it is likely that
> some people are better at it. And I guess it can be inherited
> and usually is. My father felt it when one of the cats we had
> at the time died (the cat, a tricolore female, who was often
> a bit melancholic and had also some lung problems, was at our
> home, while my parents were several hundred kilometers away
> on a brief holiday).
>
>>> Of course, that can be somewhat schizophrenically
>>> turned around, too: The family
>> The individual family members, or the "family brain"?
>
> I guess that is just a matter of perception. Essentially
> I am talking about collective family wishes that are mostly
> not fully conscious to the members of the family, although
> they might be to some or even all of them. I guess it is
> a mix in which also the conscious intentions of the
> individual members of the family have an effect, but again
> I think usually most of it is unconscious and shared.
> In a way, maybe what is thought consciously and not actually
> told to other people is least part the collective family, is
> most individual, while most of the rest can be counted to
> be both part of the family as a whole and part of the
> individual.
>
>>> could want you to be sort
>>> of an individualistic person who strives away from how
>>> things are usually handled in the family, i.e. as it often
>>> is with feelings, different and even opposite trends could
>>> mix up and result in some quite ambivalent situations. For
>>> example, the strict self-control of a Capricorn is often
>>> fueled by fun derived on the inside (i.e. via feedback from
>>> the family etc.),
>> From the "family brain" or the family members themselves?
>
> Dito.
>
>> >from not doing what one likes. (This is
>>> what Freud called "Triebumkehr", reversal of instinctive
>>> drives).
>> Hmm... so, is this Capricorn defying the "family brain"'s
>> desire, or fulfilling it? And what are some reasons why the
>> family brain might want this?
>
> A good answer with Capricorn issues is usually: Both :)
>
> Duality is an important part of Capricorn, again also
> related to Triebumkehr. Doing some thing that is per se
> not liked, but drawing fun from the fact of doing something
> that is against direct nature.
>
>>> So, thus far the simple idea explains things that resemble
>>> "telepathy", "precognition" and even "fate".
>>>
>>> Let me add two more or so before returning to astrology.
>>>
>>> Why stop at humanity ? People often also feel quite a bit
>>> connected to their pets. Why not include also animals and
>>> plants into the picture ? Living and loving (feeling) are
>>> etymologically so close that there might be more to it
>>> than just mere superstition (like astrology in the eyes of
>>> contemporary science). And then, maybe all of nature is
>>> alive to some degree as often assumed in the past, and
>>> maybe even these connections reach out into space...
>> Yes, I'm inclined to suspect that possibly the idea that
>> everything in the universe is a facet or fragment of God
>> (which Gail described a while back) might be true.
>
> I remember a dream maybe almost 10 years ago, where I dreamed
> that outside of my apartment there was smoke and fire and that
> I saw lots of firemen outside and then that a river that is
> nearby had lots of water and gotten into my garden (was a bit
> different in detail, but still my garden).
>
> The next day, I was at my parents place for dinner. After
> that there was a quite impressive thunder storm and we watched
> it from a large window in the living room. I recognized the
> fire and smoke again in the form of clouds and lightning.
> And there was lots of lightning, very impressive.
>
> On the may back to my place, firemen had blocked a road since
> a small river near my place had been blocked by a tree that
> had fallen down and had thus inondated a part of the town (a
> small part, nothing serious, but enough that the firemen
> needed to do something about it an deviate traffic).
>
> Now, a thunderstorm and where I would be the next day seem
> predictable from a purely human-to-human network. Also the
> firemen would fit in, but the tree that fell down ? Was that
> really predictable to humans alone ? Did maybe someone who
> walked along the small river a few days ago notice a certain
> weakness in the tree ? Maybe, but it seems more likely to
> me that things are more broadly connected, that there is a
> connection between the small river (say, that the river is
> an individual with a soul) and the world around it, including
> apparently me. That I could pick up that knowledge of the
> river and copy it in my dream.
>
> Again, of course, no ultimate answers, only a practical one
> in the sense that likely it is not sufficient to limit the
> things that I mentioned to human-to-human unconscious
> connections, besides that this is obviously a bit too biased
> at least towards other complex animals, but likely also
> towards any kind of life and maybe even things that are not
> commonly believed to be alive.
> Yeah, I know. I guess maybe by the nature of divination,
> Neptune has a stronger voice in it than others, but then
> again it is also quite Saturnian (in mythology etc.). And
> there are more signs/planets, of course, that are close,
> not to forget Hermes and Apollon.
>
> I like this site, because it appears to be quite up to
> the point (at least to me) and yet very open because the
> replies are so short (and I learn a lot of english on the
> side; I had thought that I know english quite well and on
> usenet etc. I practically never have to look up a word,
> but especially the keywords indicated at that site are
> mostly unknown to me, although their german translations
> are pretty basic things so that I suspect a huge bias in
> todays world):
>
> http://www.sabian.org/oracle.htm
>
> The "La Plume" drawing is by Mucha, an artist from Prague.
> Why I got into these things (in my imagination or really)
> was because I fell in love with a girl (with sun in Pisces,
> at a quincunx to my sun in Leo and conjunct my Lilith in
> Pisces, a girl born with a Sun-Pluto and Saturn-Pluto
> opposition in Virgo, and with Jupiter in Taurus on my
> northern node. She had emigrated (maybe against her will,
> at least as part of her family fate) with her parents to
> Switzerland during the cold war. I fell in love with her
> and I think it was mutual, I think I still can still feel
> her, although we never really came together, she returned
> to the Czech republic in about 1990, studied stage design
> there and is now married and has a son (both actors).
>
> What is real ? Realistically, I will never be with her
> and it was exactly writing down my ideas that were sort
> of our mutual fate (or "fate" - what is real?). Usually
> in a relation, care is taken not to reveal everything
> because then a lot of the beauty would be lost.
>
> In my case, because there was for all that it appeared
> and felt no realistic way (and no way that would be fair
> to the other people involved either) to get together in
> real life, at least not in this one. Because of that, the
> only way out of it for me was to life the issues out to
> the fullest, write down these things, bring it out.
>
> That way, things have eased, I can still feel her and,
> of course, in moments like these it is again almost as
> it used to be, but that passes and essentially am free,
> just with one more person (in addition to family, friends
> etc.) that I am somewhat connected to and who can in some
> cases, I guess, help just by having a different point
> from which observing things, without actually intentionally
> influencing my fate in a direct, personal way.
>
> Am I deviating ? In a realistic way, I guess yes, in a
> fundamental way, no, quite to the contrary.
>
>> I have little trust for humanity in general (or even nature and
>> the universe in general), so, I tend to dread the idea of the
>> collective having any kind of a strange metaphysical influence
>> on anything.
>
> I think it is not that bad.
>
>> Even if there is a collective mind, and it knows more than any
>> one individual on their own does, I still don't think it's
>> necessarily going to be capable of making good decisions, or
>> that it's going to have any interest in giving me good
>> divinatory advice...
>>
>> These pages (at least, at the moment) explain some of the
>> reasons why I mistrust anything collective (including Wikipedia
>> :-) ):
>
> Very strange thing: I recently found out that I am born exactly
> the same day as the guy behind Wikipedia. Don't have his birth
> time, but he was also born 7 August 1966 (me at 04:11 local time
> in Zurich, with AC in early Leo, conjunct rx/stationary Mercury)
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
>> http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality
>
> I dislike this too. Although I think Wikipedia is useful,
> it has its limits. Independent unfiltered opinions are
> very important to me. And Google at least provides some
> opportunity to find them in more general terms, although
> likely there is unavoidably some bias generated by their
> architecture. I used to use a meta search engine called
> "dogpile" exactly because it tended to provide some more
> unusual and unexpected results (but later seemed to get
> more mainstream, so I stopped then).
>
>> Rather different concepts from a collective mind (a concept
>> which I guess could be summed up as "a network of unconsciously
>> psychically-connected minds somehow influencing everyone from
>> behind the scenes"). But, at least those pages give some idea
>> of why I tend to regard things that are collective with
>> suspicion (and even loathing, at times).
>>
>> I would prefer to believe that there is an all-benevolent God in
>> charge of everything, rather than "the collective" or anything
>> like that. Which doesn't mean that I _do_ believe that, just
>> saying that I'd prefer to (but only if it's true... :-) ).
>
> I have Saturn at the end of Pisces (conjunct Cheiron
> a little bit behind). And there is the mentioned Lilith
> at the middle of Pisces. So, I am not much religious or
> as far as any particular religion is concerned. Since
> there are different religions and the ones that adhere
> to them are comparatively convinced that "they have it",
> it is much more likely that they are at most right where
> they all agree and wrong where they differ.
>
> Probably for that reason the "religion" that I like most
> is Taoism, because it removes almost everything that is
> specific, retaining only the core essence, the common
> secret of all life, say the soul or ... Hestia.
>
>>> Now, the word "divination" hints also at religion. What if
>>> the plethora of ancient Greek gods and myths was just a way
>>> of expressing the existence of different interest groups
>>> and concepts of collective psychology? That concept is not
>>> too unfamiliar, think C.G. Jung and psychological astrology.
>>>
>>> Taking it even further, what about a shell model of "God",
>>> with small gods ("family", "bridge club", "work pals") and
>>> then up to living nature in its entirety and self-created
>>> (the invisible, unique god jewish/christian/muslim religion)?
>> Reminds me of the concept of "godforms" in "chaos magick".
>>
>> Wow, I actually can't find that in Wikipedia. Next best thing, maybe:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtform
>>
>> Someone's page explaining one outlook on how "egregores",
>> "godforms", and a couple of other things in "chaos magick" might
>> relate to each other:
>>
>> http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fen-egre.html
>
> OK.
>
>>> But let me get back a bit more to the ground and try to
>>> explain something that maybe many astrologers will not like
>>> too much, because it detaches astrology somewhat from the
>>> stars. However, logical evolution of the presented idea
>>> leads quite naturally to it.
>>>
>>> Remember planet Pluto ? Discovered in 1930, it was initially
>>> thought to be as big as planet Earth, but today we know that
>>> it is just a small lump of ice and dirt,
>> With an atmosphere... :-)
>>
>> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_seasons_030709.html
>>
>> Mere asteroids apparently don't have atmospheres.
>>
>> http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/asteroids_and_comets/facts.html
>>
>> That's one thing that distinguishes Pluto from just another
>> lump of ice and dirt. (Um, unless I'm mistaken... :-) )
>
> I assume the other objects in the Kuiper Belt (Eris, Quaoar,
> Orcus, etc.) are likely very similar.
>
>>> smaller than even
>>> that our moon, and just one of several similar lumps of ice
>>> and dirt in a similar orbit beyond Neptune. (Pluto is now,
>>> by a narrow margin, the second largest Kuiper Belt Object,
>>> the largest being Eris). And last summer in Prague, as a
>>> logical scientific consequence of the literal facts, Pluto
>>> lost its status as a planet.
>> Well, I already explained my perspective on that quite a while
>> back, so, I guess I won't repeat myself... :-)
>
> In my view it is understandable that Americans hang on to
> Pluto a lot, and for good reasons, at least relative to
> America. It appears sure, however, that they will not be
> able to hang on to Pluto in its full strength that it had
> in the 20th century (at least since 1930). But I also do
> not want to dwell on it, nor do I think it is necessary
> or much helpful in any way at the moment.
> The whole idea behind my model is that most of the
> connections are unconscious, or are only registered as
> feelings by individuals. What individual people believe
> or do not believe about astrology is not so important,
> has not enough weight. The collective entities or, using
> the alternative view again, the unconscious collective
> side in each individual believes in astrology.
>
>> As was mentioned a long time ago in the old "Pluto" thread,
>> maybe what the collective "wants" doesn't actually depend on a
>> numerical majority of people desiring/believing a certain thing.
>> (But in that case, what _does_ it depend on?)
>>
>>> Let me try to reformulate that in a
>>> bit more simple words:
>>>
>>> What if astrology is mainly driven by collective wishes ?
>> Well, in that case, I'm suddenly more interested in collective
>> wishes than astrology... :-)
>>
>>> What if astrological systems are just too useful for life
>>> that they are kept intact by collective feedback, even if
>>> they have somewhat detached from what actually happens in
>>> the sky above ?
>> I'm not sure I understand why that would be useful for life,
>> though.
>
> The reasons for that are quite simple. A bit abstractly
> formulated, it ensures both diversity and completeness.
> Take global warming, for example. People approach this
> problem in quite diverse ways, including denying that it
> exists to themselves and/or to others. Astrology ensures
> that all the different approaches to the problem are
> explored, i.e. that none is forgotten. Some problems might
> not get solved if, say, the Gemini or Mars approach was
> not part of the picture.
>
> Of course, one might argue that these concepts are there
> anyway, are part of nature anyway. But I think astrology
> does sort of balance these things, avoids extremes in the
> long run and uses them in the short run and more locally
> (in individuals, etc.) to surmount some barriers.
>
> And there is, of course, the correlation of sun signs with
> what is useful/necessary to do in agricultural societies.
> If most of September was Pisces, would anybody feel like
> harvesting, working hard to bring in nature's fruit when
> it is ready and also invest the time to stack it in and
> sort it out ? Or would they just say it is karma and let
> most of the stuff rot on the fields and on the trees ?
>
> I guess it is not astonishing that Bernadette Brady who
> is (as one part of her work in astrology) pursusing very
> old methods using fixed stars and stellar parans, is from
> Australia, a continent on the southern hemisphere, where
> summer and winter are flipped.
>
>> Oh, except for the fact that it does provide a perhaps
>> reassuring impression that what takes place in life and the
>> universe isn't just random and "meaningless".
>>
>> It provides an interesting mystery to attempt to solve.
>>
>>> For example, there is no 12 constellations on the zodiac.
>>> There is just a bunch of stars scattered around the ecliptic
>>> that can be grouped into signs by cultural preference (for
>>> example, Western and Chinese constellations differ). And
>>> even if you would take the Western zodiac constellations
>>> as given, they are *far* from forming 12 equally spaced
>>> sectors on the ecliptic, and (due to precession) do not
>>> coincide with actual constellation in any significant way.
>> Ah, so not only does astrology not coincide with the stars now,
>> it never did to begin with... :-)
>
> I guess at the oldest roots it did (c.f. also e.g. Bernadette
> Brady's Visual Astrology Newsletter that is available online).
> First it apparently was just Venus rising there, near that
> star etc.
>
>> So much for some skeptics' argument that precession logically
>> invalidates astrology.
>>
>>> Face it, astrology as it is used today, is largely a more
>>> abstract, psychological concept that has already largely
>>> detached from the actual stars. (That is not to say that
>>> there are no more natural connections to the stars, only
>>> that astrology as it is practiced today, has largely
>>> detached from nature in the concrete sense). ;)
>> I agree.
>>
>> My guess is, if humanity somehow were able to leave the solar
>> system and take up residence somewhere extremely far away, with
>> all different constellations, etc., it would probably be
>> possible for a variant of astrology to work there too in much
>> the same way that our astrology "works".
>
> Yeah, I considered that too before. Even already charts
> adjusted to various planets of the solar system would be
> very interesting. Mars with its two moons. Venus with its
> very, very long day (different qualities of houses), or
> Neptune with (I think) is rotation axis lying on the
> ecliptic etc.
>
>> (Except, in a solar system with too few planets, or even,
>> someplace in deep space, not even in a solar system... hmmm...
>> wow, maybe they'd actually have to use "hypothetical" planets...
>> or something... hmm...)
>>
>> My guess is that the underlying causes of astrology (possibly)
>> working are probably not local/limited to our solar system, and
>> probably not physical at all.
>>
>>> This post is inspired by the title of a seminar that US
>>> astrologer Michael Lutin is scheduled to give tomorrow at
>>> CPA London: "The Effects Of Unconscious Communication in
>>> Astrological Delineation and Interpretation".
>> Sounds quite interesting.
>
> I don't know to what degree it had anything to do
> with what I wrote about here, but I guess with Mars
> in Aries it felt like a good idea to "stake the claim"
> just in case.
>
>>> I first published the above idea 2002, see discoveries.pdf
>>> contained in www.exactphilosophy.net/odyssey.zip . That
>>> document is denser and I am much more specific about the
>>> details of how the connection is structured, in ways that
>>> go beyond what has even been said before about the subject.
>>>
>>> Liz Greene apparently saw the document in 2002 and called
>>> it "too theoretical" (private communication), which is both
>>> true and completely wrong in a way: It is *abstract*, but
>>> very much based on experience and the deductive mind of an
>>> experimental physicist (me).
>> Someday, I need to read that with the undivided focus and
>> attention it deserves.
>
> The document is very much Saturn-Pluto influenced. The girl
> I mentioned with her Saturn-Pluto opposition at birth time,
> the Saturn-Pluto opposition of the document and the times
> in which it emerged. So, maybe there will be already some
> interest/drive to read it when they will be at a square a
> few months from now, maybe not until they meet again in a
> conjunction several years later on.
>
> I do not read the document, except small pieces here and
> there, at the moment. Is not really a full part of me, there
> is too much in it to make it really fit fully into me. Take
> the major influence on the symbolic astrological side of it
> (and more), namely Liz Greene's "The Astrology of Fate". It
> was published in 1984, i.e. very likely written around the
> Saturn-Pluto conjunction of around 1982. Liz Greene apparently
> came into contact with astrology, or more precisely really
> fully, fatedly into into around 1965 with Saturn opposite
> Pluto. She was born not much after a Saturn-Pluto conjunction.
>
> So, this stuff is heavily Saturn-Pluto influenced and does
> evolve at those timelines. With my Saturn/Cheiron at late
> Pisces and grand Water trine, I am in a way very timeless
> and calm, but there is also the moon in Aries trine my sun
> and at a square to Venus-Mars-Jupiter in Cancer, so I am
> in a way flowing in a very heavy and determined, natural,
> fated, fashion, but with huge personal fluctuations (which
> can be fun, too, but at least appear strange to others).
>
> The main idea on my site is more natural and less fated
> in a direct way than what is in discoveries.pdf. I had it
> in 2004, with Saturn in Cancer, not sure if there was a
> minor Saturn-Pluto aspect then.
>
> But anyway, I guy I wrote to who uses math to investigate
> the I Ching (the Chinese oracle) has written an article
> that is inspired by my main idea about the elements on my
> site, and is likely to be published in a scientific,
> peer reviewed journal related to chinese philosophy.
>
> )o+
>
> PS: Wrote this very quickly in one flow, so maybe not
> everything is perfect or thoughtful enough, but then
> again this was essentially a post about Hestia, thus
> it is linked strongly to the original post which had
> been to aat at the time, so I trust aat's fantastic
> error correction features this time.
>
> Of course, this opens up many things, unlikely that
> I will follow up on them (except maybe only just very
> few, but I will certainly read replies, if there are
> any).
Apollia
> An interesting dialogue--to me!
Glad I posted it, I almost didn't... :-)
> To me it raises questions that may or may not belong in this forum. In
> particular, what is the role of astrology, within the total of human
> experience?
A very interesting question.
And I'm sure the answer _has_ to be better than "It keeps
Apollia entertained", even though I _would_ sometimes like to
believe the universe revolves around me... :-)
> My own view that astrology encompasses/or has the potential for
> encompassing this large view. However, for it to do so, it must itself
> become free of the models/metaphors/myths that circumscribe much of
> reality for peoples.
>
> Specifically and only one example, science as we know it is limited by
> the particular philosophy of science that is part of a consensus as to
> what is true. Of course in modern times we have seen astronomers vote
> out Pluto as a planet--that was of course by a majority vote.
Well, a majority vote of the minority that was still in
town at the time of that meeting.
Here's an old link about it, dredged up from an ancient
thread:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5283956.stm
Quote:
: Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day
: of the meeting took part.
(I glanced around the web a bit, haven't been able to find
out how many of those 424 voted for or against the
"demotion").
Quote:
: Professor Gingerich, who had to return home to the US and
: therefore could not vote himself, said he would like to see
: electronic ballots introduced in future.
:
: Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not
: in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4%
: were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.
:
: "If everyone had to travel to Washington DC every time we wanted
: to vote for President, we would have very different results
: because no one would vote. In today's world that is idiotic. I
: have nothing but ridicule for this decision."
> As for the philosophy of science, Karl Popper, a dominant personality in
> this field, has constructed a philosophy of science that rests on
> "shifting sand"--his words. Alternately Leibnitz, writing way back in
> the 1500s has a view of "monads" or what Carl Jung might call a
> "collective unconscious" or others might call a collective soul--we are
> all one. However, that doesn't preclude individuals as
> independent--they are clearly interdependent with the collectivity. The
> joining of the individual and collectivity is according to some, based
> on the working of Synchronicity--assuming at least a four dimensional world.
>
> But, how far can astrologers go in expanding and working within such a
> broad world view? In my view, these multiple levels of consciousness
> and experience and their interactions are all available within a chart
> and its unfolding--but just one opinion.
>
> On "thought forms"--Fleck,{1979). Genesis and development of a
> scientific fact. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, among others,
> discusses what a "scientific fact" is. Anthony Giddens in some of his
> works discusses the "postmodern" idea of "abstract systems" that are
> essentially thought forms that are/and/or become systems of thought that
> underlie our conceptions and beliefs about what is real or perhaps what
> is true!
>
> Again, thanks for a very stimulating dialogue!!
>
> Thomas
You're welcome... :-) Thanks to you too, and Hermes, of
course.
I'm about out of steam, though, for now... I can only engage in
so much philosophical discussion before becoming exhausted...
:-)
Apollia
[...]
> PS: Wrote this very quickly in one flow, so maybe not
> everything is perfect or thoughtful enough,
No problem, it's fascinating in any case, even if I
don't understand every last bit of it...
> but then
> again this was essentially a post about Hestia, thus
> it is linked strongly to the original post which had
> been to aat at the time, so I trust aat's fantastic
> error correction features this time.
>
> Of course, this opens up many things, unlikely that
> I will follow up on them (except maybe only just very
> few, but I will certainly read replies, if there are
> any).
I might reply a bit more, but if so, I'll probably have to
take my time.
Thanks for such a long, extensive reply... plenty to think
about.