On-going Conversation with Edmond Wollman (Part I, Section I)
Larry J. Huntley
Note 1: I know many of you are waiting with bated breath for the next
installment of this fascinating thread. Intel and my kids are still
expecting their fair share of my time, so these responses have more lag
between them than I like, but I'm writing as the opportunities arise.
Read the (several) sagas of Earl Curley while you wait.
Note 2: I've trimmed this rather drastically in the interests of
brevity
and clarity. I have omitted non-salient bits of Edmond's response, and
I have used square brackets [] to indicate shortened versions of what I
originally wrote. I have endeavored to do so without changing the
meaning
or intent. If anyone feels that these omissions are in error, I can
restore them. This is just far easier to read and follow.
In general, ">> " lines are me, ">>>" and ">" are Edmond.
>> [Astrology] a system?
> Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
notation,
just to cite one example.
>> It has nothing to do with divination? Neither? Both?
> It CAN but what for?
Permit me to observe that the divination aspect seems to be the primary
interest of those who habituate alt.astrology. People seem to be
in search of days/times to do something or what the future may hold for
their children or whether they should become involved in a relationship.
This seems to indicate a reliance on astrology to predict possible out-
comes, if not the future. If astrology had no association with divina-
tion, I dare say it would not enjoy the popular interest it claims.
> ALL systems of divination are abused by those who
> lack self understanding and psychological insight, because the
> "fortelling" first of all is never of THE future, because there is no
> such thing. All probable future are or may be just as likely to
> manifest-they are infinite.
So those who sincerely ask for such advice are asking in vain because
they are assuming a singular, particular future?
> I explained this in a post entitled "Time Tracks."
> Secondly if it is done just to "prove" the divination abilities of
> either the counselor or tool it is a waste of time and basically
> egocentriclly oriented-which may in itself deny an "accurate"
> prediction.
But if I am interviewed for an engineering position, I can expect to be
asked questions that will serve to demonstrate my knowledge and abili-
ties for that discipline. If I can't demonstrate the abilities to the
interviewer's satisfaction, or - worse yet - explain that I certainly
possess those abilities, but any attempt to test me for them will fail,
I can expect to be denied employment by that firm, regardless of how
impressive my resume might be. The testability of claims is important
to all science. Why is astrology excluded from this?
>> [...] "<something> is REFLECTED BY the
>> positions of certain celestial bodies at the time of a given person's
>> birth." Please provide a value for the <something> referenced above.
> Yes the person's creation of it-within the collective creation of it.
> Reality does not exist per se separate from the creators (us). The
> physical reflection is no more than your reflection in the mirror is
> "real"-it is simply that the "props" of the idea you are being within
> the collective are reflected in physicality.
So we can restate the previous as:
"An individual's created reality is reflected (not affected) by the
positions of certain celestial bodies at the time of their birth."
Is this (essentially) correct? Is this why astrology is studied?
>> Let's assume at this point that we are writing a definition suitable
>> for a decent dictionary. [...]
> I have completely defined astrology and its best use in a post
entitled
> "Astrological Definitions" I am not going to repeat it-this is one of
> the reasons I am weary of this, you arguers argue but do not review my
> previous explanations and then get cross with me because you can't
> follow.
I am not arguing and have not gotten "cross." Until I deserve it,
please leave me off the list of those you have reserved for your
"special" punishment. You have frequently chided others for making
"off-topic" posts in the groups. Now that I am sincerely attempting
to discuss astrology, you are suddenly "weary" of it? I will search
for your article(s) and read them.
> Read my article entitled "Saturn opposition Saturn; Veiw to
> Reality" it is a pretty fair representation of what goes on in my
> consulting and how I apply astrology and psychology.
I will find it and read it.
[Locus of control]
> In psychology the locus of control can be where the person BELIEVES it
> is,
That is, internal or external to themselves? Could we say that a person
may believe that they themselves harbor the locus of control or, alter-
nately, believe that the control is in the hands of some "higher power"?
> and hence is very important in determining their beliefs, and
> behavior.
>> [All paradigms blended]
> Because the entire multiverse (named so because of the infinite levels
> of psychic material in my veiw) is in the ned ALL ONE THING "All That
> Is" or God-is simply that. All paradigms are then just derivations or
> METHODS of veiwing this one thing-it is essentially self evident.
> Pantheism.
There's a lot of multiplexing and demultiplexing going on in that para-
graph. First, an infinite number of levels become all one thing/God.
Monotheism, right? Then several paradigms may be used to view the one
thing. Pantheism may well be one method of viewing it, but why is it
tacked onto the end of the paragraph? What's the significance?
>> We hadn't mentioned a single paradigm up to this point (other
>> than our definition - which we are still working on); now we are
>> strapped with a potpourri of all possible paradigms? Or perhaps you
>> mean to restrict the discussion to just those paradigms used in
(for?)
>> astrology. Please be clear - and patient - this is an education
>> process.
> Again reviewing my posts if you are truly interested in learning would
> be a good "literature" review as any good scientist (myself included)
> knows is essential -correct? I am not responsible for your efforts and
> will be patient up to the point I discern disingenuousness as revealed
> BY this lack of review on your part-ok?
As a matter of fact - NOT ok. I have a job and a life. You are the
expert and I am the neophyte. I expect you to be able to summarize the
essentials. I have said that I will locate your articles and read them,
but that is going to slow this discussion down measurably. So, while
I'm doing what I agreed to do, you must bear with me and provide a bit
of discussion context. I'm an intelligent, educated person. You can
explain these things so that even I can comprehend them, I'm sure. Do
not misconstrue the amount of time it may take me to do the "literature
review" as "lack" of doing it.
>> Ah! A useful, cogent, and powerful tool! I like this.
>> I have several tools that I use in my profession and my daily life.
I
>> evaluate each for their efficacy and discard them if they fail to
>> measure up. Now - to what use will we put this new tool and how will
>> we conclude whether it proves useful or not?
> Again, a literature review issue. This is covered in the "definitions
> post, the "Qualitative or Quantitative" post and other astrological
> applications posts I have posted over 2 years here on usenet.
I've been following these threads for about 3 months, so they may (or
may not) have passed by unnoticed. Once again, I'll look for and
review them when located.
>> I think that clearing up these few points will allow us to agree on
>> a mutually acceptable definition of astrology and give us a starting
>> point.
> I have already given a starting point-the ball is in your court so to
> speak-to get YOU up to speed, I am already there.
This is totally unnecessary horn-blowing. I have already bowed to your
expertise. You need not reinforce your position; I was of the opinion
that our roles had been pretty firmly established as you: teacher, me:
student.
> Astrology is a tool to enhance ones understanding of themselves.
Okay! Here's the definition we'll use for our discussion. Allow me to
observe that it seems to differ from the applied definition most folks
in a.a, believers and skeptics alike, assume.
>> I frequently read papers in my own discipline more than once, so
>> this doesn't necessarily reflect on your article or my ability to
>> comprehend it.
> No, it doesn't, true.
Thanks for agreeing with that.
>> the fact that you are actually making the effort is an outstanding
>> indication of sincerety-something I NEVER see
NEVER??
>> which allows me to confidently identify the person as a cynic as
>> opposed to skeptic.
Don't be so sure.
>> [...] but I will advise you that the attitude
>> your statement exemplifies is one source of the friction between you
>> and others in the groups. "I refuse to even discuss this with you
>> because you are obviously so ignorant" is hardly endearing.
> Nor is attacking a professional in a field with 20 years experience
> as a "fraud, liar, kook, or scam artist trying to rip the public off".
One problem this means of communication has always demonstrated is how
the lack of verbal and facial cues can alter the perceived personality
of the communicators. If I were sitting across a cafe table from you,
or even speaking with you on the phone, it would be relatively easy to
detect your sincerity, anger, sarcasm, and other parametric elements of
the conversation from verbal and facial cues - even your body language.
Hampered as we are by distance (both space and time) and a purely text
medium, we will necessarily judge each other by content and style.
In the threads that I've read (not including responses to allegedly
"sincere" individuals or your posted treatises), you come across as a
very impatient, irascible, extremely hot-tempered person who will broach
no discussion that does not evidence slavish adherence to your stated
premises. This is not a criticism, just my observation. (A couple of
years ago you could have viewed me doing pretty much the same thing in
one of the guitar-related groups during a discussion about "Pure Silver
Wire.")
Hence, one of the truisms of the Internet: You are branded with the
persona you project. Usually forever.
>> It [...] won't evoke the respect you seem to require and demand.
> I don't HAVE to do anything-that is the point.
Perhaps not, but angering people is counter-productive.
> I am here to explain and
> discuss with those who are genuinely interested and to indicate the
> delusionary arguments I have heard for 20 years of those who aren't. I
> have lots of other things to do-am doing
Me too.
> and my time like other
> professionals needs to be spent in strategically effective ways
towards
> that end-not being lead to believe there is an important and relevent
> conversation about to take place and then being called a kook when I
> point out a specious argument that doesn't follow logical analyses.
Me too. And I haven't been called a "kook" (to my face) in 25 years.
"Abrasive" probably, and worse besides. But argument is a skill that's
only acquired with practice. I've found that when I calmly present a
logical analysis (relevant facts and defensible thesis development) that
supports my premise, I can at least get people to consider it - and
some-
times even persuade them to "see it my way." Approaches of the "I'm the
FUCKING EXPERT here; you are an annoying IGNORANT DISSENTING POLTROON,
and I will not listen to you..." sort have been spectacularly
unsuccessful.
>> I've certainly learned nothing from watching these combative threads
>> over the past few months
> One can learn something from ANYTHING.
I've learned nothing about ASTROLOGY.
>> You have evaded debate and ranted incoherently when challenged.
> Then there may be problems discussing any further with you
We'd probably have better luck discussing astrology than we will this
particular topic. I believe we're fated to disagree in this instance.
> I don't in my opinion rant incoherently. Perhaps you don't understand
> my point but that does NOT make it incoherent ranting.
It sort of transcends "understanding" your point.
>> This is all documented
>> and has been displayed more than once by more than one reader. The
>> aggregate idiocy has gone on far longer than is even reasonable (this
>> last statement is indeed an opinion, possibly biased.)
> All has been your opinion at this point.
Carefully considered and widely shared, I suspect.
>> [...] it is certainly possible to avoid and ignore unpleasant or
>> unwelcome postings. I've done it for years.
> Well good for you-avoidance is not in my nature. This doesn't make
you
> right and me wrong it just makes us different.
What you have termed "avoidance" is really just selection. There are
many threads (and posters) in many newsgroups that I choose to ignore
because of lack of interest. There are many movies that play in the
local theater that I choose not to see. There are even mail messages
that I choose to ignore ("MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!") I'm not "avoiding"
them.
My time is worth more to me than to get involved in every discussion
that
crops up.
>> What change did you cause in the government by ranting, if you would
>> be so kind?
> I do not answer begging the question fallacies deemed "ranting."
(What?) Just wondering. I worked in a government research lab for 9
years. I never saw anything change because someone got petulant or
called someone else a name during a meeting
> The facts are you are not qualified at this point to argue something
> you have no knowledge of-THAT is a fact.
>> There is no answer short of a cut-and-paste of
>> one of your treatises that you would have pronounced as "correct."
> Lets face facts, I have experimented with astrology and applied it
> for 20 years-you are grappling with what it is.
I'm not "grappling with what it is." I'm asking you to participate in a
lucid discussion concerning why it will be worth the time and effort to
study astrology. The reading and study you have recommended at this
point (and there's more to come) might serve to make me knowledgeable,
but I (and others in the newsgroups) are still waiting for the evidence
that the rewards and benefits will warrant the not inconsiderable
expense.
You posed 2 questions:
A) Please define what you believe astrology to be
B) Please bring up and show where you have ONCE discussed
in any genuine manner, the validity of astrology?
I answered (B) that I had not made any posts concerning astrology (nor
any other topic) in a.a. I gave my definition of (A); you pronounced it
to be hopelessly in error and have continually pronounced me to be so
ignorant as to be ineducable. I asked for education; other than the
reading assignments you've handed out, I've detected nothing very
professorial from your side of the screen.
>> [...] My blindness is limited to only my left eye.
> Your blindness is the fact that you are seeking to argue rather than
> query somnething you know nothing about
My blindness is (due to) the fact that I should have been wearing a
helmet when I drove the motorcycle into that Ponderosa pine...
> stay with the query and you will reflect your true state and garner
> respect from me in response. I will patiently answer questions-and
> will diligently divert and define fallaciouness at every turn.
>> [...] Again, please be patient.
> You are in control of this by the level of your ability for discerning
> your true position
Putting me in my place, eh?
>>>> I'm always willing to entertain rational argument. Got some?
>>> Astrology is the study of the synchronistic interaction of the
psyche,
>>> the physical world and the resulting momentums (physical effects)-or
>>> experiences from it.
>> I am familiar with "synchronous" events - events that take place at
the
>> same time. "Synchronistic interaction" would then refer to the
inter-
>> action of events which occur synchronously (simultaneously)?
> Mutual reception-reciprocity.
(Darn. "Yes" or "no" would have made life so much easier.)
Reception of what? By what sensors? What is the reciprocal nature of
these receptions? Why?
>> In this
>> instance, the psyche or "soul", the physical world, and the resultant
>> physical effect(s)? Or the experience thereof?
> Its all one thing-I referred to this at the beginning above.
I'm finding it hard to accept the interactions of the soul with the
physical world and the resultant physical effects being all "one thing."
I had originally understood you to say that the (synchronistic) inter-
actions of the psyche and the physical world produced "momentums" or
physical effects. Astrology was used to study these interactions, the
effects, or the experiences thereof, individually or collectively. Now
the interactions, the resultant effects, and the experiences of all
these have become a single "entity"? (For lack of a better term.)
(Continued)
- L
--
Larry J. Huntley Portland, OR
I have an educaction that would pail in comparison to your intellect.
- "Mary Jo Willy"
Edmond Wollmann
Larry J. Huntley wrote:
> >> [Astrology] a system?
> > Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
> There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
> notation,
> just to cite one example.
Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
> >> It has nothing to do with divination? Neither? Both?
> > It CAN but what for?
> Permit me to observe that the divination aspect seems to be the primary
> interest of those who habituate alt.astrology.
I have not observed that. Some yes, but not the "primary"-if so then
they are wasting a valuable tool for psychological insight.
> People seem to be
> in search of days/times to do something
This is possible to some extent but does not replace proper research and
effort with the subject under consideration. If you are say, buying
stocks, astrology would be the last application after your primary
research through traditional methods was complete-THEN we may be able to
assist in purchase time selection etc.
>or what the future may hold for
> their children
Astrology can help us understand character and personality needs-and
from this a glimpse of probable futures.
>or whether they should become involved in a relationship.
There are no "shoulds" only recommendations with regard to relationship
needs etc.
> This seems to indicate a reliance on astrology to predict possible out-
> comes, if not the future.
Well, I just explained astrology is not to be used that way so your
point is moot. Let's say I was the best "predictor" in the world,
wouldn't logic dictate that CHANGING the predictions or life events
would be the primary goal-not predicting them?
Of course. Therefore it is the insight into life creating BELIEFS which
changes any so-called predictions, because those are what create the
experiential reality to begin with. Now, you said last time you were
reading my material. If you had read the "Definitions" post I already
answered all these typical delusions with regard to what the public
BELIEVES astrology is.
> If astrology had no association with divina-
> tion, I dare say it would not enjoy the popular interest it claims.
I dare say, it is a tool for psychological insight and you don't know
what true astrology, is and are insisting I answer falllacious begging
the question questions.
> > ALL systems of divination are abused by those who
> > lack self understanding and psychological insight, because the
> > "fortelling" first of all is never of THE future, because there is no
> > such thing. All probable future are or may be just as likely to
> > manifest-they are infinite.
> So those who sincerely ask for such advice are asking in vain because
> they are assuming a singular, particular future?
Persons don't "ask me for advice" I am not a fortune teller. I am a
counselor. In my Saturn opposed Saturn article I outlined how a females
rape by a stepfather was pinpointed, explored, and discussed in
abbreviated format using astrology. Again, your question is irrelevent
based on your own bias and preconcieved notions of what you BELIEVE
astrology to be rather than investigating to see WHAT it is. Have you
read any Noel Tyl psychological astrology?
> > I explained this in a post entitled "Time Tracks."
> > Secondly if it is done just to "prove" the divination abilities of
> > either the counselor or tool it is a waste of time and basically
> > egocentriclly oriented-which may in itself deny an "accurate"
> > prediction.
> But if I am interviewed for an engineering position, I can expect to be
> asked questions that will serve to demonstrate my knowledge and abili-
> ties for that discipline.
So you are interviewing me for an astrology position? I would suggest
you are not, nor would you be qualified to do so-so again your question
is fallacious.
> If I can't demonstrate the abilities to the
> interviewer's satisfaction, or - worse yet - explain that I certainly
> possess those abilities, but any attempt to test me for them will fail,
> I can expect to be denied employment by that firm, regardless of how
> impressive my resume might be. The testability of claims is important
> to all science. Why is astrology excluded from this?
That was the longest slippery slope argument I have seen in some time.
In case you forgot;
"The fallacy of slippery slope reasoning is a variety of false cause
fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an
alleged chain reaction and their is not sufficient reason to think that
the chain reaction will actually take place." page 134, Logic, Hurley
1991.
> >> [...] "<something> is REFLECTED BY the
> >> positions of certain celestial bodies at the time of a given person's
> >> birth." Please provide a value for the <something> referenced above.
> > Yes the person's creation of it-within the collective creation of it.
> > Reality does not exist per se separate from the creators (us). The
> > physical reflection is no more than your reflection in the mirror is
> > "real"-it is simply that the "props" of the idea you are being within
> > the collective are reflected in physicality.
> So we can restate the previous as:
> "An individual's created reality is reflected (not affected) by the
> positions of certain celestial bodies at the time of their birth."
Thats what you would have found would you have reviewed the material I
suggested three times now called "Astrological definitions" a post you
can easily retrieve from Dejanews old.
> Is this (essentially) correct? Is this why astrology is studied?
It is why I study it, because a persons reality is the effect of their
definitions, choices and ability for personal insight into self. It
allows us to understand through archetypal reference what issues are
held as definitions and from whence they came (typically early
environment, and parental interaction schemas.)
> >> Let's assume at this point that we are writing a definition suitable
> >> for a decent dictionary. [...]
> > I have completely defined astrology and its best use in a post
> entitled
> > "Astrological Definitions" I am not going to repeat it-this is one of
> > the reasons I am weary of this, you arguers argue but do not review my
> > previous explanations and then get cross with me because you can't
> > follow.
> I am not arguing and have not gotten "cross." Until I deserve it,
> please leave me off the list of those you have reserved for your
> "special" punishment.
This is pure defensiveness-it has nothing to do with punsihment it has
to do with simple logic-you don't review the literature or subject at
hand-you remain lost. You don't study, you don't know. Now this post has
been long in coming and it appears you still have not reviewed any
literature suggested. If I were to assert a postulate in psychology
journals without referring to current litetrature and studies already
done, my assertions would be silly-especially if someone had just proven
what I thought was a revelation etc. You are EARNING the title of cynic.
Review and ask intelligent questions-otherwise this is my last post.
> You have frequently chided others for making
> "off-topic" posts in the groups. Now that I am sincerely attempting
> to discuss astrology, you are suddenly "weary" of it? I will search
> for your article(s) and read them.
At that point your claim of seriousness will be TAKEN seriously.
> > Read my article entitled "Saturn opposition Saturn; Veiw to
> > Reality" it is a pretty fair representation of what goes on in my
> > consulting and how I apply astrology and psychology.
> I will find it and read it.
Takes about 3 seconds on a fast computer.
> [Locus of control]
> > In psychology the locus of control can be where the person BELIEVES it
> > is,
> That is, internal or external to themselves? Could we say that a person
> may believe that they themselves harbor the locus of control or, alter-
> nately, believe that the control is in the hands of some "higher power"?
We can and do say that. Locus simply means "place."
> > and hence is very important in determining their beliefs, and
> > behavior.
See, like I said.
> >> [All paradigms blended]
> > Because the entire multiverse (named so because of the infinite levels
> > of psychic material in my veiw) is in the ned ALL ONE THING "All That
> > Is" or God-is simply that. All paradigms are then just derivations or
> > METHODS of veiwing this one thing-it is essentially self evident.
> > Pantheism.
> There's a lot of multiplexing and demultiplexing going on in that para-
> graph. First, an infinite number of levels become all one thing/God.
> Monotheism, right? Then several paradigms may be used to view the one
> thing. Pantheism may well be one method of viewing it, but why is it
> tacked onto the end of the paragraph? What's the significance?
Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
> >> We hadn't mentioned a single paradigm up to this point (other
> >> than our definition - which we are still working on); now we are
> >> strapped with a potpourri of all possible paradigms? Or perhaps you
> >> mean to restrict the discussion to just those paradigms used in
> (for?)
> >> astrology. Please be clear - and patient - this is an education
> >> process.
> > Again reviewing my posts if you are truly interested in learning would
> > be a good "literature" review as any good scientist (myself included)
> > knows is essential -correct? I am not responsible for your efforts and
> > will be patient up to the point I discern disingenuousness as revealed
> > BY this lack of review on your part-ok?
> As a matter of fact - NOT ok. I have a job and a life. You are the
> expert and I am the neophyte.
So I don't have a job and a life and should aquiecse to you because you
don't have enough intention and don't make enough effort to learn the
subject and spend my valuable time to educate you while you make no
effort at review?
> I expect you to be able to summarize the
> essentials.
I have at least 8000 posts that do this. Why must I rewrite them all for
you?
> I have said that I will locate your articles and read them,
> but that is going to slow this discussion down measurably.
Irrelevent, its going to stop. I am not here to give you astrology on a
silver platter. Action speaks louder than words and your actions
indicate you are only interested if you can find loopholes or attempt to
in the subject at hand while you don't even research the material
ALREADY provided by me the teacher.
Sorry you get an F.
> > Again, a literature review issue. This is covered in the "definitions
> > post, the "Qualitative or Quantitative" post and other astrological
> > applications posts I have posted over 2 years here on usenet.
> I've been following these threads for about 3 months, so they may (or
> may not) have passed by unnoticed. Once again, I'll look for and
> review them when located.
Irrelevent, they can be found in a search.
> >> I think that clearing up these few points will allow us to agree on
> >> a mutually acceptable definition of astrology and give us a starting
> >> point.
> > I have already given a starting point-the ball is in your court so to
> > speak-to get YOU up to speed, I am already there.
> This is totally unnecessary horn-blowing. I have already bowed to your
> expertise.
I am not asking for bowing I am asking for you to review so I don't have
to answer questions I already have. I have been doing this for 20 years
don't you think I have heard just about every argument for why I can't
do what I do successfully already?
> You need not reinforce your position; I was of the opinion
> that our roles had been pretty firmly established as you: teacher, me:
> student.
Yes, at the university I attend that means "here's the book, here's the
research lab, here's the library see you next class, have your material
ready and your work done.
> > Astrology is a tool to enhance ones understanding of themselves.
> Okay! Here's the definition we'll use for our discussion. Allow me to
> observe that it seems to differ from the applied definition most folks
> in a.a, believers and skeptics alike, assume.
Yes. But I have stated it thus for 2 years, not a revelation here. And
is in the posts I asked you review.
> >> I frequently read papers in my own discipline more than once, so
> >> this doesn't necessarily reflect on your article or my ability to
> >> comprehend it.
> > No, it doesn't, true.
> Thanks for agreeing with that.
I agree with accuracy whenever possible.
> >> the fact that you are actually making the effort is an outstanding
> >> indication of sincerety-something I NEVER see
> NEVER??
Have you read the posts or an astrolgy book, or in any way researched it
since our last conversation? Please be honest.
> >> which allows me to confidently identify the person as a cynic as
> >> opposed to skeptic.
> Don't be so sure.
I remain confident.
> >> [...] but I will advise you that the attitude
> >> your statement exemplifies is one source of the friction between you
> >> and others in the groups. "I refuse to even discuss this with you
> >> because you are obviously so ignorant" is hardly endearing.
> > Nor is attacking a professional in a field with 20 years experience
> > as a "fraud, liar, kook, or scam artist trying to rip the public off".
> One problem this means of communication has always demonstrated is how
> the lack of verbal and facial cues can alter the perceived personality
> of the communicators. If I were sitting across a cafe table from you,
> or even speaking with you on the phone, it would be relatively easy to
> detect your sincerity, anger, sarcasm, and other parametric elements of
> the conversation from verbal and facial cues - even your body language.
> Hampered as we are by distance (both space and time) and a purely text
> medium, we will necessarily judge each other by content and style.
True, but sincerety comes across eventually. When it doesn't I don't
takre the person seriously any longer.
> In the threads that I've read (not including responses to allegedly
> "sincere" individuals or your posted treatises), you come across as a
> very impatient, irascible, extremely hot-tempered person who will broach
> no discussion that does not evidence slavish adherence to your stated
> premises. This is not a criticism, just my observation. (A couple of
> years ago you could have viewed me doing pretty much the same thing in
> one of the guitar-related groups during a discussion about "Pure Silver
> Wire.")
Irrelevent.
I can see you have stayed on the evidence of your lack of astrological
expertise very well here.:-)
> Hence, one of the truisms of the Internet: You are branded with the
> persona you project. Usually forever.
You are branded by those with no life by them spinning you as what they
wish if presented long enough-because those of us WITH a real life do
not have the inclination, time or necessity to spend all day reversing
it. Its called propagandic spin doctoring, it is done all the time
everyday with any subject or person controversial or threatening enough
intellectually to warrant it. It is a political and emotive
argumentation style that is fallacious.
> >> It [...] won't evoke the respect you seem to require and demand.
> > I don't HAVE to do anything-that is the point.
> Perhaps not, but angering people is counter-productive.
I cannot anger people they choose to be angered.
> > I am here to explain and
> > discuss with those who are genuinely interested and to indicate the
> > delusionary arguments I have heard for 20 years of those who aren't. I
> > have lots of other things to do-am doing
> Me too.
Then you will understand why you need to review.
> > and my time like other
> > professionals needs to be spent in strategically effective ways
> towards
> > that end-not being lead to believe there is an important and relevent
> > conversation about to take place and then being called a kook when I
> > point out a specious argument that doesn't follow logical analyses.
> Me too. And I haven't been called a "kook" (to my face) in 25 years.
I have never been called anything close (to my face) only here on usenet
by those intellectually insecure and unable to argue logically.
> "Abrasive" probably, and worse besides. But argument is a skill that's
> only acquired with practice. I've found that when I calmly present a
> logical analysis (relevant facts and defensible thesis development) that
> supports my premise, I can at least get people to consider it - and
> some-
> times even persuade them to "see it my way." Approaches of the "I'm the
> FUCKING EXPERT here; you are an annoying IGNORANT DISSENTING POLTROON,
> and I will not listen to you..." sort have been spectacularly
> unsuccessful.
Good thing I learned that long ago and don't do that with those truly
interested.
> >> I've certainly learned nothing from watching these combative threads
> >> over the past few months
> > One can learn something from ANYTHING.
> I've learned nothing about ASTROLOGY.
That is your choice.
> >> You have evaded debate and ranted incoherently when challenged.
> > Then there may be problems discussing any further with you
> We'd probably have better luck discussing astrology than we will this
> particular topic. I believe we're fated to disagree in this instance.
Of course because you are biased by what you believe I am, rather than
discussing logically as you assert. What my temperament etc. "may" be is
irrelevent and is another fallacious tactic used by those engaging in
emotive rather than logical assertions.
In case you forgot;
This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
to commit an argument against the person. Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991
> > I don't in my opinion rant incoherently. Perhaps you don't understand
> > my point but that does NOT make it incoherent ranting.
> It sort of transcends "understanding" your point.
I see. Who is responsible for perceptions of me?
> >> This is all documented
> >> and has been displayed more than once by more than one reader. The
> >> aggregate idiocy has gone on far longer than is even reasonable (this
> >> last statement is indeed an opinion, possibly biased.)
> > All has been your opinion at this point.
> Carefully considered and widely shared, I suspect.
"One must not mistake majority for the truth." Einstein
> >> [...] it is certainly possible to avoid and ignore unpleasant or
> >> unwelcome postings. I've done it for years.
> > Well good for you-avoidance is not in my nature. This doesn't make
> you
> > right and me wrong it just makes us different.
> What you have termed "avoidance" is really just selection. There are
> many threads (and posters) in many newsgroups that I choose to ignore
> because of lack of interest. There are many movies that play in the
> local theater that I choose not to see. There are even mail messages
> that I choose to ignore ("MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!") I'm not "avoiding"
> them.
> My time is worth more to me than to get involved in every discussion
> that
> crops up.
Ditto.
> >> What change did you cause in the government by ranting, if you would
> >> be so kind?
> > I do not answer begging the question fallacies deemed "ranting."
> (What?) Just wondering. I worked in a government research lab for 9
> years. I never saw anything change because someone got petulant or
> called someone else a name during a meeting
More begging the question fallaciousness that what you describe is what
*I* did. I have never seen anyone get information from a professional by
constantly insulting them either, that doesn't seem to stop you.
> > The facts are you are not qualified at this point to argue something
> > you have no knowledge of-THAT is a fact.
> >> There is no answer short of a cut-and-paste of
> >> one of your treatises that you would have pronounced as "correct."
> > Lets face facts, I have experimented with astrology and applied it
> > for 20 years-you are grappling with what it is.
> I'm not "grappling with what it is." I'm asking you to participate in a
> lucid discussion concerning why it will be worth the time and effort to
> study astrology.
If you want to understand yourself better study astrology. Thats the
short answer. If you want greater understanding of yourself but don't
want the study then you will have to go to one. When persons go to a
psychologist is the psychologist required to PROVE they will have
something valid to offer the client before consultation? This would
waste a lot of the psychologists time-same for attorneys, doctors etc.
And when we are not sure of the qualifications of the person at hand we
look at what they have done in their work-so either way you have yours
cut out for you.
Thanks
SNIP!
--
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up
every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss
Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." T. H. Huxley
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
John & Susan Hutchins
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:13:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
Note there is a lot to cover if you've been following this thread,
my cuts (for the sake of brevity should not be too confusing.
If you've just joined in, it mightn't be a bad idea to go to dejanews
and review the whole thing. Might avoid confusion.
<woll...@nospam.edu> wrote:
>Larry J. Huntley wrote:
>
>> >> [Astrology] a system?
>
>> > Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
>
>> There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
>> notation,
>> just to cite one example.
>
>Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
Unsubstantiated opinion. Calling Astrology an Art/Science removes
it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
>
snip
>
>> Permit me to observe that the divination aspect seems to be the primary
>> interest of those who habituate alt.astrology.
>
>I have not observed that. Some yes, but not the "primary"-if so then
>they are wasting a valuable tool for psychological insight.
Checking the headers in alt.astrology is easy enough. Most of the ones
I have seen tend to concentrate on divination, Ed's opinion
notwithstanding.
>
>> People seem to be
>> in search of days/times to do something
>
>This is possible to some extent but does not replace proper research and
>effort with the subject under consideration. If you are say, buying
>stocks, astrology would be the last application after your primary
>research through traditional methods was complete-THEN we may be able to
>assist in purchase time selection etc.
Pete Stapleton may disagree here. So would I, but for entirely
different reasons. I would not consult an astrologer to help me with
the purchase of stocks any more than I would consult a chef
on a critical health issue. Come to think of it, I would not consult
an astrologer under any circumstances.
snip
>>or whether they should become involved in a relationship.
>
>There are no "shoulds" only recommendations with regard to relationship
>needs etc.
>
>> This seems to indicate a reliance on astrology to predict possible out-
>> comes, if not the future.
>
>Well, I just explained astrology is not to be used that way so your
>point is moot. Let's say I was the best "predictor" in the world,
>wouldn't logic dictate that CHANGING the predictions or life events
>would be the primary goal-not predicting them?
Why? What if the event was a benefit to the commonweal? Why
should the event be changed?
>Of course.
Oops! Sorry, Ed. You're guilty of assuming the conclusion. A common
tactic among salespeople, but not allowed in logical discourse. Go
back two squares.
snip
>"Definitions" post I already answered all these typical delusions with regard to what the public
>BELIEVES astrology is.
And what a lot of people who call themselves astrologers believe
astrology is. You may assign your own definitions, as you said
you have, but they don't seem to be universally held by those in
your own profession.
>
>> If astrology had no association with divina-
>> tion, I dare say it would not enjoy the popular interest it claims.
>
>I dare say, it is a tool for psychological insight and you don't know
>what true astrology, is and are insisting I answer falllacious begging
>the question questions.
True astrology by whose definition? Nice job of sidestepping.
snip
>
>> So those who sincerely ask for such advice are asking in vain because
>> they are assuming a singular, particular future?
>
>Persons don't "ask me for advice" I am not a fortune teller.
Perhaps not, but they do ask. They ask because astrologers, publishers
of popular astrology magazines, and even text books on the subject
encourage that belief. You may not be guilty, but others in your
profession are.
>I am a
>counselor. In my Saturn opposed Saturn article I outlined how a females
>rape by a stepfather was pinpointed, explored, and discussed in
>abbreviated format using astrology. Again, your question is irrelevent
>based on your own bias and preconcieved notions of what you BELIEVE
>astrology to be rather than investigating to see WHAT it is. Have you
>read any Noel Tyl psychological astrology?
Was that on your reading list in the first exchange?
snip
>
>> But if I am interviewed for an engineering position, I can expect to be
>> asked questions that will serve to demonstrate my knowledge and abili-
>> ties for that discipline.
>
>So you are interviewing me for an astrology position? I would suggest
>you are not, nor would you be qualified to do so-so again your question
>is fallacious.
Another nice sidestep. Mr. Huntley is asking you to establish your
bonafides. This is a rational request. Especially if he is to trust
your information. You have established yourself as the teacher.
It is reasonable, therefore, for Mr. Huntley to find out if what you
know is valuable, and true.
That's sidestep #3. Ed, are you a Cancer, or just good at sidestepping
dodging, and pettifoggery?
>
>> If I can't demonstrate the abilities to the
>> interviewer's satisfaction, or - worse yet - explain that I certainly
>> possess those abilities, but any attempt to test me for them will fail,
>> I can expect to be denied employment by that firm, regardless of how
>> impressive my resume might be. The testability of claims is important
>> to all science. Why is astrology excluded from this?
>
>That was the longest slippery slope argument I have seen in some time.
>In case you forgot;
>"The fallacy of slippery slope reasoning is a variety of false cause
>fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an
>alleged chain reaction and their is not sufficient reason to think that
>the chain reaction will actually take place." page 134, Logic, Hurley
>1991.
Quoting Hurley isn't going to get you off the hook, Ed. You didn't
answer the question. If you didn't understand it, let me repeat it:
Why is astrology excluded from the testability of the claims made for
it?
snp
>
>> >> Let's assume at this point that we are writing a definition suitable
>> >> for a decent dictionary. [...]
>
>> > I have completely defined astrology and its best use in a post
>> entitled
>> > "Astrological Definitions" I am not going to repeat it-this is one of
>> > the reasons I am weary of this, you arguers argue but do not review my
>> > previous explanations and then get cross with me because you can't
>> > follow.
>
But Ed, it is the teacher's duty to repeat material. I've read your
posts. Some of it makes sense if I abandon logic, but you
obfuscate by using psychobabble jargon. It's as though you
don't particularly want people to be able to understand what
you've written, and then when they can't, you label them as stupid
for not having got it.
>> I am not arguing and have not gotten "cross." Until I deserve it,
>> please leave me off the list of those you have reserved for your
>> "special" punishment.
>
>This is pure defensiveness-it has nothing to do with punsihment it has
>to do with simple logic-you don't review the literature or subject at
>hand-you remain lost. You don't study, you don't know. Now this post has
>been long in coming and it appears you still have not reviewed any
>literature suggested. If I were to assert a postulate in psychology
>journals without referring to current litetrature and studies already
>done, my assertions would be silly-especially if someone had just proven
>what I thought was a revelation etc. You are EARNING the title of cynic.
>Review and ask intelligent questions-otherwise this is my last post.
In essence, you don't want to have to explain anything. You just post,
and we'd by God better be able to follow along, or you'll just leave
us behind, and call us names for not being able to make any sense your
pettifoogery. This is not the way to favorably influence your intended
audience. The "smarter than thou" attitude might just put a few people
off.
>
>> > Read my article entitled "Saturn opposition Saturn; Veiw to
>> > Reality" it is a pretty fair representation of what goes on in my
>> > consulting and how I apply astrology and psychology.
>
>> I will find it and read it.
>
>Takes about 3 seconds on a fast computer.
Unnecessarily combative. IMNSHO
>
snip
>
>> There's a lot of multiplexing and demultiplexing going on in that para-
>> graph. First, an infinite number of levels become all one thing/God.
>> Monotheism, right? Then several paradigms may be used to view the one
>> thing. Pantheism may well be one method of viewing it, but why is it
>> tacked onto the end of the paragraph? What's the significance?
>
>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
Only so long as you are allowed to define the enclosed terms to suit
your own paradigm. You will, of course, not find it beyond or beneath
you to explain your last sentence above. As to your larger question:
no. Let me try to explain. In your grand "everything is one" picture,
you leave out the individual. According to what I have been able to
glean from this and other ramblings of yours, the individual must make
his/her own reality. Are you leaving out shared experience, free will,
karma, and synergy? It would seem so. You also seem to be leaving
out people who suffer from mental illness. They may well be creating
their own realities, but often, their realities clash with the
"realities" of the portion of society not diagnosed with mental
illness. Is it your contention that all realities are equally valid?
If so, then how do we justify isolating those with mental illness,
even though they might pose a danger to themselves and others,
or people who are guilty of committing violent crimes?
>
>> >> We hadn't mentioned a single paradigm up to this point (other
>> >> than our definition - which we are still working on); now we are
>> >> strapped with a potpourri of all possible paradigms? Or perhaps you
>> >> mean to restrict the discussion to just those paradigms used in
>> (for?)
>> >> astrology. Please be clear - and patient - this is an education
>> >> process.
>
>> > Again reviewing my posts if you are truly interested in learning would
>> > be a good "literature" review as any good scientist (myself included)
>> > knows is essential -correct? I am not responsible for your efforts and
>> > will be patient up to the point I discern disingenuousness as revealed
>> > BY this lack of review on your part-ok?
Ed,this looks like an attempt to duck the questions, again. If you do
not want to be forthcoming, just say so. In order to ask you
questions, it should not be incumbent on anyone to achieve a
graduate student level of understanding just to find out what the
hell you're talking about.
>
>> As a matter of fact - NOT ok. I have a job and a life. You are the
>> expert and I am the neophyte.
>
>So I don't have a job and a life and should aquiecse to you because you
>don't have enough intention and don't make enough effort to learn the
>subject and spend my valuable time to educate you while you make no
>effort at review?
Here we are. The beginning of the rationale. "Why Ed should not
honestly answer the question."
>
>> I expect you to be able to summarize the
>> essentials.
>
>I have at least 8000 posts that do this. Why must I rewrite them all for
>you?
It is a reasonable expectation. Any teacher should have a firm enough
grasp to write a one or two paragraph abstract outlining what they are
trying to get across. It is required for scientific publication, and
would be required for astrology, if astrology were a real science.
>
>> I have said that I will locate your articles and read them,
>> but that is going to slow this discussion down measurably.
>
>Irrelevent, its going to stop. I am not here to give you astrology on a
>silver platter. Action speaks louder than words and your actions
>indicate you are only interested if you can find loopholes or attempt to
>in the subject at hand while you don't even research the material
>ALREADY provided by me the teacher.
>Sorry you get an F.
In other words, Ed is pulling out before the really tough questions
start. It is a typical tactic. Ed's track record at answering
questions is abominable. People on this and other ngs have
repeatedly asked him the same questions, and Ed, has blown them off,
or, if they persisted, treated them to a barrage of invective, but he
never answered the questions.
snip
>
>> > I have already given a starting point-the ball is in your court so to
>> > speak-to get YOU up to speed, I am already there.
>
>> This is totally unnecessary horn-blowing. I have already bowed to your
>> expertise.
>
>I am not asking for bowing I am asking for you to review so I don't have
>to answer questions I already have. I have been doing this for 20 years
>don't you think I have heard just about every argument for why I can't
>do what I do successfully already?
Why of course you have, Ed. You just haven't bothered to answer the
questions, that's all.
>
>> You need not reinforce your position; I was of the opinion
>> that our roles had been pretty firmly established as you: teacher, me:
>> student.
>
>Yes, at the university I attend that means "here's the book, here's the
>research lab, here's the library see you next class, have your material
>ready and your work done.
What? A unviersity with no lecture classes? The higher education
system in the California schools has changed radically.
>
>> > Astrology is a tool to enhance ones understanding of themselves.
>
>> Okay! Here's the definition we'll use for our discussion. Allow me to
>> observe that it seems to differ from the applied definition most folks
>> in a.a, believers and skeptics alike, assume.
>
>Yes. But I have stated it thus for 2 years, not a revelation here. And
>is in the posts I asked you review.
O. K., Ed, but it is still _your_ definition. Is yours the only
definition that is accpetable to the entire community of astrologers?
Please explain why this is so. Or, if it isn't, then please explain
why you believe your definition to be the only operant one
in spite of the differences of opinion of your colleagues.
snip
snip
>
>> >> [...] but I will advise you that the attitude
>> >> your statement exemplifies is one source of the friction between you
>> >> and others in the groups. "I refuse to even discuss this with you
>> >> because you are obviously so ignorant" is hardly endearing.
>
>> > Nor is attacking a professional in a field with 20 years experience
>> > as a "fraud, liar, kook, or scam artist trying to rip the public off".
AFAIK these attacks come after, and only after you savage someone
who is trying to engage you in an honest and open debate. When
confronted with a question you either don't feel like answering, or
you can't answer, you become abusive.
Ed, I can go to dejanews and back this up if required. You know it,
and so does everybody else who's been on this ng for more than a
couple of years. It is the truth. You know it, I know it, and so do
the rest of this particular community. You have been repeatedly
called out. You have had your errors in logic pointed out to you.
You have been asked for references to back up some of your claims,
and in all the above cases, you have simply refused to acknowledge
that you might have made a mistake. Further, rather than confront
the people with whom you disagree, or admit a mistake you go behind
their backs to their ISPs and complain.
What have all these tactics gotten you? I'll let the question answer
itself.
snip
>> In the threads that I've read (not including responses to allegedly
>> "sincere" individuals or your posted treatises), you come across as a
>> very impatient, irascible, extremely hot-tempered person who will broach
>> no discussion that does not evidence slavish adherence to your stated
>> premises. This is not a criticism, just my observation. (A couple of
>> years ago you could have viewed me doing pretty much the same thing in
>> one of the guitar-related groups during a discussion about "Pure Silver
>> Wire.")
>
>Irrelevent.
>I can see you have stayed on the evidence of your lack of astrological
>expertise very well here.:-)
>
>> Hence, one of the truisms of the Internet: You are branded with the
>> persona you project. Usually forever.
>
>You are branded by those with no life by them spinning you as what they
>wish if presented long enough-because those of us WITH a real life do
>not have the inclination, time or necessity to spend all day reversing
>it. Its called propagandic spin doctoring, it is done all the time
>everyday with any subject or person controversial or threatening enough
>intellectually to warrant it. It is a political and emotive
>argumentation style that is fallacious.
The essence of pure defensiveness.
snip
>
>> Me too. And I haven't been called a "kook" (to my face) in 25 years.
>
>I have never been called anything close (to my face) only here on usenet
>by those intellectually insecure and unable to argue logically.
>
>> "Abrasive" probably, and worse besides. But argument is a skill that's
>> only acquired with practice. I've found that when I calmly present a
>> logical analysis (relevant facts and defensible thesis development) that
>> supports my premise, I can at least get people to consider it - and
>> some-
>> times even persuade them to "see it my way." Approaches of the "I'm the
>> FUCKING EXPERT here; you are an annoying IGNORANT DISSENTING POLTROON,
>> and I will not listen to you..." sort have been spectacularly
>> unsuccessful.
>
>Good thing I learned that long ago and don't do that with those truly
>interested.
>
>> >> I've certainly learned nothing from watching these combative threads
>> >> over the past few months
>
>> > One can learn something from ANYTHING.
>
>> I've learned nothing about ASTROLOGY.
>
>That is your choice.
Sorry, Ed, but that is _your failure_ more than anyone's
choice. Do I have to repost your threats of physical
violence, your scatalogical references to people, your
personal and abusive comments to people who have the
temerity to disagree with you? That's all been posted here before.
Like you, I'm tired of having to dredge up this stuff, and repost it
when it has already been given far too much exposure, IMHO.
snip of Ed defining ad hominem attacks.
>
>> > I don't in my opinion rant incoherently. Perhaps you don't understand
>> > my point but that does NOT make it incoherent ranting.
>
>> It sort of transcends "understanding" your point.
>
>I see. Who is responsible for perceptions of me?
>
>> >> This is all documented
>> >> and has been displayed more than once by more than one reader. The
>> >> aggregate idiocy has gone on far longer than is even reasonable (this
>> >> last statement is indeed an opinion, possibly biased.)
>
>> > All has been your opinion at this point.
>
>> Carefully considered and widely shared, I suspect.
>
>"One must not mistake majority for the truth." Einstein
What an arrogant response. I can count your supporters
in sci.skeptic on the fingers of one hand. Yet you try to claim
the moral high ground here.
Tello me Ed, who is responsible for your getting repeatedly bounced
from your ISPs? Sherilyn? Me? Twitch? No, Ed. It was your actions,
and your actions alone. Stop ducking responsibility for the lousy hand
life dealt you, and own your life.
In a word, "Yes." Psychologists go through years of training, and at
the end of their schooling, they are judged by their peers, and
given a diploma by their universities, and a license by a state
appointed board, and then their behavior is subject to monitoring
and review.
The same goes for attornies, and doctors. Ed, who sits on the
certification board for professional astrologers in the state of
California? What are the educational requirements for a person
who wishes to become a professional astrologer? Which universities
offer degrees in astrology?
>This would waste a lot of the psychologists time-same for attorneys, doctors etc.
>And when we are not sure of the qualifications of the person at hand we
>look at what they have done in their work-
Or on their walls to see where they graduated from, what professional
organizations they belong to, what licenses they hold, in short, what
are their bonafides?
Ed, what are you bonafides?
>so either way you have yours
>cut out for you.
>Thanks
>SNIP!
Larry, I believe Ed has just resigned from hus teaching position.
John Hutchins
I never hold a grudge. As soon as I get even with the
SOB, I forget all about it.
...W. C. Fields
Darrell Plank
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>
>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>
Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia to
determine the same sort of results available from astrology? Or any other
particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you eventually
draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's back
really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"? If
so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere else?
If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as the
one between the stars and our lives?
Just interested.
John & Susan Hutchins
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>
snip
>
>Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
>
>I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
>validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia to
>determine the same sort of results available from astrology? Or any other
>particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you eventually
>draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's back
>really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"? If
>so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere else?
>If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as the
>one between the stars and our lives?
>
>Just interested.
>
>
Good question. Much better than the response I gave.
Darrell Plank
I assume that since noone responded, you all find this argument
indefensible? If not, then I'm very serious when I say that I'd be
interested in having a flame free discussion with someone who thinks
otherwise. I'm not trying to lambast astrology as a whole here (although I
must admit, I don't in fact believe) - just questioning this single
argument. Thanks!
Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>>
>>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>>
>
Paul Rumelhart
Darrell Plank wrote in message <6a1556$dvu$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
<polite request for a response snipped for space>
>Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>
>>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>>>
>>>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>>>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>>>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>>>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>>>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>>>
>>
>>Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
>>
>>I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
>>validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia
to
>>determine the same sort of results available from astrology? Or any other
>>particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
>eventually
>>draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's back
>>really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"?
>If
>>so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere
else?
>>If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as
the
>>one between the stars and our lives?
>>
>>Just interested.
>>
It sort of depends on what your "religious" views are, or what world model
you are using. If you believe in the "as above, so below" model, then
anything (even the number of lice on an elephant's back) can be used to help
discern a person's nature. In fact, many witches I know scry the formations
of clouds, wax droplets on water, stones thrown on a mat, or even random
words from a book or darts thrown on a dartboard. Unfortunately, it's not
very testable. It might even be that the point is not the actual "reality"
involved in the process, just the excuse to look at the situation from a
different perspective.
An argument for using astrology over elephant lice might be that the stars
are easily viewable from all over the globe. They might be arguably more
important because people in ancient times have been awed by their mystery
and have given them much importance in their everyday lives, the Sun and
moon in particular.
There is also another viewpoint that is from the "reality creation" types.
They believe that we are all actors in a play, that all time is
simultaneous, and that this is just the "All-That-Is" manifesting itself in
every way possible. In this view, nothing is done without a reason. A
person can choose to be born when the planets or the lice are in
configurations suitable for the role they wish to play.
FWIW, I'm skeptical of astrology myself. I am open to the possibility that
it might work, though.
Paul Rumelhart
Darrell Plank
Thanks for your gracious reply. I knew it could happen - even here on
sci.skeptic!
See below...
Paul Rumelhart wrote in message <6a2rkm$8n6$1...@news.fsr.net>...
>
>Darrell Plank wrote in message <6a1556$dvu$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>
><polite request for a response snipped for space>
>
>>Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>>>
>>>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>>>>
>>>>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>>>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>>>>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>>>>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>>>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>>>>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>>>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>>>>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>>>>
>>>
Certainly anybody can hold whatever religious views they wish and I wouldn't
be surprised at all if there aren't African tribes who make a study of lice
on elephants' backs to divine the future. I really can't (and don't care
to) argue someone out of their religious convictions no matter how I may
view them. In that case, this could be considered a religious view which is
fine by me, but I don't think it represents an argument for "probably
validity" in any sense but a religious one.
>It might even be that the point is not the actual "reality"
>involved in the process, just the excuse to look at the situation from a
>different perspective.
This is certainly one of the more benign aspects of such divination. On the
other hand, it's one of the most easily abused, ala Kenny Kingston's 900
line psychic "advisors" ("for entertainment purposes only" in the fine print
at the bottom). I think there are better ways of breaking mental blocks,
but that's just me.
>
>An argument for using astrology over elephant lice might be that the stars
>are easily viewable from all over the globe. They might be arguably more
>important because people in ancient times have been awed by their mystery
>and have given them much importance in their everyday lives, the Sun and
>moon in particular.
Certainly there are many obvious uses the stars have come to play over the
centuries in navigation, calendars, etc.. That may explain how a religious
belief about them came into being, but as far as the logical implications,
it doesn't seem to hold up. Just because the stars can guide you across the
sea doesn't have any implications about their ability to guide your choice
of occupation. I find the large lake near my home far more important to me
than the stars, but I wouldn't expect it to be a terribly accurate career
counselor :-).
>
>There is also another viewpoint that is from the "reality creation" types.
>They believe that we are all actors in a play, that all time is
>simultaneous, and that this is just the "All-That-Is" manifesting itself in
>every way possible. In this view, nothing is done without a reason. A
>person can choose to be born when the planets or the lice are in
>configurations suitable for the role they wish to play.
>
>FWIW, I'm skeptical of astrology myself. I am open to the possibility that
>it might work, though.
>
>Paul Rumelhart
>
Thanks again for the thought provoking message, Paul. I appreciate it and
will try to bend over backwards to maintain a civil discussion since it's so
easy to degenerate into flames in these newsgroups. I remain open to the
possibility of astrology to the same extent that I remain open to the
possibility of those lice having a deep impact on my life and for the moment
I remain unconvinced that I should be more open to one possibility than the
other, at least based on the above argument.
www.c-zone.net/sidereal/
"Paul Rumelhart" <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
quote"
quote"Darrell Plank wrote in message <6a1556$dvu$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
quote"
quote"
quote"<polite request for a response snipped for space>
quote"
quote">Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
quote">>
quote">>Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
quote">>>
quote">>>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
quote">>>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
quote">>>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
quote">>>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
quote">>>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
quote">>>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
quote">>>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
quote">>>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
quote">>>
quote">>
quote">>Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
quote">>
quote">>I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
quote">>validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia
quote"to
quote">>determine the same sort of results available from astrology? Or any
other
quote">>particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
quote">eventually
quote">>draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's
back
quote">>really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"?
quote">If
quote">>so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere
quote"else?
quote">>If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as
quote"the
quote">>one between the stars and our lives?
quote">>
quote">>Just interested.
quote">>
quote"
quote"It sort of depends on what your "religious" views are, or what world model
quote"you are using. If you believe in the "as above, so below" model, then
quote"anything (even the number of lice on an elephant's back) can be used to
help
quote"discern a person's nature. In fact, many witches I know scry the
formations
quote"of clouds, wax droplets on water, stones thrown on a mat, or even random
quote"words from a book or darts thrown on a dartboard. Unfortunately, it's not
quote"very testable. It might even be that the point is not the actual
"reality"
quote"involved in the process, just the excuse to look at the situation from a
quote"different perspective.
quote"
quote"An argument for using astrology over elephant lice might be that the stars
quote"are easily viewable from all over the globe. They might be arguably more
quote"important because people in ancient times have been awed by their mystery
quote"and have given them much importance in their everyday lives, the Sun and
quote"moon in particular.
quote"
quote"There is also another viewpoint that is from the "reality creation" types.
quote"They believe that we are all actors in a play, that all time is
quote"simultaneous, and that this is just the "All-That-Is" manifesting itself
in
quote"every way possible. In this view, nothing is done without a reason. A
quote"person can choose to be born when the planets or the lice are in
quote"configurations suitable for the role they wish to play.
quote"
quote"FWIW, I'm skeptical of astrology myself. I am open to the possibility
that
quote"it might work, though.
quote"
quote"Paul Rumelhart
Pete comments: so why do you expect someont to take the time to teach
y0ou the truth ? Why don't you find out just how badly yuou have
been brainwashed by doing the work yourself? Over 90% of todays
practicing astrologer started out as skeptics.
Pete
quote"
quote"
quote"
quote"
Edmond Wollmann
Darrell Plank wrote:
> I assume that since noone responded, you all find this argument
> indefensible?
I have been busy and the message expired. I saw a couple of sarcastic ad
hominem abusive attacks as usual at me and ignored the thread.
> If not, then I'm very serious when I say that I'd be
> interested in having a flame free discussion with someone who thinks
> otherwise. I'm not trying to lambast astrology as a whole here (although I
> must admit, I don't in fact believe) - just questioning this single
> argument. Thanks!
> Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
> >Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
> >>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
> >>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
> >>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
> >>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
> >>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
> >>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
> >>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
> >>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
This was primarily an argument for the wholeness of the universe-which
to me is self evident.
> >Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
> >I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
> >validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia to
> >determine the same sort of results available from astrology?
Do the lice contain the Elephant or the Elephant contain the lice?
> Or any other
> >particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
> eventually
> >draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's back
> >really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"?
Nor does ick (a fish disease) on one fish have much to do with another,
but the water they both SWIM IN does. One encompasses both of them and
one does not.
> If
> >so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere else?
Since I find your analogy irrelevent, to me you are pursuing a slippery
slope fallacy now.
> >If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as the
> >one between the stars and our lives?
I am sure the lice are to a great degree the effect of the surroundings
and intake connected to the Elephant. That they would have anything to
do with my life would be a stretch-since I am "in" the "womb" of the
Earth-a planet in this solar system from which I "read" the geometric
configurations of planets in order to understand the psyche of humans
born within that structure, I think there is a little more relevence
than the lice would have to me-however, I would not rule out the
possibility that some astute intiutive may be capable of using the lice
as a tool to access some of the self knowledge or insight into the
psyche that many do when using other tools and perhaps be able to some
degree to use them in that way.
The difference here between the cynical mind and the skeptical is that I
have used it and know it works, I don't know anymore than you HOW it
works mechanistically. That doesn't stop me from using it or knowing it
works. The cynical mind needs to know HOW it mechanistically works (or
at least asserts this) and then will allow themselves to "believe" that
it is indeed working.
Carl Sagan noted this point at least;
"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
statement,
not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but
because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is
authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of
astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for
chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss
the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to
me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of
no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism
was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by
Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who
objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
> >Just interested.
I cannot answer mechanistically WHY astrology works, I can only attest
to the fact that after using it successfully for many years that it
indeed does. It takes very skilled and learned application though and is
not something anyone can just do. This makes it even more difficult to
convince others with analogies etc. Usually the "proof" is decidedly
from me nailing something about them or events that perhaps have
occurred or predicting certain things that turns the tide of their
doubt. I think perhaps the only way astrology can be tested empirically
is to test the competant astrologer, not aspects of astrology since we
are never dealing with the same chart or circumstances that we can
repeat to any measurable and controlled degree necessary for
replication.
Science we must remember is not necessarily "truth."
Thanks
--
"Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an
accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a
house." Henri Poincare
Darrell Plank
As usual I'll follow my practice of thanking Edward for a polite response.
They're so rare in this newsgroup that I think it's worth pointing out when
they come across.
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34C5C2...@nospam.edu>...
>Darrell Plank wrote:
>
>> I assume that since noone responded, you all find this argument
>> indefensible?
>
>I have been busy and the message expired. I saw a couple of sarcastic ad
>hominem abusive attacks as usual at me and ignored the thread.
>
>> If not, then I'm very serious when I say that I'd be
>> interested in having a flame free discussion with someone who thinks
>> otherwise. I'm not trying to lambast astrology as a whole here (although
I
>> must admit, I don't in fact believe) - just questioning this single
>> argument. Thanks!
>
>> Darrell Plank wrote in message <69p69m$jgp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
>> >Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <34BE35...@nospam.edu>...
>
>> >>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>> >>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>> >>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>> >>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>> >>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>> >>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>> >>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>> >>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>
>This was primarily an argument for the wholeness of the universe-which
>to me is self evident.
I guess I haven't quite figured out the definition of "wholeness" here.
Does this mean that the universe can be thought of as one entity? In that
case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards the
validation of astrology seems non-evident.
Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought of that
way or not? Since "entity" is pretty much a perceptual term (it's easy for
me to think of a school of fish as a single entity but not an eraser, the
state of Russia and Mickey Mouse as one entity - this has more to do with
the way I mentally group things than anything in the real world), I'm not
sure how this differs from the first definition.
Does it mean that all things affect all other things? This seems to lend
some credence to astrology so I assume that this was your definition. It
certainly seems less evident and in terms of space-time events, science
claims is totally false (i.e., two events happening simultaneously 3 light
years apart can't affect each other because it will take three years for the
information from one to affect the other). You may disagree with science,
but I think it's hard to argue that everyone should immediately accept this
proposition as self evident
>
>> >Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
>
>> >I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
>> >validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia
to
>> >determine the same sort of results available from astrology?
>
>Do the lice contain the Elephant or the Elephant contain the lice?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems a slight departure from the
statement that "it's all one thing in the end". Perhaps I'm reading that
incorrectly, but I took it to mean that all things affect all other things.
This latest statement seems to imply some sort of "containment" relation
such that if A contains B then A affects B but B doesn't affect A. I'd need
to understand this relationship a lot better to answer your question, but it
would certainly seem to me that it would be difficult to establish any such
relationship between myself and the position of Mars at my birth so this
would seem to lessen the argument's validity to astrology.
>
>> Or any other
>> >particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
>> eventually
>> >draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's
back
>> >really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"?
>
>Nor does ick (a fish disease) on one fish have much to do with another,
>but the water they both SWIM IN does. One encompasses both of them and
>one does not.
Again, this seems to imply the "contains" relation which is still a little
fuzzy in my mind and which I have a difficult time relating to astrology.
>
>> If
>> >so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere
else?
>
>Since I find your analogy irrelevent, to me you are pursuing a slippery
>slope fallacy now.
I think the analogy is irrelevant only if you impose this "contains"
relationship but I believe that the "contains" relationship makes the
argument irrelevant for astrology as well.
>
>> >If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as
the
>> >one between the stars and our lives?
>
>I am sure the lice are to a great degree the effect of the surroundings
>and intake connected to the Elephant. That they would have anything to
>do with my life would be a stretch-since I am "in" the "womb" of the
>Earth-a planet in this solar system from which I "read" the geometric
>configurations of planets in order to understand the psyche of humans
>born within that structure, I think there is a little more relevence
>than the lice would have to me-however, I would not rule out the
>possibility that some astute intiutive may be capable of using the lice
>as a tool to access some of the self knowledge or insight into the
>psyche that many do when using other tools and perhaps be able to some
>degree to use them in that way.
I suspect that somewhere there are people drawing conclusions from lice. I
agree that we were born in the earth's environment and that this environment
has definite influences on our lives. In that sense, the containment
relation makes sense. Since the earth turns on it's axis we have day and
night which profoundly affect the way people live whereas people can't
really change that situation appreciably. I think that extending this
analogy to claim that I am in the "womb" of the positions of constellations
thousands of light years away at the instant of my birth is far from a self
evident extension.
>The difference here between the cynical mind and the skeptical is that I
>have used it and know it works, I don't know anymore than you HOW it
>works mechanistically. That doesn't stop me from using it or knowing it
>works. The cynical mind needs to know HOW it mechanistically works (or
>at least asserts this) and then will allow themselves to "believe" that
>it is indeed working.
I don't know that I would agree on this distinction - at least not as the
popular definitions of "cynical" and "skeptical" go. I'm also sure that
many of the "skeptical" minds you refer to accept many, many things without
knowing how they work. I love blueberry waffles. Dunno why. Just do. I'd
be kind of interested in knowing the mechanistic reasons for this, but I'm
not waiting for them to pour in before I treat myself to another round. On
the other hand, without knowing a little bit about "how" an advertised "time
machine" works, you might hesitate to invest a lot of time and/or energy in
it. This is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Each of us
has our different tolerances for how much we wish to know about something
before we devote resources to it. I don't think it's necessarily wrong of
either of us to lie on different points of that spectrum.
In any event, as I understood it, you were offering the above argument as a
reason for how astrology works. Indeed, not only a reason but as a reason
for it's probable validity, so it would seem that you have some interest
and/or thoughts on the mechanisms of astrology.
>Carl Sagan noted this point at least;
>"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
>statement,
>not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but
>because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is
>authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of
>astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for
>chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss
>the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to
>me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of
>no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism
>was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by
>Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who
>objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
>Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
>impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
It sounds like Sagan is objecting to blanket authoritarian statements. I
don't find any contradiction between this and his simultaneously endorsing
the right of people to understand and accept some of the mechanics of
something before they accept it fully. Since I'm interested mainly in that
argument, I'm certainly not going to try to argue you out of whatever
success you find in astrology. If you feel that you've attained success,
good for you.
>
>> >Just interested.
>
>I cannot answer mechanistically WHY astrology works, I can only attest
>to the fact that after using it successfully for many years that it
>indeed does. It takes very skilled and learned application though and is
>not something anyone can just do. This makes it even more difficult to
>convince others with analogies etc. Usually the "proof" is decidedly
>from me nailing something about them or events that perhaps have
>occurred or predicting certain things that turns the tide of their
>doubt. I think perhaps the only way astrology can be tested empirically
>is to test the competant astrologer, not aspects of astrology since we
>are never dealing with the same chart or circumstances that we can
>repeat to any measurable and controlled degree necessary for
>replication.
Again, I'm glad you're finding success in your chosen profession. My main
interest here, however, lies in the argument for the probable validity of
astrology.
>Science we must remember is not necessarily "truth."
>Thanks
On the whole I believe that science does represent the truth. There are
definitely places where it is mistaken in it's current views but it's had a
pretty spectacular record of successes thus far. Even when it's wrong it's
usually close to correct (i.e., Newtonian vs. relativistic physics). Could
it be wrong about astrology? Yes. I, personally, don't believe it is but
you are certainly welcome to your own opinion in this matter.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
Paul Rumelhart
Darrell Plank wrote in message <6a3m1v$mp4$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
<snip>
>Thanks again for the thought provoking message, Paul. I appreciate it and
>will try to bend over backwards to maintain a civil discussion since it's
so
>easy to degenerate into flames in these newsgroups. I remain open to the
>possibility of astrology to the same extent that I remain open to the
>possibility of those lice having a deep impact on my life and for the
moment
>I remain unconvinced that I should be more open to one possibility than the
>other, at least based on the above argument.
No problem. Unfortunately, it's the only one I have. We both know that
there is no known scientific mechanism that could explain either astrology
or lice-ology. The only argument I have is that this does not preclude the
fact that there _might_ be a mechanism for astrology, just as yet
undiscovered. However, I have heard testimonials from individuals I
generally trust that boast how well astrology works. Granted that it has
not been shown in the studies that have been run (except possibly for the
Mars Effect). Astrology covers so many bases that there might be
correlations between the stars and certain personality traits that have not
yet been tested. Astrology could be correct in a percentage of it's
interpretations and incorrect in others. This is why I feel it needs more
study.
Is the study of elephant lice any more or less valid than astrology? I
don't know. There is no known mechanism in either case. Each one seems as
improbable as the other based on our current scientific knowledge. There is
a history of people who have come to believe that astrology works through
experience, but this doesn't mean that it works, or that the study of
elephant lice isn't as valid. So I guess my answer is that they are equally
probable and equally valid. I choose look into the validity of astrology
because of it's history and a semi-religious belief that if anything were to
take an important role in our lives that it would be the stars which are
easily viewed around the world and not the specific lice on a specific
elephant's back.
Thanks again for the conversation.
Paul Rumelhart
Bill Keesing
Paul Rumelhart wrote in message <6a2rkm$8n6$1...@news.fsr.net>...
>An argument for using astrology over elephant lice might be that the stars
>are easily viewable from all over the globe. They might be arguably more
>important because people in ancient times have been awed by their mystery
>and have given them much importance in their everyday lives, the Sun and
>moon in particular.
Nah, I suspects it's just a pathological fear of being turned into a large
patch of wet dirt :-)
Bill Keesing
Usual disclaimers blah personal opinions blah blah
See Web Page for PGP key.
Greg Lynn
In article <34C5C2...@nospam.edu>, woll...@nospam.edu says...
>
>
>
>The difference here between the cynical mind and the skeptical is that
>I
>have used it and know it works, I don't know anymore than you HOW it
>works mechanistically.
Huh? Your posts in the past have discussed liberally how astrology
works-reflection, electromagnetic vibrations, 'living light',
holograms, etc.
>That doesn't stop me from using it or knowing it
>works. The cynical mind needs to know HOW it mechanistically works
So its predictions can be explained without the phenomona being
distorted or fabricated by those who have vested interests at stake.
>(or
>at least asserts this) and then will allow themselves to "believe"
>that
>it is indeed working.
Thus the need for experiments to remove personal bias.
>Carl Sagan noted this point at least;
>"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
>statement,
>not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but
>because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is
>authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of
>astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for
>chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss
>the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems
to
>me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of
>no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism
>was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by
>Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who
>objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
>Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
>impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
Quite the opposite-scientists-including psychologists, know that
critical thinking needs to be applied to any claim. This does not act
as an agent of narrow mindness-usually itself a result of ignorance and
stupidity-it is a guard against those who forward specious claims
without evidence.
>> >Just interested.
>
>I cannot answer mechanistically WHY astrology works, I can only attest
>to the fact that after using it successfully for many years that it
>indeed does.
Then show your results! Which predictions were correct?
>It takes very skilled and learned application though and is
>not something anyone can just do. This makes it even more difficult to
>convince others with analogies etc. Usually the "proof" is decidedly
>from me nailing something about them or events that perhaps have
>occurred or predicting certain things that turns the tide of their
>doubt. I think perhaps the only way astrology can be tested
>empirically
>is to test the competant astrologer,
Then why not carry this out? I am sure you can be tested-an experiment
can be drafted,and repeated, and then the results can be analysed.
>not aspects of astrology since we
>are never dealing with the same chart or circumstances that we can
>repeat to any measurable and controlled degree necessary for
>replication.
>Science we must remember is not necessarily "truth."
And astrology is not neccessarily proven.
>Thanks
At least you are improving.
-Greg
Edmond Wollmann
Darrell Plank wrote:
> As usual I'll follow my practice of thanking Edward for a polite response.
> They're so rare in this newsgroup that I think it's worth pointing out when
> they come across.
Ok thank you for your politeness as well.
Unbroken wholeness-all one thing-manifesting in all the ways it can
within that wholeness. Where's the confusion?
> Does this mean that the universe can be thought of as one entity?
Not only can it be "thought of" as that it is that.
> In that
> case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards the
> validation of astrology seems non-evident.
The ocean being all one thing then has no effect on or relevence to the
fish it spawns? Even the astronomer is aware of the fact that we are
from "star stuff"-hbasic elements etc. No big giant difference from life
here as opposed to light years away in my opinion. Simply differeing
locals and there is most likely a billion earthlike planets with evolved
life on them-simple stats.
> Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought of that
> way or not?
Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level or we could
not concieve it that way to begin with.
"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
Einstein
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
> Since "entity" is pretty much a perceptual term (it's easy for
> me to think of a school of fish as a single entity but not an eraser, the
> state of Russia and Mickey Mouse as one entity
This is because of judgments that they cannot be connected or "fit"-are
they not all on this planet? Are they all not possesing "names" we have
created for them? Are they not all constructs? Are they not....
Simply because the distance of their connectivity in terms of concept
increases, this is not necessarily indicative of their
dis-connectedness. Only perhaps a value judgment on the DISTANCE between
their connectedness.
> - this has more to do with
> the way I mentally group things than anything in the real world),
There is very little evidence that their is a "one real world"-their is
a material world I will acknowledge that has laws etc. but as to whether
this is a ONE REAL WORLD is highly debated.
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
shaped by the senses of man."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any
substance without the mind....So long as they are not actually percieved
by me, or do not exist in my mind, or that of any other created spirit,
they must either have no existance at all, or else subsist in the mind
of some eternal spirit." Berkeley
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so
an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark it."
Lincoln Barnett
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid
down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one encounters
in
later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident" concepts."
Albert Einstein
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
"The physicist has no need of the flow of time or the now in the world
of
physics. Indeed the theory of relativity rules out a universal present
for all observers. If there is any meaning at all to these concepts (and
many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that there is) then it would
seem to belong to psychology rather than physics." Paul Davies on Time
"The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world
and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate." Werner
Heisenberg
Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
way things are or must be. That assumption is the very thing that Amit
Goswami, with the assistance of Richard E. Reed and Maggie Gos-
wami, brings into question in the book you are about to read. For this
assumption, like its cloudy predecessors of the century before, seems
to
be signaling not only the end of a century but the end of science as we
know it. That assumption is that there exists, "out there," a real,
objec-
tive reality.
This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through
time expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the
microworld, such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet
the clouds still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the
objective world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into
matter, and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our
rational
minds working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
But we physicists are a stubborn lot, and we fear the proverbial toss
of
the baby out with che bathwater. We still lather and shave our faces
watching carefully as we use Occam's razor to make sure that we cut
away all superfluous "hairy assumptions." What are these clouds that
obscure the end of the twentieth century's abstract art form? They boil
down to one sentence:
The universe does not seem to exist without a
perceiver of that universe.
Well, at some level this certainly makes sense. Even the word "uni-
verse" is a human construct. So it would make some kind of sense that
what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
human beings. But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
there a universe? It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around? Again, logic
dictates that the laws of nature, forces and causes, etc., even though
we
didn't know about such things as atoms and subatomic particles, cer
tainly had to exist.
But it is just these assumptions about objective reality that have been
called into question by our present understanding of physics. Take, for
example, a simple particle, the electron. Is it a little speck of
matter? It
turns out that to assume that it is such, consistently behaving itself
as
such, is clearly wrong. For at times it appears to be a cloud made up
of
an infinite number of possible electrons that "appear" as a single
particle when and only when we observe one. Furthermore, when it is
not a single particle it appears to be an undulating wavelike cloud
that
is capable of moving at speeds in excess of light speed, totally
contra-
dicting the Einstein concern that nothing material can move faster
than light. But Einstein's worry is assuaged, for when it moves this
way
it is not actually a piece of matter
Take as another example the interaction between two electrons. Ac-
cording to quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
communication to move faster than light. Yet before those observations,
before a conscious observer made up his or her mind, even the form of
the connection was totally indeterminate. And as a third example, a
quantum system such as an electron in a bound physical state appears
to be in an indeterminate state, and yet the indeterminacy can be
analyzed into component certainties that somehow add to the original
uncertainty. Then along comes an observer who, like some gigantic
Alexander chopping the Gordian knot, resolves the uncertainty into a
single, definite but unpredictable state simply by observing the elec-
tron.
Not only that, the blow of the sword could come in the future
determining what state the electron is in now. For we have now even the
possibility that observations in the present legitimately determine
what
we can say was the past.
Thus we have come to the end of a road once again. There is too
much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
the objective world-one that is running forward in time like a clock,
one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action
at a
distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
more
places at the same time-is an illusion of our thinking.
Amit Goswami Ph.D. (Physics) "Self Aware Universe"
The most commonly debated issue, whether abductions are really
taking place, leads us to the center of questions about perception and
levels of consciousness.
The most glaring question is whether there is
any reality independent of consciousness.
At the level of personal con-
sciousness, can we apprehend reality directly, or are we by necessity
bound by the restrictions of our five senses and the mind that orga-
nizes our worldview? Is there a shared, collective consciousness that
operates beyond our individual consciousness? If there is a collective
consciousness, how is it influenced, and what determines its content?
Is UFO abduction a product of this shared consciousness? If, as in
some cultures, consciousness pervades all elements of the universe,
then what function do events like UFO abductions and various mysti-
cal experiences play in our psyches and in the rest of the cosmos?
John E. Mack M.D. (Psychiatrist-Harvard) "Abductions"
As you can see, I am not the first to argue this point, nor is it novel.
> I'm not
> sure how this differs from the first definition.
> Does it mean that all things affect all other things?
The observer affects the perception of all things to be sure.
> This seems to lend
> some credence to astrology so I assume that this was your definition. It
> certainly seems less evident and in terms of space-time events, science
> claims is totally false (i.e., two events happening simultaneously 3 light
> years apart can't affect each other because it will take three years for the
> information from one to affect the other).
But what about space/time being a 4 dimensional continuum? In this view
there is no cause or effect really, simply all one thing- a tensor field
of some sort all "happening" at once. Time and space are illusions of
focus, when that focus is distorted (as in the hypothesised b event
horizon of a black hole) so is the "cause/effect" scenario.
> You may disagree with science,
I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCIENCE. I do experiments at school-I understand
the validity of the scientific method, I study and practice it- I
understand the need to separate percieved illusion from material world
mechanics, I just do not elevate science above psychic material which is
just as valid however unmeasurable it may be.
> but I think it's hard to argue that everyone should immediately accept this
> proposition as self evident
No one can prove anything to begin with. NOTHING is ever proven. The
null hypothesis is disproven or changes in the null hypothesis are
weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
null hypothesis. We can only measure the truth premise of inductive
logical assertions through confidence intervals and tests of
significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
it is not flat (in relative terms).
People can only prove things to their satisfaction and choose to believe
or not believe based on how the subject serves them. Therefore all is a
matter of belief in the end.
> >> >Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
> >> >I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
> >> >validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in Zambia
> to
> >> >determine the same sort of results available from astrology?
> >Do the lice contain the Elephant or the Elephant contain the lice?
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems a slight departure from the
> statement that "it's all one thing in the end".
All one thing in the end, is not necessarily the same as "all is
affected or reflected equally by all other things in the end".
> Perhaps I'm reading that
> incorrectly, but I took it to mean that all things affect all other things.
> This latest statement seems to imply some sort of "containment" relation
> such that if A contains B then A affects B but B doesn't affect A.
I would say that if A spawns B it is likely (meaning high probabilities)
that B has a stronger probability of reflecting or being affected by A.
This does not discount the fact that C may be distantly connected to A
and B. Or that A1 was the primary creator of A and therefore A and B are
directly connected to A1.
> I'd need
> to understand this relationship a lot better to answer your question, but it
> would certainly seem to me that it would be difficult to establish any such
> relationship between myself and the position of Mars at my birth so this
> would seem to lessen the argument's validity to astrology.
It would seem this way because you believe or are taught to believe that
distance = effect or lesser connectivity because the PHYSICAL world
works this way-but as to whether the physical world is the only "real
world" I have already listed many I am in league with who do not believe
that is as set in stone as may be widely accepted.
> >> Or any other
> >> >particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
> >> eventually
> >> >draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's
> back
> >> >really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an occupation"?
> >Nor does ick (a fish disease) on one fish have much to do with another,
> >but the water they both SWIM IN does. One encompasses both of them and
> >one does not.
> Again, this seems to imply the "contains" relation which is still a little
> fuzzy in my mind and which I have a difficult time relating to astrology.
See my "spawning" definition. Does not the solar system have a direct
relationship to life spawned on Earth? Therefore it is not that big of a
stretch to see that if you removed Mars from the solar system the whole
configuration would change and life may not exist AT ALL on earth-which
would definitely determine the fate of the lice. The fact that this
specific solar system configuration spawned life on earth, it is not a
big leap to recognize that that life would be "imprinted" with
archetypal images of the "format" that was responsible for the
'spawning".
> >> If
> >> >so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere
> else?
> >Since I find your analogy irrelevent, to me you are pursuing a slippery
> >slope fallacy now.
> I think the analogy is irrelevant only if you impose this "contains"
> relationship but I believe that the "contains" relationship makes the
> argument irrelevant for astrology as well.
Then you disagree with logic and Venn diagrams?
> >> >If not, why isn't this new type of connection studied as assiduously as
> the
> >> >one between the stars and our lives?
> >I am sure the lice are to a great degree the effect of the surroundings
> >and intake connected to the Elephant. That they would have anything to
> >do with my life would be a stretch-since I am "in" the "womb" of the
> >Earth-a planet in this solar system from which I "read" the geometric
> >configurations of planets in order to understand the psyche of humans
> >born within that structure, I think there is a little more relevence
> >than the lice would have to me-however, I would not rule out the
> >possibility that some astute intiutive may be capable of using the lice
> >as a tool to access some of the self knowledge or insight into the
> >psyche that many do when using other tools and perhaps be able to some
> >degree to use them in that way.
> I suspect that somewhere there are people drawing conclusions from lice. I
> agree that we were born in the earth's environment and that this environment
> has definite influences on our lives. In that sense, the containment
> relation makes sense. Since the earth turns on it's axis we have day and
> night which profoundly affect the way people live whereas people can't
> really change that situation appreciably. I think that extending this
> analogy to claim that I am in the "womb" of the positions of constellations
The astrology I use has no real relevence to Stars light years away-it
simply defines our relationship to the cosmos through the equinox and
relative positions of the planets within that "division." A "house" is
simply a 30 degree area of space when we divide the ecliptic by 360 by
12-we then call these divisions "Cancer" etc.. That we were able or are
able to assign characterisitics and needs psychologically to this as
well as a configuration of stars is an archetypal reasoning that it may
take some psychological awareness on your part to discern (I am assuming
you have little-but may be wrong, I apologize if so).
> thousands of light years away at the instant of my birth is far from a self
> evident extension.
No more and no less than that science is somehow THE truth.
> >The difference here between the cynical mind and the skeptical is that I
> >have used it and know it works, I don't know anymore than you HOW it
> >works mechanistically. That doesn't stop me from using it or knowing it
> >works. The cynical mind needs to know HOW it mechanistically works (or
> >at least asserts this) and then will allow themselves to "believe" that
> >it is indeed working.
> I don't know that I would agree on this distinction - at least not as the
> popular definitions of "cynical" and "skeptical" go. I'm also sure that
> many of the "skeptical" minds you refer to accept many, many things without
> knowing how they work. I love blueberry waffles. Dunno why. Just do.
Because they taste good to YOU-which is a preference-there see I do know
why-it is not necessarily scientific nor does it need be. :-)
> I'd
> be kind of interested in knowing the mechanistic reasons for this, but I'm
> not waiting for them to pour in before I treat myself to another round. On
> the other hand, without knowing a little bit about "how" an advertised "time
> machine" works, you might hesitate to invest a lot of time and/or energy in
> it.
Well of course but this is because we are taught to believe certain
things are valid and others are not-I was taught astrology by MYSELF
through application etc. and ignored the common "newspaper astrology"
etc. from the simple recognition that that was probably no more a
professional application of it than Ann Landers was of Clinical
Psychology-hence as a SKEPTIC I investigated it to FIND the truth of
it-and found validity rather than discounting. I now am conveying this
to others. They may not find it by any other means than by how I
did-application. I am well aware that people-as I have repeatedly
said-can only prove things to themselves in the end-no one can prove it
TO them.
"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
> This is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Each of us
> has our different tolerances for how much we wish to know about something
> before we devote resources to it.
This is the effect of INTENTION and since I have experienced very
traumatic experiences I may be more than normally preoccupied with the
PURPOSE OF LIVING hence anything that lends insight into this aspect
appeals to my primary intention.
> I don't think it's necessarily wrong of
> either of us to lie on different points of that spectrum.
No it is not-but if you deny an interest in the purpose of your life and
understanding why it may be that you exist here and now and what you may
be able to do to accelarate that-then I will grant you that
disinterest-if however you are a typical normal person who would be
greatly interested in that, astrology coupled with psychology would be
very helpful in that quest as it has been in mine.
> In any event, as I understood it, you were offering the above argument as a
> reason for how astrology works.
For some insight as to how it may begin to be understood that it is not
that far fetched that it can and DOES work.
> Indeed, not only a reason but as a reason
> for it's probable validity, so it would seem that you have some interest
> and/or thoughts on the mechanisms of astrology.
Of course I do, but that inquiry has lead to the likelyhood and evidence
that they are more spiritual and psychological rather than external and
measurable.
> >Carl Sagan noted this point at least;
> >"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
> >statement,
> >not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but
> >because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is
> >authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of
> >astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for
> >chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss
> >the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to
> >me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of
> >no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism
> >was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by
> >Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who
> >objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
> >Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
> >impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
> It sounds like Sagan is objecting to blanket authoritarian statements. I
> don't find any contradiction between this and his simultaneously endorsing
> the right of people to understand and accept some of the mechanics of
> something before they accept it fully. Since I'm interested mainly in that
> argument, I'm certainly not going to try to argue you out of whatever
> success you find in astrology. If you feel that you've attained success,
> good for you.
I know it, not feel it. So do those who have sought me for assistance
with it-therefore because of this service, I believe I can be of
assistance in a positive way to improve the lives of those who find
increased awareness as a direct result of astrological knowledge or
foresight. Since it is what it inspires me to do and I do it from not
the need to prove or make money but to be of assistance and as an
inspiration from bliss-I know it cannot be "wrong" to continue doing so.
> >> >Just interested.
> >I cannot answer mechanistically WHY astrology works, I can only attest
> >to the fact that after using it successfully for many years that it
> >indeed does. It takes very skilled and learned application though and is
> >not something anyone can just do. This makes it even more difficult to
> >convince others with analogies etc. Usually the "proof" is decidedly
> >from me nailing something about them or events that perhaps have
> >occurred or predicting certain things that turns the tide of their
> >doubt. I think perhaps the only way astrology can be tested empirically
> >is to test the competant astrologer, not aspects of astrology since we
> >are never dealing with the same chart or circumstances that we can
> >repeat to any measurable and controlled degree necessary for
> >replication.
> Again, I'm glad you're finding success in your chosen profession. My main
> interest here, however, lies in the argument for the probable validity of
> astrology.
I outlined some of it I believe, but again the "proof" is in identifying
say some early environmental belief and demonstrating to the person how
they are recreating their reality in the present perhaps in a way they
don't prefer-which allows them to own and redefine that belief-beyond
that neither I or the client are too concerned with whether anyone else
"believes in" that or not-anymore than psychologists need to lay out the
whole of psychology to offer therapy to clients who need it.
> >Science we must remember is not necessarily "truth."
> >Thanks
> On the whole I believe that science does represent the truth.
It only represents the laws of the physical world, not the origin of the
universe or emotional or philosophical questions of emergence and can
NEVER answer such questions. Those questions however may even be closer
to the 'reality" of life than science ever will get.
> There are
> definitely places where it is mistaken in it's current views but it's had a
> pretty spectacular record of successes thus far.
It is simply one of many ways and paradigms that seek to understand the
world and life-it is not the only way.
> Even when it's wrong it's
> usually close to correct (i.e., Newtonian vs. relativistic physics).
Correct at this time with this knowledge in the physical world-assuming
of course thats the "real" or only world-I would never be so arrogant as
to make such a silly assumption-nor would many great minds that have
served on this planet.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
>Could
> it be wrong about astrology? Yes. I, personally, don't believe it is but
> you are certainly welcome to your own opinion in this matter.
I would assert that if you were truly scientific you would exaust all
avenues of exploration with regard to it before you could ever render a
cogent or coherent opinion of what it is at all.
If you are not interested in the mysteries of life then I would retract
that statement and agree that you have a right to be ignorant of
anything you so choose.
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
> Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
You are welcome- thank you for showing respect and asking rather than
calling me names and making fallacious and unfounded assertions without
that questioning.
Darrell Plank
<snip some nice words between Edmond and Darrell regarding an attempt to
keep the
tone of these messages non-inflammatory>
>> >> >>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>> >> >>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the
group
>> >> >>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the
internet
>> >> >>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>> >> >>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of
the
>> >> >>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>> >> >>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept
alone
>> >> >>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>
>> >This was primarily an argument for the wholeness of the universe-which
>> >to me is self evident.
>
>> I guess I haven't quite figured out the definition of "wholeness" here.
>
>Unbroken wholeness-all one thing-manifesting in all the ways it can
>within that wholeness. Where's the confusion?
The confusion lies in the definition of whole/wholeness. Are all individual
things a "whole" or just the universe? Does my left shoe, the planet
neptune and a single hydrogen atom near alpha centauri represent a whole?
Is whole just a synonym for existence? Is an apple a whole? Is a unicorn a
whole? Is a half an apple a whole? Is pi a whole? Is everything in the
universe except my left shoe a whole?
In my mind, "one thing" is a purely mental grouping of atoms/ideas/disparate
items/whatever into a single mental entity so again, this sounds like a
purely mental definition. Are two apples "one thing"? If you want to call
them a single "pair" of apples, yes. If you want to call them two separate
apples, no. Do you have some non-mental definition which makes it clear
whether two apples are "one thing" or "two things"? If so, then perhaps I
could get a better handle on what you're trying to say here.
>
>> Does this mean that the universe can be thought of as one entity?
>
>Not only can it be "thought of" as that it is that.
That seems to discount the mental definition of "whole" above. Since I
still don't know of a non-mental definition which distinguishes whether two
apples are a whole or not, I really need that definition from you in order
to understand what it is that you're trying to say.
>
>> In that
>> case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards the
>> validation of astrology seems non-evident.
>
>The ocean being all one thing then has no effect on or relevence to the
>fish it spawns? Even the astronomer is aware of the fact that we are
>from "star stuff"-hbasic elements etc. No big giant difference from life
>here as opposed to light years away in my opinion. Simply differeing
>locals and there is most likely a billion earthlike planets with evolved
>life on them-simple stats.
Since I don't yet understand your definition of "one thing"/"whole" I can't
answer the fish question.
I was saying that if your definition was a purely mental one then no, the
ocean being one thing has no relevance on the fish it spawns any more than
two apples being considered a single pair has any effect on worms inside the
apples. Since you seem to imply above that your definition of "whole" isn't
mental, I'll have to wait on your non-mental definition of whole before I
can answer the fish question.
I'm certainly willing to admit that we are made from the same basic elements
as the stars. I'm a little wary of the statistical "life on other planets"
as any sort of "obvious" proof of such since it depends on a big hand wave
where we say "the chances of life developing on a single planet is x".
Having had a biased sample of 1 I don't think we have any idea whatsoever
what x is. It could be 1/(number of planets in the universe) as far as I
know. However, it wouldn't surprise me if it was larger than that either so
I'm not arguing against the possibility of life on other planets.
In any event, since my remarks only referred to the mental definition of
"whole" I'm not sure what you're trying to say with regard to this mental
definition.
>
>> Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought of
that
>> way or not?
>
>Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level or we could
>not concieve it that way to begin with.
The primary question is whether it's true only on a mental level or on a
physical level. I can imagine unicorns. Are they real? No - only the idea
of them is real.
>
>"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
>thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
>
>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
>Einstein
>
>"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
These are deep philosophical statements that I don't accept just on
Paremenides or Einstein's say so. Locke and Socrates would have stated the
opposite. In general, it's not difficult to find quotes on either side of a
philosophical issue like this - we have to rely on our own thoughts/beliefs
to guide us, however imperfectly, to some sort of conclusion.
>
>> Since "entity" is pretty much a perceptual term (it's easy for
>> me to think of a school of fish as a single entity but not an eraser, the
>> state of Russia and Mickey Mouse as one entity
>
>This is because of judgments that they cannot be connected or "fit"-are
>they not all on this planet? Are they all not possesing "names" we have
>created for them? Are they not all constructs? Are they not....
>Simply because the distance of their connectivity in terms of concept
>increases, this is not necessarily indicative of their
>dis-connectedness. Only perhaps a value judgment on the DISTANCE between
>their connectedness.
Actually, I think you'd be hard put to argue that Mickey Mouse is "on this
planet":-).
Admittedly, you certainly can think of them as a whole (albeit with a little
difficulty since this definition of "whole" is purely mental and is
therefore affected by all the ideas we have about these things). What
defines them to be a "whole" outside of thinking of them that way?
>
>> - this has more to do with
>> the way I mentally group things than anything in the real world),
>
>There is very little evidence that their is a "one real world"-their is
>a material world I will acknowledge that has laws etc. but as to whether
>this is a ONE REAL WORLD is highly debated.
I think there's zero evidence without a careful definition of what "one real
world" means.
<snip of many quotes favoring idealism>
>
>As you can see, I am not the first to argue this point, nor is it novel.
>
Sorry to snip the quotes. There were just so many that I couldn't include
them all. I
encourage anyone else to go back and read them all as I did.
This view is called idealism. Some philosophers/scientists have this view,
others
have the opposite. Like I said, there are plenty of quotations to back up
either
side when speaking on philosophical matters such as this. I only look at
the facts
and try to formulate my own beliefs on such matters.
>> I'm not
>> sure how this differs from the first definition.
>
>> Does it mean that all things affect all other things?
>
>The observer affects the perception of all things to be sure.
Quantum physics states this only at the subatomic level. Everything else is
a philosophical stance that has plenty of proponents on both sides.
>
>> This seems to lend
>> some credence to astrology so I assume that this was your definition. It
>> certainly seems less evident and in terms of space-time events, science
>> claims is totally false (i.e., two events happening simultaneously 3
light
>> years apart can't affect each other because it will take three years for
the
>> information from one to affect the other).
>
>But what about space/time being a 4 dimensional continuum? In this view
>there is no cause or effect really, simply all one thing- a tensor field
>of some sort all "happening" at once. Time and space are illusions of
>focus, when that focus is distorted (as in the hypothesised b event
>horizon of a black hole) so is the "cause/effect" scenario.
The 4 dimensional continuum doesn't have much to say about cause and effect
(except that certain events outside of each other's cone of light can't have
an effect on each other). The fact that space is best viewed this way for
measurement purposes doesn't imply that you can freely move in all four
directions. It just says that the norm for distance, for relativistic
purposes, is best measured by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2). Note the minus.
Time is a very special dimension, even in relativity. It's not "just like"
space and attempts to characterize it as such are mistaken.
>
>> You may disagree with science,
>
>I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCIENCE. I do experiments at school-I understand
>the validity of the scientific method, I study and practice it- I
>understand the need to separate percieved illusion from material world
>mechanics, I just do not elevate science above psychic material which is
>just as valid however unmeasurable it may be.
That's fine. I didn't claim you did disagree. Just said you may if you
like.
>
>> but I think it's hard to argue that everyone should immediately accept
this
>> proposition as self evident
>
>No one can prove anything to begin with. NOTHING is ever proven. The
>null hypothesis is disproven or changes in the null hypothesis are
>weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
>whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
>null hypothesis. We can only measure the truth premise of inductive
>logical assertions through confidence intervals and tests of
>significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
>Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
>some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
>it is not flat (in relative terms).
>People can only prove things to their satisfaction and choose to believe
>or not believe based on how the subject serves them. Therefore all is a
>matter of belief in the end.
Couldn't agree more. My point was that if you were arguing the "wholeness"
concept
as implying that "everything affects everything else" then it might lend
some credence to
astrology but you couldn't expect everybody to accept this argument and
therefore it
wouldn't stand as a probable reason for the validity of astrology. Without
more to back
this up, it is, as you state, all a matter of belief in the end.
>
>> >> >Asking a valid, non-threatening, non-inflammatory question here -
>
>> >> >I've seen this argument before. Doesn't this argue for the "PROBABLE
>> >> >validity" of studying the lice on a particular elephant's back in
Zambia
>> to
>> >> >determine the same sort of results available from astrology?
>
>> >Do the lice contain the Elephant or the Elephant contain the lice?
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems a slight departure from the
>> statement that "it's all one thing in the end".
>
>All one thing in the end, is not necessarily the same as "all is
>affected or reflected equally by all other things in the end".
I would definitely agree here. So why is it put forth as an argument for
the probable validity of the assumption that our lives are affected in any
significant way by the stars?
>
>> Perhaps I'm reading that
>> incorrectly, but I took it to mean that all things affect all other
things.
>> This latest statement seems to imply some sort of "containment" relation
>> such that if A contains B then A affects B but B doesn't affect A.
>
>I would say that if A spawns B it is likely (meaning high probabilities)
>that B has a stronger probability of reflecting or being affected by A.
>This does not discount the fact that C may be distantly connected to A
>and B. Or that A1 was the primary creator of A and therefore A and B are
>directly connected to A1.
So "contains" means "affected by"? And not all things are affected by all
other things? It sounds like the statement "It's all one thing in the end"
is
boiling down to something like "Some things affect other things". Am I
wrong?
>
>> I'd need
>> to understand this relationship a lot better to answer your question, but
it
>> would certainly seem to me that it would be difficult to establish any
such
>> relationship between myself and the position of Mars at my birth so this
>> would seem to lessen the argument's validity to astrology.
>
>It would seem this way because you believe or are taught to believe that
>distance = effect or lesser connectivity because the PHYSICAL world
>works this way-but as to whether the physical world is the only "real
>world" I have already listed many I am in league with who do not believe
>that is as set in stone as may be widely accepted.
Even my mental conception of the physical world works this way. Even if the
universe is solely an idea within my head, that's the way that idea works so
how
can it be unsound to make assumptions like this regardless of whether
there is a "real world" out there or whether it's all an idea within my
mind? And
while distance does have some rough correlation, it's certainly not the
be all and end all of "affecting". If you wish to use this as an argument
for the probable
validity of astrology, however, you've got to show not only the possibility
of such an
existence but the probability of such a connection. I'm willing to concede
the possibility.
Why should I believe in it's probabiliby?
>
>> >> Or any other
>> >> >particular system, since it's "all one thing in the end"? Do you
>> >> eventually
>> >> >draw a line and say "Okay, maybe the number of lice on the elephant's
>> back
>> >> >really doesn't have too much to do with what I chose for an
occupation"?
>
>> >Nor does ick (a fish disease) on one fish have much to do with another,
>> >but the water they both SWIM IN does. One encompasses both of them and
>> >one does not.
>
>> Again, this seems to imply the "contains" relation which is still a
little
>> fuzzy in my mind and which I have a difficult time relating to astrology.
>
>See my "spawning" definition. Does not the solar system have a direct
>relationship to life spawned on Earth? Therefore it is not that big of a
>stretch to see that if you removed Mars from the solar system the whole
>configuration would change and life may not exist AT ALL on earth-which
>would definitely determine the fate of the lice. The fact that this
>specific solar system configuration spawned life on earth, it is not a
>big leap to recognize that that life would be "imprinted" with
>archetypal images of the "format" that was responsible for the
>'spawning".
If you're arguing that it's not that big a leap from the realization that
removing
Mars from the universe entirely would have drastic effects on the universe
as
a whole to believing that the position of Mars at my birth affects my choice
of
occupation, I would just have to disagree. I find this a huge leap. You
are welcome
to make that leap but its certainly not illogical in my mind to look at the
same evidence
and reach a different conclusion.
>
>> >> If
>> >> >so, where is that line and why do you draw it there and not somewhere
>> else?
>
>> >Since I find your analogy irrelevent, to me you are pursuing a slippery
>> >slope fallacy now.
>
>> I think the analogy is irrelevant only if you impose this "contains"
>> relationship but I believe that the "contains" relationship makes the
>> argument irrelevant for astrology as well.
>
>Then you disagree with logic and Venn diagrams?
Logic and Venn diagrams deal with the mathematical set definition of
containment.
You have proposed a new definition of "containment" which means something
more
like "affected by". Strict mathematical containment is a one way
relationship.
if A strictly contains B then B does not strictly contain A. Mathematical
containment
is purely true or false. Things aren't "distantly contained" as you stated
above.".
Your definition is much different. It has nothing that I can see to do with
the
mathematical definition and therefore nothing to do with logic or Venn
diagrams.
I'm not sure what "disagreeing" with logic and Venn diagrams would mean, but
I do
find them useful tools. I also believe as I stated above.
Your argument seems to be as follows:
"The universe is one thing"
"Some things affect other things within a whole"
therefore
"It's likely that the positions of the stars affect our lives in intimate
ways"
If, instead of the containment statement that "Some things affect other
things within a whole"
you had stated that "All things affect all other things within a whole" then
I could see some slight
correlation between the hypotheses and the conclusion. Since you state the
containment
relation you need an additional hypotheses which is essentially your
conclusion - i.e.,
the stars are one of the things that affect our lives. Since that is your
conclusion it seems to
make the argument irrelevant.
I would hate to be lacking in "psychological awareness" but I think that
some
would describe this trait as unquestioning faith, which I don't mind lacking
at all.
Seriously, if you are claiming that not accepting astrology represents some
sort
of "lack" on my part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
>
>> thousands of light years away at the instant of my birth is far from a
self
>> evident extension.
>
>No more and no less than that science is somehow THE truth.
I'm not sure what "THE truth" is, as distinguished from "the truth". As far
as
"the truth" I believe science has done a pretty good job of getting at it
and to
me this is far more self evident that the stars hypothesis. As always,
you're
free to draw your own conclusions, but know that those conclusions don't
necessarily represent either "THE truth" or "the truth" any more than mine
do.
>
>> >The difference here between the cynical mind and the skeptical is that I
>> >have used it and know it works, I don't know anymore than you HOW it
>> >works mechanistically. That doesn't stop me from using it or knowing it
>> >works. The cynical mind needs to know HOW it mechanistically works (or
>> >at least asserts this) and then will allow themselves to "believe" that
>> >it is indeed working.
>
>> I don't know that I would agree on this distinction - at least not as the
>> popular definitions of "cynical" and "skeptical" go. I'm also sure that
>> many of the "skeptical" minds you refer to accept many, many things
without
>> knowing how they work. I love blueberry waffles. Dunno why. Just do.
>Because they taste good to YOU-which is a preference-there see I do know
>why-it is not necessarily scientific nor does it need be. :-)
That's my point - plenty of skeptics use non-scientific principles all the
time simply
because they work. I therefore think that your distinction doesn't hold up.
>
>> I'd
>> be kind of interested in knowing the mechanistic reasons for this, but
I'm
>> not waiting for them to pour in before I treat myself to another round.
On
>> the other hand, without knowing a little bit about "how" an advertised
"time
>> machine" works, you might hesitate to invest a lot of time and/or energy
in
>> it.
>
>Well of course but this is because we are taught to believe certain
>things are valid and others are not-I was taught astrology by MYSELF
>through application etc. and ignored the common "newspaper astrology"
>etc. from the simple recognition that that was probably no more a
>professional application of it than Ann Landers was of Clinical
>Psychology-hence as a SKEPTIC I investigated it to FIND the truth of
>it-and found validity rather than discounting. I now am conveying this
>to others. They may not find it by any other means than by how I
>did-application. I am well aware that people-as I have repeatedly
>said-can only prove things to themselves in the end-no one can prove it
>TO them.
The question is why did you decide to investigate astrology and not the time
machine? At some point you must have thought that astrology seemed a little
more
likely at the time or a little more interesting than the time machine. You
made
that decision based on very little knowledge of the time machine.
I'm in the same boat wrt astrology. Maybe it works. Currently it seems
unlikely to me
and I've got enough other things to look into that I can't devote years to
nailing down
for absolute certain that astrology/time machines/elephant lice don't have
much relevance to
my life.
>
>"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
>
>> This is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Each of us
>> has our different tolerances for how much we wish to know about something
>> before we devote resources to it.
>
>This is the effect of INTENTION and since I have experienced very
>traumatic experiences I may be more than normally preoccupied with the
>PURPOSE OF LIVING hence anything that lends insight into this aspect
>appeals to my primary intention.
I'm interested in purpose of living, etc.. I'm just not convinced that a
detailed study of astrology
would give that to me.
>
>> I don't think it's necessarily wrong of
>> either of us to lie on different points of that spectrum.
>
>No it is not-but if you deny an interest in the purpose of your life and
>understanding why it may be that you exist here and now and what you may
>be able to do to accelarate that-then I will grant you that
>disinterest-if however you are a typical normal person who would be
>greatly interested in that, astrology coupled with psychology would be
>very helpful in that quest as it has been in mine.
I appreciate the suggestion, but like I said, I'm just not convinced that
studying
astrology would shed any light on these questions.
>
>> In any event, as I understood it, you were offering the above argument as
a
>> reason for how astrology works.
>
>For some insight as to how it may begin to be understood that it is not
>that far fetched that it can and DOES work.
Well, to be honest, you claimed that the argument is not only to demonstrate
that
astrology is not far-fetched but that it's probably valid. As stated
earlier, I
can see the argument arguing for the possibility of astrology, but not to
it's
probability.
Meaning no disrespect for you, a lot of people claim to "know" a lot of
contradictory
things. Some of them are right, most of them are wrong. I have no way to
separate
the ones from the others except by facts and arguments. In fact, I agree
with Plato that
the wisest man is the man who realizes that he doesn't know anything. As
you yourself
stated, everything is just belief. I'm sure you'll understand when I point
out that from
an objective third party point of view all I can be sure of from the above
is that you
believe you know. If I stated that I knew something (which I don't believe
I have yet), I don't expect you to automatically accept it. I'll have to
ask the same from you.
>
>> >> >Just interested.
>
>> >I cannot answer mechanistically WHY astrology works, I can only attest
>> >to the fact that after using it successfully for many years that it
>> >indeed does. It takes very skilled and learned application though and is
>> >not something anyone can just do. This makes it even more difficult to
>> >convince others with analogies etc. Usually the "proof" is decidedly
>> >from me nailing something about them or events that perhaps have
>> >occurred or predicting certain things that turns the tide of their
>> >doubt. I think perhaps the only way astrology can be tested empirically
>> >is to test the competant astrologer, not aspects of astrology since we
>> >are never dealing with the same chart or circumstances that we can
>> >repeat to any measurable and controlled degree necessary for
>> >replication.
>
>> Again, I'm glad you're finding success in your chosen profession. My
main
>> interest here, however, lies in the argument for the probable validity of
>> astrology.
>
>I outlined some of it I believe, but again the "proof" is in identifying
>say some early environmental belief and demonstrating to the person how
>they are recreating their reality in the present perhaps in a way they
>don't prefer-which allows them to own and redefine that belief-beyond
>that neither I or the client are too concerned with whether anyone else
>"believes in" that or not-anymore than psychologists need to lay out the
>whole of psychology to offer therapy to clients who need it.
I'm afraid that at present, I don't feel sufficiently secure in my
understanding of your terms
to agree to your argument yet. As to "environmental beliefs", etc., I'm
interested but
they don't affect the argument which I keep trying to put the focus on.
>
>> >Science we must remember is not necessarily "truth."
>> >Thanks
>
>> On the whole I believe that science does represent the truth.
>
>It only represents the laws of the physical world, not the origin of the
>universe or emotional or philosophical questions of emergence and can
>NEVER answer such questions. Those questions however may even be closer
>to the 'reality" of life than science ever will get.
I agree that there are some questions which science can't answer. Those are
the questions
which have been argued down through the ages by philosophers without yet
coming to a
conclusion. I believe that the questions that can't be answered by science
can't be answered,
period. We can have ideas about them and beliefs, but we can't answer them.
I have chosen
philosophy as my route to ideas about these questions rather than astrology.
My main conclusion
is that philosophy is more valuable for understanding how little we know
about things than in
coming to any firm conclusions on anything.
>
>> There are
>> definitely places where it is mistaken in it's current views but it's had
a
>> pretty spectacular record of successes thus far.
>
>It is simply one of many ways and paradigms that seek to understand the
>world and life-it is not the only way.
But, as I say, I believe it's the way with the most spectacular record of
successes to date.
>
>> Even when it's wrong it's
>> usually close to correct (i.e., Newtonian vs. relativistic physics).
>Correct at this time with this knowledge in the physical world-assuming
>of course thats the "real" or only world-I would never be so arrogant as
>to make such a silly assumption-nor would many great minds that have
>served on this planet.
As I've pointed out above, many great minds have had precisely this "silly
assumption". The
assumption that there's more than the physical world is nothing but another
assumption. Neither
assumption is silly in my view. Noone can know either to be true.
>
>
>"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
>mind
>about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
>select party." John Keats
>
>>Could
>> it be wrong about astrology? Yes. I, personally, don't believe it is
but
>> you are certainly welcome to your own opinion in this matter.
>
>I would assert that if you were truly scientific you would exaust all
>avenues of exploration with regard to it before you could ever render a
>cogent or coherent opinion of what it is at all.
>If you are not interested in the mysteries of life then I would retract
>that statement and agree that you have a right to be ignorant of
>anything you so choose.
As I've stated, I'm sure you have passed many, many avenues of exploration
by
with nary a glance. Have you deeply investigated the lice theory?
Palmistry?
Paganism? Witchcraft? Time machines? This argument that a "scientific
mind"
would explore "all" avenues usually is meant to apply specifically to the
avenue
currently under discussion. We both know that there aren't enough hours in
the day
to exhaust "all" avenues of exploration and neither of us will ever do that.
I'm busy
with math, philosophy and computers. I make no apology for the fact that in
the
marketplace of ideas I can only choose a limited number of them to explore
to in
any depth and until I see something that makes astrology more attractive,
it falls pretty far down on my list of interests. I don't think that bars
me from having
a belief on astrology. Am I right in that belief? Not necessarily. Am I
going to take time away
from other pursuits to check in more detail whether I'm right? Not right
now. Does that
make me less scientific or logical? Not at all. Just a practical response
to the finitude
of time when confronted with the infinity of ideas out there.
>
>"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
>sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
>whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
>in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
>exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
>which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
>forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
>religiousness."
>Albert Einstein
>
>> Thanks again for taking the time to respond.
>
>You are welcome- thank you for showing respect and asking rather than
>calling me names and making fallacious and unfounded assertions without
>that questioning.
No problem. I'm really trying consciously not to offend and hope I managed
to
squeek by one more time without offending. Thanks again.
Edwollmann
>From: "Darrell Plank" <darr...@suckerpunch.com>
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>> >> >>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>>> >> >>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the
>group
>>> >> >>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the
>internet
>>> >> >>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>>> >> >>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of
>the
>>> >> >>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>>> >> >>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept
>alone
>>> >> >>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
>>
>>> >This was primarily an argument for the wholeness of the universe-which
>>> >to me is self evident.
>>> I guess I haven't quite figured out the definition of "wholeness" here.
>>Unbroken wholeness-all one thing-manifesting in all the ways it can
>>within that wholeness. Where's the confusion?
>The confusion lies in the definition of whole/wholeness. Are all individual
>things a "whole" or just the universe?
"All That Is" is all that is-it is all one thing manifesting in all the ways it
can.
> Does my left shoe, the planet
>neptune and a single hydrogen atom near alpha centauri represent a whole?
Do they NOT represent PARTS of a whole?
>Is whole just a synonym for existence? Is an apple a whole? Is a unicorn a
>whole? Is a half an apple a whole? Is pi a whole? Is everything in the
>universe except my left shoe a whole?
>>> Does this mean that the universe can be thought of as one entity?
>>Not only can it be "thought of" as that it is that.
>
>That seems to discount the mental definition of "whole" above.
How?:-)
>>> In that
>>> case I certainly agree that it's self evident but it's impact towards the
>>> validation of astrology seems non-evident.
>>The ocean being all one thing then has no effect on or relevence to the
>>fish it spawns? Even the astronomer is aware of the fact that we are
>>from "star stuff"-basic elements etc. No big giant difference from life
>>here as opposed to light years away in my opinion. Simply differeing
>>locals and there is most likely a billion earthlike planets with evolved
>>life on them-simple stats.
>Since I don't yet understand your definition of "one thing"/"whole"
Lets ask Webster; 1. not broken or injured; 2 Entire complete. the complete
thing-the total, an organic unity.
Now what part of whole thing don't you understand? You are trying rather
disingenuously to twist EFFECTs of one thing upon another, as an argument for
or against wholeness-wholeness is wholeness period. Whether the configuration
of any SYSTEM has equal interaction is another question. Coefficient correlates
are how we measure that in science-how we measure the CONNECTEDNESS or linear
relationship between two variables. The strength and direction-amount to the
Strength of the premise of an inductive argument. When we say there is a .5
correlation that means that only .5 of it can be explained by the
relationship-there is another .5 WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT. This doesn't PROVE it
is NOT connected. Correlation does NOT mean causation-but it does reflect
CONNECTION. Any true scientist knows this.
>I'm certainly willing to admit that we are made from the same basic elements
>as the stars.
Then you agree that "All That Is" is all one thing manifesting in all the
different ways it can-unless of course you will now contradict your self.
>>> Does it mean that the universe "is" one entity whether it's thought of
>that
>>> way or not?
>>Whatever we can image things "as" must be true on some level or we could
>>not concieve it that way to begin with.
>The primary question is whether it's true only on a mental level or on a
>physical level.
Why? They are STILL the effect of the "star stuff" manifesting in different
ways.
>I can imagine unicorns. Are they real? No - only the idea
>of them is real.
The question is are they physical? No. Is the physical the only "real"? No.
Therefore they are real-just not physical.
>>"You cannot know what is not, nor can you express it. What can be
>>thought of and what can be-they are the same." Parmenides
>>"The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from
>>and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by
>>a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act." Albert
>>Einstein
>>"Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein
>These are deep philosophical statements that I don't accept just on
>Paremenides or Einstein's say so.
I am not asking you to, I am referring to those who believe as I do-as you have
said you are free to believe whatever you wish.
> Locke and Socrates would have stated the
>opposite.
Which would be just two more ways the "All That Is" could have of expressing
itself within the creation that it is. WE are all those different ways, and all
the ways it has are infinite.
> In general, it's not difficult to find quotes on either side of a
>philosophical issue like this - we have to rely on our own thoughts/beliefs
>to guide us, however imperfectly, to some sort of conclusion.
>Actually, I think you'd be hard put to argue that Mickey Mouse is "on this
>planet":-).
Where else is he?
>This view is called idealism. Some philosophers/scientists have this view,
>others
>have the opposite. Like I said, there are plenty of quotations to back up
>either
>side when speaking on philosophical matters such as this.
Then you do what I always say-you choose preference and act on that just like
the rest of us.
> I only look at
>the facts
>and try to formulate my own beliefs on such matters.
Contradiction-if there are plenty of views on both sides which shall we deem
are the "facts"? And who shall decide on them-you?
>>> Does it mean that all things affect all other things?
>>
>>The observer affects the perception of all things to be sure.
>Quantum physics states this only at the subatomic level. Everything else is
>a philosophical stance that has plenty of proponents on both sides.
Psychology calls it projection, reaction formation, defense etc. Do you deny
the whole of psychology? If it occurs at the subatomic level, why would it not
derivate to other levels? Where do you think your body and brain to percieve
that comes from? A non-subatomic level?
>>But what about space/time being a 4 dimensional continuum? In this view
>>there is no cause or effect really, simply all one thing- a tensor field
>>of some sort all "happening" at once. Time and space are illusions of
>>focus, when that focus is distorted (as in the hypothesised b event
>>horizon of a black hole) so is the "cause/effect" scenario.
>The 4 dimensional continuum doesn't have much to say about cause and effect
>(except that certain events outside of each other's cone of light can't have
>an effect on each other). The fact that space is best viewed this way for
>measurement purposes doesn't imply that you can freely move in all four
>directions. It just says that the norm for distance, for relativistic
>purposes, is best measured by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2). Note the minus.
>Time is a very special dimension, even in relativity. It's not "just like"
>space and attempts to characterize it as such are mistaken.
So you are saying E=MC^2 is NOT a space/time formula? And that they have no
relevence to each other?
>>> You may disagree with science,
>>I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCIENCE. I do experiments at school-I understand
>>the validity of the scientific method, I study and practice it- I
>>understand the need to separate percieved illusion from material world
>>mechanics, I just do not elevate science above psychic material which is
>>just as valid however unmeasurable it may be.
>That's fine. I didn't claim you did disagree. Just said you may if you
>like.
My how big of you!:-)
>>No one can prove anything to begin with. NOTHING is ever proven. The
>>null hypothesis is disproven or changes in the null hypothesis are
>>weighed against alternative hypothesis. Probability values determine
>>whether there is significant evidence for rejecting or accepting the
>>null hypothesis. We can only measure the truth premise of inductive
>>logical assertions through confidence intervals and tests of
>>significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
>>Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
>>some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
>>it is not flat (in relative terms).
>>People can only prove things to their satisfaction and choose to believe
>>or not believe based on how the subject serves them. Therefore all is a
>>matter of belief in the end.
>Couldn't agree more. My point was that if you were arguing the "wholeness"
>concept
>as implying that "everything affects everything else"
Snip! We already know and have discussed correlation coefficients OK? Lets
agree that everything does not affect everything equally at least in PHYSICAL
terms-which I never said but you seem to be dragging a long forever here.
>Without
>more to back
>this up, it is, as you state, all a matter of belief in the end.
Everything is a matter of belief REGARDLESS of "facts".
>>All one thing in the end, is not necessarily the same as "all is
>>affected or reflected equally by all other things in the end".
>I would definitely agree here. So why is it put forth as an argument for
>the probable validity of the assumption that our lives are affected in any
>significant way by the stars?
Because if something is all one system it is impossible that components within
the system have NO relevence to each other. "Parts" within a SYSTEM as I have
said several times now, are SPAWNED by the system within which they arise.
>So "contains" means "affected by"? And not all things are affected by all
>other things? It sounds like the statement "It's all one thing in the end"
>is
>boiling down to something like "Some things affect other things". Am I
>wrong?
Yes, you are-all things are connected-all things are not necessarily INTIMATELY
connected-this is WHY statistics work-because we are measuring that DEGREE of
connectivity.
>Even my mental conception of the physical world works this way. Even if the
>universe is solely an idea within my head, that's the way that idea works so
>how
>can it be unsound to make assumptions like this regardless of whether
>there is a "real world" out there or whether it's all an idea within my
>mind?
You cannot change your mind? Is that what you are saying?
>>> Again, this seems to imply the "contains" relation which is still a
>little
>>> fuzzy in my mind and which I have a difficult time relating to astrology.
>>See my "spawning" definition. Does not the solar system have a direct
>>relationship to life spawned on Earth? Therefore it is not that big of a
>>stretch to see that if you removed Mars from the solar system the whole
>>configuration would change and life may not exist AT ALL on earth-which
>>would definitely determine the fate of the lice. The fact that this
>>specific solar system configuration spawned life on earth, it is not a
>>big leap to recognize that that life would be "imprinted" with
>>archetypal images of the "format" that was responsible for the
>>'spawning".
>If you're arguing that it's not that big a leap from the realization that
>removing
>Mars from the universe entirely
I did not say Universe, I said solar system.
> would have drastic effects on the universe
>as
>a whole to believing that the position of Mars at my birth affects my choice
>of
>occupation, I would just have to disagree. I find this a huge leap.
So would I, I have never said that Mars affects anyones choice of anything. It
reflects if anything. In the same way a mirror reflects your appearance but has
no effect over your choices in appearing any certain way you should choose.
> You
>are welcome
>to make that leap but its certainly not illogical in my mind to look at the
>same evidence
>and reach a different conclusion.
Of course-its called preference-you choose to believe that the universe is
disconnected from you and I don't.
>>Then you disagree with logic and Venn diagrams?
>Logic and Venn diagrams deal with the mathematical set definition of
>containment.
>You have proposed a new definition of "containment" which means something
>more
>like "affected by".
You seem to be confused and hanging up on this-.9 correlation means about 90%
of A is in relationship with B's-correlation IS NOT CAUSATION.
>I'm not sure what "disagreeing" with logic and Venn diagrams would mean, but
One "circle" contains another to a certain DEGREE.
>Your argument seems to be as follows:
>"The universe is one thing"
True.
>"Some things affect other things within a whole"
False. All things are connected-AFFECT is a matter of perception, degree,
correlation, circumstance, containment of system....etc. etc. In my view effect
is an illusion, only real while you are in certain places or states. It is all
there "happening" at once and nothing is "really" going anywhere.
>therefore
>"It's likely that the positions of the stars affect our lives in intimate
>ways"
Slippery slope.
>If, instead of the containment statement that "Some things affect other
>things within a whole"
>you had stated that "All things affect all other things within a whole" then
>I could see some slight
>correlation between the hypotheses and the conclusion.
Sigh. I am going to have to let go of this thread, it is too long and I have
much work.
>I would hate to be lacking in "psychological awareness" but I think that
>some
>would describe this trait as unquestioning faith, which I don't mind lacking
>at all.
You need to study some psychology is the point. First you say there are
arguments on both sides so it is irrelevent to quote-and then assert one is
"right" and one "wrong"-contradiction-if it boils down to preference why is
your preference "correct" and others belief "unquestioning faith"? Because they
don't believe the same "evidence" as you?
>Seriously, if you are claiming that not accepting astrology represents some
>sort
>of "lack" on my part, we'll have to agree to disagree.
You are free to believe as you wish-as you have said. I could really care less
whether you "believe" in astrology or not-it affects me not. You are asking me
questions as to why *I* believe the way I do-not me asking you-you can be as
miserable or limited as you choose-I will not try to change you.
>>No more and no less than that science is somehow THE truth.
>I'm not sure what "THE truth" is, as distinguished from "the truth".
There is no ONE TRUTH if there were there would only be one view-one person-you
yourself have stated we could amass quotes on both sides to support whatever.
Therefore as I have ALWAYS STATED it is a matter of preference-not "TRUTH".
Physicality does not = TRUTH-it is ONE WAY the Multiverse expresses itself in
my view-and my dreaming every night is sufficient evidence to me as "proof" of
that assertion.
>"the truth" I believe science has done a pretty good job of getting at it
And what is that "truth"?
>The question is why did you decide to investigate astrology and not the time
>machine?
Because I want to understand my psyche as I believe THIS is what creates my
reality and experiences here on Earth-not "machines" Machines are created by
the psyche- I believe when I fully understand IT I will be able to travel
through time AND space without a machine.
>I'm in the same boat wrt astrology. Maybe it works. Currently it seems
>unlikely to me
What scientific investigation have you done to come to that conclusion? Orany
investigation? What part do you disagree with? Dispositor dynamics?
>I'm interested in purpose of living, etc.. I'm just not convinced that a
>detailed study of astrology
>would give that to me.
Then that is the reality you will get. Because it is believing is seeing, not
seeing is believing.
>>I know it, not feel it. So do those who have sought me for assistance
>>with it-therefore because of this service, I believe I can be of
>>assistance in a positive way to improve the lives of those who find
>>increased awareness as a direct result of astrological knowledge or
>>foresight. Since it is what it inspires me to do and I do it from not
>>the need to prove or make money but to be of assistance and as an
>>inspiration from bliss-I know it cannot be "wrong" to continue doing so.
>Meaning no disrespect for you, a lot of people claim to "know" a lot of
>contradictory
>things. Some of them are right, most of them are wrong.
Define wrong? I thought I was free to believe whatever, now I am subject to
being "wrong" if persons interacting with me and the use of astrology find
their life quality and understanding of self enhanced?
>In fact, I agree
>with Plato that
>the wisest man is the man who realizes that he doesn't know anything. As
>you yourself
>stated, everything is just belief.
Then choose what you believe to be true for you and act on it. As I do. Don't
contradict yourself with "right and wrongs". See my integrity post-there is no
right and wrong, these are subjective value judgments and tell us little of the
type of energy be utilized in any endeavor.
> If I stated that I knew something (which I don't believe
>I have yet), I don't expect you to automatically accept it. I'll have to
>ask the same from you.
I know astrology works. I cannot prove it does to you-as I have stated people
can only prove things to themselves not others whether it comes from science or
anything else.
>I'm afraid that at present, I don't feel sufficiently secure in my
>understanding of your terms
>to agree to your argument yet. As to "environmental beliefs", etc., I'm
>interested but
>they don't affect the argument which I keep trying to put the focus on.
You are not astrologically qualified to direct what the focus "should be" on
with reference to it-I am telling you what it is we (at least I) do. Early
environment (attachments schemas etc.) is tremendously important in
understanding ones view-this HAS been clinically demonstrated, and is a
critical part of understading astrology/psycholigical applications in the way I
use them.
> I believe that the questions that can't be answered by science
>can't be answered,
Then you believe that the physical is the only and real world-and I do not.
Perhaps you can explain why you need to sleep every night? It has already been
shown in experiments that there is not really a "resting" going on when one
sleeps, but that it is a very energetic state-why then do we feel rested? From
not moving too much or from ACCESSING and balancing ourselves WITH another
level that is NOT physical?
On science;
>But, as I say, I believe it's the way with the most spectacular record of
>successes to date.
Spectacular in what way?
>>of course thats the "real" or only world-I would never be so arrogant as
>>to make such a silly assumption-nor would many great minds that have
>>served on this planet.
>As I've pointed out above, many great minds have had precisely this "silly
>assumption". The
>assumption that there's more than the physical world is nothing but another
>assumption.
Then explain in logical terms why it is "better" to be alive than dead?
> Neither
>assumption is silly in my view. Noone can know either to be true.
You can know if you wish. I have faith that you can no matter how miserable and
cynical you insist on being.
The rest was cut off by AOL, no matter, as I have said it always boils down to
preference.
If indeed I only have one life to live and there is no "other world" or
spiritual purpose, then it boils down to preference on how one lives this one
physically purposeless life before they die and totally disappear from
consciousness (not possible in my view). In that sense it makes no difference
anyway and this is how I prefer to live mine-your discounting it as an illusion
or not.
If there is another world and spiritual purpose as I assert, you are in greater
danger than I of wasting your existence in cynicism instead of spiritual
growth-if not you will die and dissapear toitally from consciousness and
existence as well-and nothing either of us thought or "wished" will matter
anyway.
If my posts serve you use them, if they don't don't.
Meanwhile, many persons of high credentials and low will find solace and
understanding through the service and view I offer-in that sense I say again. I
cannot be 'wrong" which is simply a subjective value judgment by those who are
fearful and unaware, as long as I am in integrity and seek to break up
pointlessness and offer purpose and support-a thing it appears to me is more
"in line with" what I observe as the "All That Is" "Universe" "Multiverse"
"Alla" whatever you wish to term it, in action as opposed to "detraction and
denial" which I see as purely a physical phenomenon as the effect of focusing
on a "part" of it, as opposed to the "whole" of it.
--
"It is a miserable state of mind to have few things to desire, and many things
to fear." Francis Bacon, Essays "Of Empire"
"Cold hearted orb, that rules the night. Removes the colors from our sight. Red
is grey and yellow white. But WE decide which is right-which is an illusion."
The Moody Blues "Nights In White Satin"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Astrological Consulting
Altair Publications
John & Susan Hutchins
This is a repost of some comments and questions I wrote
in response to some of Ed's statements. This was origianlly
posted under the header "On-going Conversation with
Edmond Wollmann (part I, Section II)
In usual Wollmann fashion, he ducked the questions and
statements contained herein.
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:13:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
)Note there is a lot to cover if you've been following this thread,
my cuts (for the sake of brevity should not be too confusing.
If you've just joined in, it mightn't be a bad idea to go to dejanews
and review the whole thing. Might avoid confusion.)
<woll...@nospam.edu> wrote:
>Larry J. Huntley wrote:
>
>> >> [Astrology] a system?
>
>> > Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
>
>> There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
>> notation,
>> just to cite one example.
>
>Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
Unsubstantiated opinion. Calling Astrology an Art/Science removes
it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
>
snip
>
>> Permit me to observe that the divination aspect seems to be the primary
>> interest of those who habituate alt.astrology.
>
>I have not observed that. Some yes, but not the "primary"-if so then
>they are wasting a valuable tool for psychological insight.
Checking the headers in alt.astrology is easy enough. Most of the ones
I have seen tend to concentrate on divination, Ed's opinion
notwithstanding.
>
>> People seem to be
>> in search of days/times to do something
>
>This is possible to some extent but does not replace proper research and
>effort with the subject under consideration. If you are say, buying
>stocks, astrology would be the last application after your primary
>research through traditional methods was complete-THEN we may be able to
>assist in purchase time selection etc.
Pete Stapleton may disagree here. So would I, but for entirely
different reasons. I would not consult an astrologer to help me with
the purchase of stocks any more than I would consult a chef
on a critical health issue. Come to think of it, I would not consult
an astrologer under any circumstances.
snip
>>or whether they should become involved in a relationship.
>
>There are no "shoulds" only recommendations with regard to relationship
>needs etc.
>
>> This seems to indicate a reliance on astrology to predict possible out-
>> comes, if not the future.
>
>Well, I just explained astrology is not to be used that way so your
>point is moot. Let's say I was the best "predictor" in the world,
>wouldn't logic dictate that CHANGING the predictions or life events
>would be the primary goal-not predicting them?
Why? What if the event was a benefit to the commonweal? Why
should the event be changed?
>Of course.
Oops! Sorry, Ed. You're guilty of assuming the conclusion. A common
tactic among salespeople, but not allowed in logical discourse. Go
back two squares.
snip
>"Definitions" post I already answered all these typical delusions with regard to what the public
>BELIEVES astrology is.
And what a lot of people who call themselves astrologers believe
astrology is. You may assign your own definitions, as you said
you have, but they don't seem to be universally held by those in
your own profession.
>
>> If astrology had no association with divina-
>> tion, I dare say it would not enjoy the popular interest it claims.
>
>I dare say, it is a tool for psychological insight and you don't know
>what true astrology, is and are insisting I answer falllacious begging
>the question questions.
True astrology by whose definition? Nice job of sidestepping.
snip
>
>> So those who sincerely ask for such advice are asking in vain because
>> they are assuming a singular, particular future?
>
>Persons don't "ask me for advice" I am not a fortune teller.
Perhaps not, but they do ask. They ask because astrologers, publishers
of popular astrology magazines, and even text books on the subject
encourage that belief. You may not be guilty, but others in your
profession are.
>I am a
>counselor. In my Saturn opposed Saturn article I outlined how a females
>rape by a stepfather was pinpointed, explored, and discussed in
>abbreviated format using astrology. Again, your question is irrelevent
>based on your own bias and preconcieved notions of what you BELIEVE
>astrology to be rather than investigating to see WHAT it is. Have you
>read any Noel Tyl psychological astrology?
snip
>
>> But if I am interviewed for an engineering position, I can expect to be
>> asked questions that will serve to demonstrate my knowledge and abili-
>> ties for that discipline.
>
>So you are interviewing me for an astrology position? I would suggest
>you are not, nor would you be qualified to do so-so again your question
>is fallacious.
Another nice sidestep. Mr. Huntley is asking you to establish your
bonafides. This is a rational request. Especially if he is to trust
your information. You have established yourself as the teacher.
It is reasonable, therefore, for Mr. Huntley to find out if what you
know is valuable, and true.
That's sidestep #3. Ed, are you a Cancer, or just good at sidestepping
dodging, and pettifoggery?
>
>> If I can't demonstrate the abilities to the
>> interviewer's satisfaction, or - worse yet - explain that I certainly
>> possess those abilities, but any attempt to test me for them will fail,
>> I can expect to be denied employment by that firm, regardless of how
>> impressive my resume might be. The testability of claims is important
>> to all science. Why is astrology excluded from this?
>
>That was the longest slippery slope argument I have seen in some time.
>In case you forgot;
>"The fallacy of slippery slope reasoning is a variety of false cause
>fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon an
>alleged chain reaction and their is not sufficient reason to think that
>the chain reaction will actually take place." page 134, Logic, Hurley
>1991.
Quoting Hurley isn't going to get you off the hook, Ed. You didn't
answer the question. If you didn't understand it, let me repeat it:
Why is astrology excluded from the testability of the claims made for
it?
snp
>
>> >> Let's assume at this point that we are writing a definition suitable
>> >> for a decent dictionary. [...]
>
>> > I have completely defined astrology and its best use in a post
>> entitled
>> > "Astrological Definitions" I am not going to repeat it-this is one of
>> > the reasons I am weary of this, you arguers argue but do not review my
>> > previous explanations and then get cross with me because you can't
>> > follow.
>
But Ed, it is the teacher's duty to repeat material. I've read your
posts. Some of it makes sense if I abandon logic, but you
obfuscate by using psychobabble jargon. It's as though you
don't particularly want people to be able to understand what
you've written, and then when they can't, you label them as stupid
for not having got it.
>> I am not arguing and have not gotten "cross." Until I deserve it,
>> please leave me off the list of those you have reserved for your
>> "special" punishment.
>
>This is pure defensiveness-it has nothing to do with punsihment it has
>to do with simple logic-you don't review the literature or subject at
>hand-you remain lost. You don't study, you don't know. Now this post has
>been long in coming and it appears you still have not reviewed any
>literature suggested. If I were to assert a postulate in psychology
>journals without referring to current litetrature and studies already
>done, my assertions would be silly-especially if someone had just proven
>what I thought was a revelation etc. You are EARNING the title of cynic.
>Review and ask intelligent questions-otherwise this is my last post.
In essence, you don't want to have to explain anything. You just post,
and we'd by God better be able to follow along, or you'll just leave
us behind, and call us names for not being able to make any sense your
pettifoggery. This is not the way to favorably influence your intended
audience. The "smarter than thou" attitude might just put a few people
off.
>
>
snip
>
>> There's a lot of multiplexing and demultiplexing going on in that para-
>> graph. First, an infinite number of levels become all one thing/God.
>> Monotheism, right? Then several paradigms may be used to view the one
>> thing. Pantheism may well be one method of viewing it, but why is it
>> tacked onto the end of the paragraph? What's the significance?
>
>Are not these letters a part of the words? Then the words part of a
>sentence, the sentence a part of a post, the post a part of the group
>the group a part of usenet, usenet a part of the internet, the internet
>a part of human communication, human communication a part of life on
>Earth, Earth a part of the solar system, the solar system a part of the
>galaxy the galaxy a part of the universe....WHERE is your confusion?
>Does that not end up being ALL ONE THING IN THE END? This concept alone
>validates the PROBABLE validity of astrology simply by implication.
Only so long as you are allowed to define the enclosed terms to suit
your own paradigm. You will, of course, not find it beyond or beneath
you to explain your last sentence above. As to your larger question:
no. Let me try to explain. In your grand "everything is one" picture,
you leave out the individual. According to what I have been able to
glean from this and other ramblings of yours, the individual must make
his/her own reality. Are you leaving out shared experience, free will,
karma, and synergy? It would seem so. You also seem to be leaving
out people who suffer from mental illness. They may well be creating
their own realities, but often, their realities clash with the
"realities" of the portion of society not diagnosed with mental
illness. Is it your contention that all realities are equally valid?
If so, then how do we justify isolating those with mental illness,
even though they might pose a danger to themselves and others,
or people who are guilty of committing violent crimes?
>
>> >> We hadn't mentioned a single paradigm up to this point (other
>> >> than our definition - which we are still working on); now we are
>> >> strapped with a potpourri of all possible paradigms? Or perhaps you
>> >> mean to restrict the discussion to just those paradigms used in
>> (for?)
>> >> astrology. Please be clear - and patient - this is an education
>> >> process.
>
>> > Again reviewing my posts if you are truly interested in learning would
>> > be a good "literature" review as any good scientist (myself included)
>> > knows is essential -correct? I am not responsible for your efforts and
>> > will be patient up to the point I discern disingenuousness as revealed
>> > BY this lack of review on your part-ok?
Ed,this looks like an attempt to duck the questions, again. If you do
not want to be forthcoming, just say so. In order to ask you
questions, it should not be incumbent on anyone to achieve a
graduate student level of understanding just to find out what the
hell you're talking about.
>
>> As a matter of fact - NOT ok. I have a job and a life. You are the
>> expert and I am the neophyte.
>
>So I don't have a job and a life and should aquiecse to you because you
>don't have enough intention and don't make enough effort to learn the
>subject and spend my valuable time to educate you while you make no
>effort at review?
Here we are. The beginning of the rationale. "Why Ed should not
honestly answer the question."
>
>> I expect you to be able to summarize the
>> essentials.
>
>I have at least 8000 posts that do this. Why must I rewrite them all for
>you?
It is a reasonable expectation. Any teacher should have a firm enough
grasp to write a one or two paragraph abstract outlining what they are
trying to get across. It is required for scientific publication, and
would be required for astrology, if astrology were a real science.
>
>> I have said that I will locate your articles and read them,
>> but that is going to slow this discussion down measurably.
>
>Irrelevent, its going to stop. I am not here to give you astrology on a
>silver platter. Action speaks louder than words and your actions
>indicate you are only interested if you can find loopholes or attempt to
>in the subject at hand while you don't even research the material
>ALREADY provided by me the teacher.
>Sorry you get an F.
In other words, Ed is pulling out before the really tough questions
start. It is a typical tactic. Ed's track record at answering
questions is abominable. People on this and other ngs have
repeatedly asked him the same questions, and Ed, has blown them off,
or, if they persisted, treated them to a barrage of invective, but he
never answered the questions.
snip
>
>> > I have already given a starting point-the ball is in your court so to
>> > speak-to get YOU up to speed, I am already there.
>
>> This is totally unnecessary horn-blowing. I have already bowed to your
>> expertise.
>
>I am not asking for bowing I am asking for you to review so I don't have
>to answer questions I already have. I have been doing this for 20 years
>don't you think I have heard just about every argument for why I can't
>do what I do successfully already?
Why of course you have, Ed. You just haven't bothered to answer the
questions, that's all.
>
>> You need not reinforce your position; I was of the opinion
>> that our roles had been pretty firmly established as you: teacher, me:
>> student.
>
>Yes, at the university I attend that means "here's the book, here's the
>research lab, here's the library see you next class, have your material
>ready and your work done.
What? A unviersity with no lecture classes? The higher education
system in the California schools has changed radically.
>
>> > Astrology is a tool to enhance ones understanding of themselves.
>
>> Okay! Here's the definition we'll use for our discussion. Allow me to
>> observe that it seems to differ from the applied definition most folks
>> in a.a, believers and skeptics alike, assume.
>
>Yes. But I have stated it thus for 2 years, not a revelation here. And
>is in the posts I asked you review.
O. K., Ed, but it is still _your_ definition. Is yours the only
definition that is accpetable to the entire community of astrologers?
Please explain why this is so. Or, if it isn't, then please explain
why you believe your definition to be the only operant one
in spite of the differences of opinion of your colleagues.
snip
>
>> >> [...] but I will advise you that the attitude
>> >> your statement exemplifies is one source of the friction between you
>> >> and others in the groups. "I refuse to even discuss this with you
>> >> because you are obviously so ignorant" is hardly endearing.
>
>> > Nor is attacking a professional in a field with 20 years experience
>> > as a "fraud, liar, kook, or scam artist trying to rip the public off".
AFAIK these attacks come after, and only after you savage someone
who is trying to engage you in an honest and open debate. When
confronted with a question you either don't feel like answering, or
you can't answer, you become abusive.
Ed, I can go to dejanews and back this up if required. You know it,
and so does everybody else who's been on this ng for more than a
couple of years. It is the truth. You know it, I know it, and so do
the rest of this particular community. You have been repeatedly
called out. You have had your errors in logic pointed out to you.
You have been asked for references to back up some of your claims,
and in all the above cases, you have simply refused to acknowledge
that you might have made a mistake. Further, rather than confront
the people with whom you disagree, or admit a mistake you go behind
their backs to their ISPs and complain.
What have all these tactics gotten you? I'll let the question answer
itself.
snip
>> In the threads that I've read (not including responses to allegedly
>> "sincere" individuals or your posted treatises), you come across as a
>> very impatient, irascible, extremely hot-tempered person who will broach
>> no discussion that does not evidence slavish adherence to your stated
>> premises. This is not a criticism, just my observation. (A couple of
>> years ago you could have viewed me doing pretty much the same thing in
>> one of the guitar-related groups during a discussion about "Pure Silver
>> Wire.")
>
>Irrelevent.
>I can see you have stayed on the evidence of your lack of astrological
>expertise very well here.:-)
>
>> Hence, one of the truisms of the Internet: You are branded with the
>> persona you project. Usually forever.
>
>You are branded by those with no life by them spinning you as what they
>wish if presented long enough-because those of us WITH a real life do
>not have the inclination, time or necessity to spend all day reversing
>it. Its called propagandic spin doctoring, it is done all the time
>everyday with any subject or person controversial or threatening enough
>intellectually to warrant it. It is a political and emotive
>argumentation style that is fallacious.
The essence of pure defensiveness.
snip
>
>> Me too. And I haven't been called a "kook" (to my face) in 25 years.
>
>I have never been called anything close (to my face) only here on usenet
>by those intellectually insecure and unable to argue logically.
>
>> "Abrasive" probably, and worse besides. But argument is a skill that's
>> only acquired with practice. I've found that when I calmly present a
>> logical analysis (relevant facts and defensible thesis development) that
>> supports my premise, I can at least get people to consider it - and
>> some-
>> times even persuade them to "see it my way." Approaches of the "I'm the
>> FUCKING EXPERT here; you are an annoying IGNORANT DISSENTING POLTROON,
>> and I will not listen to you..." sort have been spectacularly
>> unsuccessful.
>
>Good thing I learned that long ago and don't do that with those truly
>interested.
>
>> >> I've certainly learned nothing from watching these combative threads
>> >> over the past few months
>
>> > One can learn something from ANYTHING.
>
>> I've learned nothing about ASTROLOGY.
>
>That is your choice.
Sorry, Ed, but that is _your failure_ more than anyone's
choice. Do I have to repost your threats of physical
violence, your scatalogical references to people, your
personal and abusive comments to people who have the
temerity to disagree with you? That's all been posted here before.
Like you, I'm tired of having to dredge up this stuff, and repost it
when it has already been given far too much exposure, IMHO.
snip of Ed defining ad hominem attacks.
>
>> > I don't in my opinion rant incoherently. Perhaps you don't understand
>> > my point but that does NOT make it incoherent ranting.
>
>> It sort of transcends "understanding" your point.
>
>I see. Who is responsible for perceptions of me?
>
>> >> This is all documented
>> >> and has been displayed more than once by more than one reader. The
>> >> aggregate idiocy has gone on far longer than is even reasonable (this
>> >> last statement is indeed an opinion, possibly biased.)
>
>> > All has been your opinion at this point.
>
>> Carefully considered and widely shared, I suspect.
>
>"One must not mistake majority for the truth." Einstein
What an arrogant response. I can count your supporters
in sci.skeptic on the fingers of one hand. Yet you try to claim
the moral high ground here.
Tell me Ed, who is responsible for your getting repeatedly bounced
from your ISPs? Sherilyn? Me? Twitch? No, Ed. It was your actions,
and your actions alone. Stop ducking responsibility for the lousy hand
life dealt you, and own your life.
>
In a word, "Yes." Psychologists go through years of training, and at
the end of their schooling, they are judged by their peers, and
given a diploma by their universities, and a license by a state
appointed board, and then their behavior is subject to monitoring
and review.
The same goes for attornies, and doctors. Ed, who sits on the
certification board for professional astrologers in the state of
California? What are the educational requirements for a person
who wishes to become a professional astrologer? Which state
accreditted universities offer degrees in astrology?
>This would waste a lot of the psychologists time-same for attorneys, doctors etc.
>And when we are not sure of the qualifications of the person at hand we
>look at what they have done in their work-
Or on their walls to see where they graduated from, what professional
organizations they belong to, what licenses they hold, in short, what
are their bonafides?
Ed, what are you bonafides?
>so either way you have yours
>cut out for you.
>Thanks
>SNIP!
There, Ed. If you don't consider it beneath you,
please respond to the above. You'll notice it is
on topic.
Edmond Wollmann
John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
> This is a repost of some comments and questions I wrote
> in response to some of Ed's statements. This was origianlly
> posted under the header "On-going Conversation with
> Edmond Wollmann (part I, Section II)
> In usual Wollmann fashion, he ducked the questions and
> statements contained herein.
Ad hominem abusive defective fallacy.
> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:13:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> )Note there is a lot to cover if you've been following this thread,
> my cuts (for the sake of brevity should not be too confusing.
> If you've just joined in, it mightn't be a bad idea to go to dejanews
> and review the whole thing. Might avoid confusion.)
> <woll...@nospam.edu> wrote:
> >Larry J. Huntley wrote:
> >> >> [Astrology] a system?
> >> > Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
> >> There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
> >> notation,
> >> just to cite one example.
> >Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
> Unsubstantiated opinion. Calling Astrology an Art/Science removes
> it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
I am a professional astrologer with almost 30 years experience with the
subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very high calibur
(phds in psychology-physics etc.) who are quite educated enough to
discern these ideas-and have conducted and am familiar with scientific
method-have never said that scientific method was not useful. Now who is
more likely to have an "Unsubstantiated opinion"? One who is
knowledgable and experienced in BOTH subjects you compare-or one who has
no knowledge of one and little apparently of the other? *I* will tell
YOU what astrology is-you cannot tell me.
Snip rest of obviously uninformed taunting.
Now what astrological method, procedure, application or psychological
counterpart thereof would you like to discuss?
In the meantime take a logic class.
Thanks
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible.This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
the argument that definately would lead us to different conclusions
(most definately on your part of course)-therefore please state your
status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed. Logic, Hurley,
91.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has BEEN
PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." (This is the
EXACT EXAMPLE used from my logic textbook!). Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal
Fallacies".
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
Sherilyn
In article <34DB79...@nospam.net>, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@nospam.net> writes
...
>
>Ad hominem abusive defective fallacy.
[Excuse Edmond's odd wording--having heard that he is in the running for
KOTM for January and doesn't want to risk losing.]
...
>
>I am a professional astrologer with almost 30 years experience with the
>subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very high calibur
>(phds in psychology-physics etc.) who are quite educated enough to
>discern these ideas-and have conducted and am familiar with scientific
>method-have never said that scientific method was not useful. Now who is
>more likely to have an "Unsubstantiated opinion"?
Very good, Edmond. That is a perfect illustration of an ad hominem
fallacy.
[more ranting snipped]
--
Sherilyn| alt.astrology
Posting FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astrology/posting/
Charter: http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/alt_astrology.txt
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
John & Susan Hutchins
>John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
>>
>> This is a repost of some comments and questions I wrote
>> in response to some of Ed's statements. This was origianlly
>> posted under the header "On-going Conversation with
>> Edmond Wollmann (part I, Section II)
>
>> In usual Wollmann fashion, he ducked the questions and
>> statements contained herein.
>
>Ad hominem abusive defective fallacy.
>
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:13:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann wrote:
snip
>
>> <woll...@nospam.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Larry J. Huntley wrote:
>
>> >> >> [Astrology] a system?
>
>> >> > Yes, it is a system and by that definition is a science.
>
>> >> There are plenty of systems that are not also science. Musical
>> >> notation,
>> >> just to cite one example.
>
>> >Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
>
>> Unsubstantiated opinion. Calling Astrology an Art/Science removes
>> it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
>
>I am a professional astrologer with almost 30 years experience with the
>subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very high calibur
>(phds in psychology-physics etc.) who are quite educated enough to
>discern these ideas-and have conducted and am familiar with scientific
>method-have never said that scientific method was not useful. Now who is
>more likely to have an "Unsubstantiated opinion"? One who is
>knowledgable and experienced in BOTH subjects you compare-or one who has
>no knowledge of one and little apparently of the other?
Appeal to authority noted.
>*I* will tell YOU what astrology is-you cannot tell me.
>Snip rest of obviously uninformed taunting.
>
Once again, Ed chooses not to answer questions, or engage
in reasonable rebuttal. This says more about Ed, than it does about
the questions. Ed's disdainful dismissal is is archtypical of the
Wollman Method of Debate (tm).
>Now what astrological method, procedure, application or psychological
>counterpart thereof would you like to discuss?
>
Why, Ed, I already posted some questions and comments for discussion.
You refused. When are you going respond? Why wont you answer the
questions, Ed?
>In the meantime take a logic class.
Already did. Got an "A".
>Thanks
>
Not at all, the pleasure was mine.
>Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible.This is
>called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence"
Yes, I've read that here before when you posted last time. Please post
the part where I was making a comparison.
Thanks.
snip
>Now since we have
>no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
>astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
>the argument that definately would lead us to different conclusions
>(most definately on your part of course)-therefore please state your
>status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed. Logic, Hurley,
>91.
>
(What follows is a WollmannTactic(tm) It's not pretty. You may wish
to avert your eyes) I have already posted my experiences with
astrology, and I'm not going to wast my time repeating something
you should already be aware of.
>Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Agreed.
>This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
>(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has BEEN
>PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
>makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
>appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
>incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
>
>"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
>for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeeded. Therefore,
>we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." (This is the
>EXACT EXAMPLE used from my logic textbook!). Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
>University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal
>Fallacies".
Who'd of thunk it! He hit the nail right on the head. Since you're so
good at evading questions, Ed, I'll post some more.
Steve Terrell
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
...
> > >Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
>
> > Unsubstantiated opinion. Calling Astrology an Art/Science removes
> > it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
>
> subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very high calibur
> (phds in psychology-physics etc.) who are quite educated enough to
> discern these ideas-and have conducted and am familiar with scientific
> method-have never said that scientific method was not useful. Now who is
> more likely to have an "Unsubstantiated opinion"? One who is
> knowledgable and experienced in BOTH subjects you compare-or one who has
> YOU what astrology is-you cannot tell me.
> Snip rest of obviously uninformed taunting.
Sorry, dude! Once you mix in a little art, it isn't science. It's like
combining a digital signal with an analog signal. The result is analog, not
digital-analog.
Chow,
Steve
Edmond Wollmann
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:00:12 -0800, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nospam.net> wrote:
> : John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
> : > it from the rigors of the scientific method of investigation.
> : I am a professional astrologer with almost 30 years experience with the
> : subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very high calibur
> : (phds in psychology-physics etc.) who are quite educated enough to
> : discern these ideas-and have conducted and am familiar with scientific
> : method-have never said that scientific method was not useful. Now who is
> : more likely to have an "Unsubstantiated opinion"?
> Fallacious appeal to authority
Begging the question fallaciousness. Now please explain HOW years of
experience and application is fallacious but criticising things you know
nothing about IS?
> : In the meantime take a logic class.
> Hypocrite
Ad hominem abusive.
This fallacy is called "Argument Against the Person" (Argumentum ad
Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either
directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds
by directing his or her attention not to the first person's argument but
to the first person himself. When this occurs, the second person is said
to commit an argument against the person.
The argument against the person occurs in three forms: the ad
hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and the tu quoque.
In the ad hominem abusive, the second person responds to the first
person's argument by abusing the first person.
"Begging the question occurs when an arguer uses some form of
phraseology that tends to conceal the questionably true character of a
key premise. If the reader or the listener is decieved into thinking
that a key premise is true, he or she will accept the argument as sound,
when in fact, it may not be." Hurley 1991, 4th edition, Logic.
> : Thanks
> Can anyone remain angry with one so polite? I cannot. You're
> welcome. And thank you for inhibiting that spamming tendancy. Have a
> nice day!
Can't argue without trying to sneak in some irrelevent accusation eh?
--
"A wise and good man can suffer no disgrace" Fabius Maximus
"The best known evil is the most tolerable" Livy
"Whom they fear they hate" Quintus Ennius "Thyestes"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
Edmond Wollmann
John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
> Why, Ed, I already posted some questions and comments for discussion.
> You refused. When are you going respond? Why wont you answer the
> questions, Ed?
> >In the meantime take a logic class.
I don't answer begging the question questions, what ASTROLOGY questions
would you like to discuss? Now who cannpot answer questions?
--
"I don't care! What you want to be, I go back so far, I'm in front of
me!" Paul McCartney "I Can See The World Tonight" Flaming Pie
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
CF Perez
Steve Terrell wrote:
>
>(snip)
Your Italian lesson is overdue: Say "ciao" if you're signing off!
>
> Chow,
> Steve
anonym
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
> > Why, Ed, I already posted some questions and comments for discussion.
> > You refused. When are you going respond? Why wont you answer the
> > questions, Ed?
> > >In the meantime take a logic class.
>
> I don't answer begging the question questions, what ASTROLOGY questions
> would you like to discuss? Now who cannpot answer questions?
Let's discuss the astrological aspects of the Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder you have that causes you to sign on and off the Net to post as
Edmond Wollmann, EWollmann1, etc.
What's the matter, why the musical ISP chairs? Ya paranoid or sumpin?
EWollmann1
>From: Steve Terrell <st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>
>Sorry, dude! Once you mix in a little art, it isn't science.
I know its/art/science.
:-)))
Who says!? WHO SAYS!??
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Altair Publications/Astrological Consulting
John & Susan Hutchins
>John & Susan Hutchins wrote:
>
>> Why, Ed, I already posted some questions and comments for discussion.
>> You refused. When are you going respond? Why wont you answer the
>> questions, Ed?
snip
>I don't answer begging the question questions, what ASTROLOGY questions
>would you like to discuss? Now who cannpot answer questions?
Ed, we seem to be having a difference of opinion about the questions
I've asked. Surely someone with your gigantic I. Q. and superior
intellect can knock off answers to these simple questions without
breaking a sweat.
Please, Ed, answering the questions would allow us all to see the
length, the breadth, the height, the depth, and the raw power of
your intellect. Unless, of course, you already have shown us by
refusing to answer them.
Sherilyn
In article <34DB9F0F...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>, Steve Terrell
<st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> writes
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>...
>> > >Its an art/science like astrology I would say.
>
>Sorry, dude! Once you mix in a little art, it isn't science.
Artistic licence?
Edwollmann
What aspect of astrology are you unclear about Howard? I will be glad to
explain-or if you are brave post your birth data and I will easily delineate
your consciousness as I do with any other.
Thanks
--
"Now I know what's right, I got just one light. In a world that keeps on pushin
me around gonna stand my ground and I won't back down! I won't back down baby!!
There aint no easy way out. Won't back down yeah! Stand my ground-and I won't
back down, no I won't back down!" Tom Petty
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Altair Publications
Edmond Wollmann
Howard Goldstein wrote:
> On 7 Feb 1998 20:25:19 GMT, Edwollmann <edwol...@aol.com> wrote:
> : What aspect of astrology are you unclear about Howard? I will be glad to
> : explain-or if you are brave post your birth data and I will easily delineate
> : your consciousness as I do with any other.
> sparked an interest in astrology that I am sating by following Haizen
> Paige, Sherilyn, and the other civilized cognoscenti hereabouts.
:-)))) Sherilyn doesn't know any astrology. Haizens not bad.
> In the interim feel free to substantiate the opinion you rendered some
> time back in the thread.
Substantiate your opinion that sherilyn is an astrologer!
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Terry Smith
> From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@nospam.net>
> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 13:00:12 -0800
> I am a professional astrologer with almost 30 years experience
with
> the subject and 20 years counseling WITH it of persons of very
high
Why do you continually admit that you a charlatan, Ed?
Terry
--
|WIN95 -a 32bit GUI on a 16 bit patch of an 8 bit OS from a 2 bit cracker.
Edmond Wollmann
Howard Goldstein wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:10:03 -0800, Edmond Wollmann <woll...@xspam.net> wrote:
> : Howard Goldstein wrote:
> : > In the interim feel free to substantiate the opinion you rendered some
> : > time back in the thread.
> :
> : Substantiate your opinion that sherilyn is an astrologer!
>
> render it.
Howard, you just cut out the part where you said you were reading
sherilyn the astrologers posts-now come on.
Do you and Avital think I have something against Jews? Is that why you
harrass me for no reason?
What astrology would you like to discuss considering the fact that you
know none and can't even intiate a conversation?
Edmond Wollmann
Al Simak wrote:
SNIP!
Your client the fake Al Simak, AKA Lazzwaldo 1,2,3,4,5 all kicked off
your ISP, AKA Rick Lazzarini, sock puppet creator and inducer of young
children to drink, AKA ano...@pacbell.net kicked off for abusing this
group,
IS STILL ABUSING this group-off topic, harrassing, demeaning, and never
in the 10 ISPs he has had ever posted on thing about astrology but
simply comes here to harrass and attempt to defame me. Please take
immediate and appropriate action.
Thanks below are the headers you need to immediately revoke your past
clients account the same way you did the other 5 times.
Path:
newshub.sdsu.edu!newshub.csu.net!csulb.edu!awabi.library.ucla.edu!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!209.150.160.22!newsfeed.wli.net!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From:
als...@aol.com (Al Simak)
Newsgroups:
alt.astrology
Subject:
Re: How does the moon effect people
Date:
12 Feb 1998 03:39:37 GMT
Lines:
17
Message-ID:
<19980212033...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:
ladder03.news.aol.com
X-Admin:
ne...@aol.com
Organization:
AOL http://www.aol.com
References:
<6e3vbc.l9...@bbs.mpcs.com>
Xref:
newshub.sdsu.edu alt.astrology:175471
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
: Do you and Avital think I have something against Jews? Is that why you
: harrass me for no reason?
WOW! Ed, this is an astrology newsgroup. Racial-baiting, I think, is in
the
room down the hall. Why did you pick out Avital and Goldstein for this
comment?
You have no evidence that they are Jewish, unless you are relying on the
very
narrow-minded tactic of presupposing someone ethnic, racial, or
religious
aspects based on a surname.
But, Ed wouldn't stoop that far, would he?
*Do* you have something against Jews?
Oy Vey!
anonym
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Al Simak wrote:
> SNIP!
> Your client the fake Al Simak, AKA Lazzwaldo 1,2,3,4,5 all kicked off
> your ISP, AKA Rick Lazzarini, sock puppet creator and inducer of young
> children to drink, AKA ano...@pacbell.net kicked off for abusing this
> group,
Hey, watch the defamations yourself, chump! I ain't been kicked off
pacbell.net, yet!
And quit confusing me with other people! Now your delusion that all your
enemies are Lazzwaldo is transferring into another person!
Now which system of astrology would you like to discuss?
Al Simak
Al Simak
Edmond Wollmann ranted (after I asked wahy he was Jew-baiting on this
newsgroup, quite the off-topic behavior)
>Al Simak wrote:
>SNIP!
>Your client the fake Al Simak, AKA Lazzwaldo 1,2,3,4,5 all kicked off
>your ISP, AKA Rick Lazzarini, sock puppet creator and inducer of young
>children to drink, AKA ano...@pacbell.net kicked off for abusing this
>group,
>IS STILL ABUSING this group-off topic, harrassing, demeaning, and never
>in the 10 ISPs he has had ever posted on thing about astrology but
>simply comes here to harrass and attempt to defame me. Please take
>immediate and appropriate action.
>Thanks below are the headers you need to immediately revoke your past
>clients account the same way you did the other 5 times.
Well, I guess we now know how the moon affects people! It's a full moon out,
nearly, and Ed Wollmann is in full froth!
Do you think, Ed, that AOL will take seriously the loony ramblings of a
voluminous spammer they kicked off twice?
A person kicked off pacbell.net for making violent physical threats?
A person booted fromAznet for making illegal cancel attempts of other's posts?
Please, stop projecting your own worst shortcomings on others and post
something about astrology.
Interestingly, The moon is conjunct Pluto right now, with Jupiter in the 7th
house. Fancy that!
The REAL Al Simak!
Edwollmann
>From: als...@aol.com (Al Simak)
>>Al Simak wrote:
>>SNIP!
>>Your client the fake Al Simak, AKA Lazzwaldo 1,2,3,4,5 all kicked off
>>your ISP, AKA Rick Lazzarini, sock puppet creator and inducer of young
>>children to drink, AKA ano...@pacbell.net kicked off for abusing this
>>group,
>>IS STILL ABUSING this group-off topic, harrassing, demeaning, and never
>>in the 10 ISPs he has had ever posted on thing about astrology but
>>simply comes here to harrass and attempt to defame me. Please take
>>immediate and appropriate action.
>>Thanks below are the headers you need to immediately revoke your past
>>clients account the same way you did the other 5 times.
>
>Well, I guess we now know how the moon affects people! It's a full moon out,
>nearly, and Ed Wollmann is in full froth!
Another complain has been sent to your server. Now what astrological method or
procedure would you like to discuss before they boot you off?
--
"If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by, you're thinkin like a fool
cause it's a case of do or die." Judas Preist "You Got Another Thing Coming"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Astrological Consulting
Altair Publications
Al Simak
Edond Wollmann wrote:
>Another complain has been sent to your server. Now what astrological method or
>procedure would you like to discuss before they boot you off?
Another complain has been sent to *your* server. Now what astrological method
or
procedure would you like to discuss before they boot *you* off?
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
In article <34E291...@spamx.net>,
Oh? I thought you were the fake Al Simak? One of your sock puppets,
alongside the Zeus150000, hoov...@aol.com, archi...@aol.com
and countless others.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/wollmann.html
, AKA Lazzwaldo 1,2,3,4,5 all kicked off
> your ISP,
It's a little pointless getting self-righteous about something
that happened to you, too, and for real net abuse--very heavy spamming--
rather than just violating AOL's TOS (which is bad enough, I admit).
> AKA Rick Lazzarini, sock puppet creator
See above. Actually, isn't Rick Lazzarini the head of the Creature
Shop, a highly successful California studio that has produced
animatronics and other effects in major movies?
>and inducer of young
> children to drink,
Please expand on this. I see no such enticements in any of
Lazz's postings or those of als...@aol.com.
> AKA ano...@pacbell.net kicked off for abusing this
> group
No, ano...@pacbell.net is still on pacbell. Perhaps you are confusing
him with als...@pacbell.net, who _was_ kicked off for threatening
physical violence against a poster to this group. Oh, but als...@pacbell.net
was you, wasn't it?
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/hostages/bonescrushed.txt
> IS STILL ABUSING this group-off topic, harrassing, demeaning, and never
> in the 10 ISPs he has had
I believe you alleged earlier that Lazzwaldo has had only
two ISPs. Which are the eight others you now mention?
> ever posted on thing about astrology but
> simply comes here to harrass and attempt to defame me.
Examining this new Al Simak's postings, I see that his statements
are largely factual. YMMV. If you think they are defamatory, see a
lawyer.
Please take
> immediate and appropriate action.
> Thanks below are the headers you need to immediately revoke your past
> clients account the same way you did the other 5 times.
Should I ask AOL to apply the same logic to your own posting
using a friend's borrowed AOL account? And I hardly think Lazz had
five AOL accounts. Like you, he probably used several screen names;
unlike you, on those occasions at least he did not hide behind sock
puppets.
Now I'll admit that the posting styles of als...@aol.com and
ano...@pacbell.net do have a certain sock-puppet smell about
them. However, sock-puppetry is not in itself net abuse, it's just
(intentionally or unintentionally) amusing.
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/sockpuppets.txt
--
Sherilyn
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Brant Watson
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:54:20 GMT, www.c-zone.net/sidereal/ wrote:
<snip>
>pete comments: brainwashed comments to wanna be cunt
>See Stapleton's Astro Market Numbers Jan 1998
>Download 1998 SIDEREAL/TROPICAL EPHEMERIS (FREE)
>NOW from http://www.czone.net/sidereal/
>See Stapletons Astro Market Numbers For Jan 1998
Pete, if you're tired of your account, why not just stop using it
instead of trying to get yourself kicked off?
[alt.astrology restored, and I'm removing alt.fan.art-bell because the
repeated inclusion of that NG is probably just another one of Pete's
stupid games]
Brant
"As to Randi, I don't need to relate to the rest
of the public what our civil actions are about. You idiots do a better
job than I could do." (Earl Gordon Curley)
anonym
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk wrote:
snip a bit of a very reasonable and reasoned and thoughtful post
> Now I'll admit that the posting styles of als...@aol.com and
> ano...@pacbell.net do have a certain sock-puppet smell about
> them.
But I USE a fabric softener in the wash! Maybe I should use the ancient
Chinese secret!
> However, sock-puppetry is not in itself net abuse, it's just
> (intentionally or unintentionally) amusing.
So, some people might be laughing WITH me, and some people are laughing
AT me?
No matter. It's good to laugh. LOL! See!
Edmond Wollmann
anonym wrote:
> Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk wrote:
> snip a bit of a very reasonable and reasoned and thoughtful post
> > Now I'll admit that the posting styles of als...@aol.com and
> > ano...@pacbell.net do have a certain sock-puppet smell about
> > them.
> But I USE a fabric softener in the wash! Maybe I should use the ancient
> Chinese secret!
What does this have to do with astrology discussion?
> > However, sock-puppetry is not in itself net abuse, it's just
> > (intentionally or unintentionally) amusing.
Oh it isn't well then why do you go to great lengths to try to say thats
what I was doing-even when it wasn't?
> So, some people might be laughing WITH me, and some people are laughing
> AT me?
Laughing is all well and good-as A PART of discussion etc. not making
people the brunt of your infereiority complex.
Irrelevent, you are off topic, not interested in astrology and only come
here to try to denigrate-that is not funny it is a sign of illness and
boredom.
A complaint will be sent.
Now what astrological method or application would you like to discuss
were you to spend half as much time thinking of a question as you do
trying todefame me?
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting
http://www.flex.com/~jai/astrology/info/alt.astrology.faq.html
el...@no.spam
In article <34E478...@spamx.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@spamx.net> wrote:
>> > However, sock-puppetry is not in itself net abuse, it's just
>> > (intentionally or unintentionally) amusing.
>Oh it isn't well then why do you go to great lengths to try to say thats
>what I was doing-even when it wasn't?
What you were doing was using sock puppets to create the illusion that
you have support from other people. It isn't net abuse it's just
dishonest.
>> So, some people might be laughing WITH me, and some people are laughing
>> AT me?
>Laughing is all well and good-as A PART of discussion etc. not making
>people the brunt of your infereiority complex.
Looks to me like you are the one with the infereiority complex. If you
weren't, you wouldn't need to spend so much time blowing your own horn and
you wouldn't feel so threatened by opposing opinions about astrology.
>Irrelevent, you are off topic,
Once again you post an off topic whine about off topic posts. May I
suggest reading the charter:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.astrology.Z
Edmond Wollmann
el...@no.spam wrote:
sci.skeptic removed as per usual from Ricky for the last year.
> In article <34E478...@spamx.net>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@spamx.net> wrote:
> >> > However, sock-puppetry is not in itself net abuse, it's just
> >> > (intentionally or unintentionally) amusing.
> >Oh it isn't well then why do you go to great lengths to try to say thats
> >what I was doing-even when it wasn't?
> What you were doing was using sock puppets to create the illusion that
> you have support from other people. It isn't net abuse it's just
> dishonest.
Speculation.
> >> So, some people might be laughing WITH me, and some people are laughing
> >> AT me?
> >Laughing is all well and good-as A PART of discussion etc. not making
> >people the brunt of your infereiority complex.
> Looks to me like you are the one with the infereiority complex. If you
> weren't, you wouldn't need to spend so much time blowing your own horn and
> you wouldn't feel so threatened by opposing opinions about astrology.
So what would that make a person who spends MORE time and CHASES me off
topic for almost a year non-stop? A hyperinsecure? So politicians are
insecure with their opinions because they go up to podiums an assert
them? Professors are insecure because they lecture. Perhaps thinking
before posting would be sound advice for you Ricky.
> >Irrelevent, you are off topic,
> Once again you post an off topic whine about off topic posts. May I
> suggest reading the charter:
> ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/alt.astrology.Z
Serious astrology and Tarot-when have you EVER posted anything even
remotely resembling either Mr. Abuser?
Now what astrology or Tarot would you like to discuss? Stop specualting
about me, no one can interpret a life or level at which they themselves
have not or cannot function.
Which means I can interpret you and you cannot me.
--
"His arguments are as thin as the soup made from the shadow of a pigeon
that starved to death." Abraham Lincoln on Douglas' debating ability.
el...@no.spam
In article <34E4FB...@xspamx.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@xspamx.net> wrote:
>sci.skeptic removed as per usual from Ricky for the last year.
And put back in. Why do you fear sci.skeptic?
>> What you were doing was using sock puppets to create the illusion that
>> you have support from other people. It isn't net abuse it's just
>> dishonest.
>Speculation.
Hardly. You've admitted to some of them and the evidence of your
use of them to support yourself is on dejanews. For that matter your
label of "speculation" isn't even a denial.
>> Looks to me like you are the one with the infereiority complex. If you
>> weren't, you wouldn't need to spend so much time blowing your own horn and
>> you wouldn't feel so threatened by opposing opinions about astrology.
>So what would that make a person who spends MORE time and CHASES me off
>topic for almost a year non-stop?
Once again you respond to an issue by attacking the person raising it.
One more sign of your lack of integrity.
--
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/sockpuppets.txt
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/skeptic/wollmann.html
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/posting.txt