The Final Frontier
Edmond Wollmann
It definitely will be a diminution to the ego of this civilization when
it discovers the remains of its' past, where it never learned this
lesson (integrity), in the red ruins of the ancient "God of War",
Mars.
Evidence for extraterrestrial life is becoming a very concrete reality
with the discovery of planets around a star in the constellation
Pegasus. When the populace is ready, the teachers appear. Mechanical
propulsion will not move us across space to visit them, or anything
else, as will the revelation induced velocity of a accelerated and
changed mind.
We see the world through Mercury, it rules the sense of sight. It is the
eyes of the spirit in the physical world. It is reflective of the
personified idea of the logos through the individual. The Universe is
the manifestation of all the different ways that God has of thinking
itself into existence in its search. We are those ideas, and a part of
that search. Time and space is the sequential experience of ideas that
actually exist all-at-once, therefore thinking is not only the best way
to travel, it is the only way. Because nothing is really "going"
anywhere. But we determine the quality of our vehicle's trip and
sightseeing on that journey through conscious commandment, and chose the
reality we believe in, when we trust it. Just because we will it to be
so.
The Moon reflects our need to image in or to create the fulfillment of
our imagined personality. We visualize ourselves into the image we
believe we were cut off from. We then become that image. What we imagine
ourselves to be in the fourth house and Cancer, becomes the externalized
version in the tenth house and Capricorn. What do we prefer to image in?
We may seek our place in the Sun- but it is on the Moon that we actually
land.
Just past the sharply focused realm of Saturn, lies the planet of
unconscious forgotten knowledge, Uranus. Awakening this unconscious
knowledge leads to the merging and blending with the other dimensional
or spiritual awareness at Neptune. The further out from the Sun we move
through the solar system, the deeper and more expanded into aspects of
ourselves we go, until at Pluto we transform to a whole new fourth
dimensional realm of reality.
This new reality of course, depends on our ability to recognize the
choice in the creation of our reality and experiences (Uranus). If we
believe that physical reality exists outside of us empirically (Saturn),
this recognition may be invalidated. If however, physical reality is
seen as simply a focused dream (Saturn) and dream reality, or other
dimensional consciousness as an expanded dream (Neptune), then the
paradox that the conscious mind feels about these polarities and its
"control" over them, is eased through the recognition of choice, either
consciously or unconsciously at Uranus.
The "unexpected" occurrences associated with Uranus are simply
forgotten choices, made at an unconscious level, that appear as "fate".
Primarily it comes through the expectations of conscious mind focus and
judgement (Saturn).
By taking responsibility for our reality at Saturn, we acknowledge our
choice in the creation of our reality at Uranus, which then allows for
merging with a broader reality at Neptune.
The Mayans re-cognized that 1992 would mark the beginning of the last 20
year cycle of a galactic cycle of 5125 years in length, during which we
will totally transform into a whole new dimension. It seems that our
solar system and its planetary configurations confirm this. Perhaps an
awakening into the association of worlds. And if physical reality is
simply a focused dream, and is as malleable as our unconscious dreams
while we sleep, then in an overall sense, I would submit that the
Uranus/Neptune conjunction that we have past, was a signpost for mankind
to wake up, and dream the dream it prefers to dream.
The Huang Ti emperor of 2698 to 2958 B. C. already had a system called a
sexagenary period consisting of twelve earthly branches (signs) shih erh
ti chih, with ten heavenly stems (planets) shih t'ien kan, and the
earliest known horoscope was found on a clay tablet approximately 4400
years old from Babylonia. It is not a coincidence that these structures
are reflected in our most current scientific and most ancient
archaeological discoveries, because they are not truly discoveries, it
is just finally, the end of forgetting.
In Astronomy the idea of a black hole provides a good scientific model
for the concept of level and parameter changes. The "fabric" of
space/time outside of the hole, with its normal gravitational effects,
would not be experienced any differently than here on Earth, or in space
around the Earth. But as we approached the event horizon, the parameter
where space and time begin to warp because of gravitational effects,
time and space experiences would begin to change and be unrecognizable
by the time we entered the black hole. As the identity changes
perspective from Saturn to Neptune, what seemed to be reality dissolves
into illusion. Saturn tests our ability to consciously perceive what our
beliefs about reality create. Even if these beliefs are not consciously
accessible to the self. Neptune directs the unfolding drama. Saturn says
if we do not strategize our plan for success, failure will result.
Neptune says, what does a man have if he gains the world and loses his
soul? The sword that we live by, will be the one we die by.
It is the planet that falls between these two that resolves this
paradox-the awakener, Uranus, this dissolves (Neptune) our focus
(Saturn) and hopefully transforms perspective (Pluto)in preparation for
interaction with other systems. This is what is meant by "born again",
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:3.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh;"(Saturn) and that which is
born of Spirit is spirit." John 3:6 (Neptune).
The paradigm shift of 2012 will be from material or scientific standards
of validity, to quality of life and relationship standards, of course
this takes power from certain groups that are no longer necessary or
fair, the battle of the ego may be great, but as history has shown
through these quadratures in the past, transforming has never been the
result of mediocre people or events. If there was only one truth, or
one basis to form our assumptions about the nature of existence from,
obviously paradigms would never shift and discovery would not exist. It
is from tiny Pluto's perspective the only way to find significance and
meaning in the vast sea of time and space.
--
"Just remember this my girl when you look up in the sky, you can see the
stars and still not see the sky. Me-I'm already gone-and I'm feeling
strong, I will sing this victory song." Eagles "Already Gone"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Michael Smith
And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking about
to people of both camps...
Before going further in the exploration of astrology, I would highly
recommend that persons also pick up a book called The Demon Haunted
World by Carl Sagan, in order to gain a ballance of opinions on the
subject of astrology (and the "paranormal" in general).
Blessed Be,
Mike Smith (Who is thinking that at this rate we might have to
explore the final frontiers they way Galileo did, in secrecy with
little sanction and in a culture where superstition reigns supreme)
"Rise, hold fast your faith. To lie dormant is certain death."
-Slayer, "At Dawn They Sleep"
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necessarily, or even remotely, reflect
those of Loyola University, Chicago.
Edmond Wollmann
Michael Smith wrote:
> And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
> science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking about
> to people of both camps...
Fear is what you express that they cannot all work together-in the same
manner that they exist together. All truths are legitimate. If the
"Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we deem "better"
than another? Subjective value judgments will be all you can muster.
> Before going further in the exploration of astrology, I would highly
> recommend that persons also pick up a book called The Demon Haunted
> World by Carl Sagan, in order to gain a ballance of opinions on the
> subject of astrology (and the "paranormal" in general).
Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This document
wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university professors,
some Nobel Prize winners.
Carl Sagan. In his
letter to the editor, he stated:
"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."
--
.."but the idea many times of the reasons that those fears occur in your
society, when you are interacting with beings from other societies in
that way, no matter what level you are interacting with them, the reason
that many of those fears occur is because-let us say-and again in no
way, shape, or form, is this meant to be a comparative judgement that
you are any less than any other being. But the way you create yourselves
to be, the way you have been taught to think of yourselves, creates
within you the ability to hide and suppress many portions of your
consciousness from yourselves, and in doing so you function on a lower
vibratory frequency very often. When you come in contact with a being
that operates on a very high vibratory frequency because it is willing
to know itself as completely as it can, then those two frequencies when
they come together, will usually create the effect of the higher
frequency in a sense overwhelming the lower frequency, and forcing the
lower frequency to rise in pitch. In forcing the lower frequency to
raise in pitch, that will bring to the surface all the things that you
have been keeping buried within you, and bringing those things to the
surface when you are not ready to face them, can be a very fearful
experience for many of you. That is where the fear comes from." Bashar
"Perfection"
Michael Smith
Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
: Michael Smith wrote:
:
: > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
: > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking about
: > to people of both camps...
: Fear is what you express
*Doubt* is what I express.
: that they cannot all work together-in the same
: manner that they exist together.
WHich begs the question, in what sense do these exist together?
Religion and science are quite different realms of human endeavor, with
fundamentally different bases for judgement (religion is based on faith
while science is based on doubt) and for confirming what you believe
(religion relies on philosophy where science relies on observation and
analysis of data). Astrology takes an entirely different, third
approach, based neither on scientific nor philosophical principles (how
many astrologers here have demonstrated with 99.7% confidence, in
repeatable experiments, that their system is accurate? How many
astrologers can defend their system from skeptics?) Indeed, Astrology
seems to depend upon tradition and upon interpretations of old magickal
and mystical systems. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.)
This might bring it close to religion, but nowhere near close to
science. In this sense, then, they fail to co-exist on the same level
(except as mere concepts).
: All truths are legitimate.
The key word here is "truths." There is very little which we know to be
true.
: If the "Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we deem
: "better" than another?
This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
Or, since we are talking about a multiverse, is the multiverse
ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
the first leads to the universe creating itself out of nothing at all,
the second implies that, for example, matter/energy is exactly the same
as the laws that guide it.
: Subjective value judgments will be all you can muster.
Hmm. Before I judge, I usually like to throw objections at a worldview
until it breaks or until I have no reasonable grounds to object
anymore. It's the same thing that got me to leave the Church I guess.
: > Before going further in the exploration of astrology, I would highly
: > recommend that persons also pick up a book called The Demon Haunted
: > World by Carl Sagan, in order to gain a ballance of opinions on the
: > subject of astrology (and the "paranormal" in general).
: Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
: HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This document
: wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university professors,
: some Nobel Prize winners.
: Carl Sagan. In his
: letter to the editor, he stated:
: "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.
[remainder of letter deleted]
So you agree that Sagan is probably one of the less prejudicial sources
on the subject of astrology? If so, then his book might best represent
the skeptical viewpoint on this subject.
[passage on the origins of social fear omitted]
: Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
: © 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
: http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
: PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
: (619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Blessed Be,
Mike Smith
Rynne McCoy
I believe that date should be 2013, according to My calculations.
--
BABALON 156 *** SHEDONA 435 | she...@intrepid.net
"I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing
Till they got ahold of me ..." --Alice Cooper
Edmond Wollmann
Michael Smith wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
> : Michael Smith wrote:
:
: > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
: > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking
about
: > to people of both camps...
: Fear is what you express
> *Doubt* is what I express.
Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear. What you are
expressing is doubt from mistrust that "All That Is" is all that is. I
am not talking about critical thinking which can be the effect of trust
or doubt-it depends upon the approach. Since I was not citing detailed
fact, needed for empirical proof-but instead integral recognitions based
on best assessments (mine of course) from years of digesting those
"facts" and data, I would be inclined to discuss aspects of the CONCEPTS
in a more analytically discerning way-but what I was POSTULATING were
these concepts based on these best assessments from what I think I know.
It is the theory that determines WHAT we can or DO observe.
Simply, they were not presented as facts, therefore I need not defend
them as such.
> : that they cannot all work together-in the same
> : manner that they exist together.
> WHich begs the question, in what sense do these exist together?
In the obvious sense-do they not all exist? And do they all not exist
now? And in that way share the same time and space not only physically
but ephemerally as concepts-they exist period-therefore in the
pantheistic way they ARE all that is NOW.
> Religion and science are quite different realms of human endeavor, with
In the MIND of MEN engaged in those endeavors-begging the question- is
that how they truly exist? Simply being focused on a book doesn't make
the book a "different endeavor" than the person reading it or the room
that surrounds them.
> fundamentally different bases for judgement (religion is based on faith
They are both based on the need for significance-one secured through
trust and one through proof that ALLOWS trust. I must clarify here I am
speaking of spirituality-religion was meant to be a way to re-ligio
(relink) back to our source but orthodox religion has become the science
of following like politics and really has no relevance to spirituality
in my mind-it is a habitual ritual based on fear and mistrust.
> while science is based on doubt) and for confirming what you believe
> (religion relies on philosophy where science relies on observation and
> analysis of data).
All of academia-the entire multiverse is "based on"
ideas-philosophies-science is the "philosophy" of studying the universe
(not multiverse since it cannot measure non-physical reality) and its
physically organized laws and effects (which are the EFFECT of spiritual
premise). Logic derivates from philosophy-math and empiricism from
logic.
> Astrology takes an entirely different, third
> approach, based neither on scientific nor philosophical principles (how
> many astrologers here have demonstrated with 99.7% confidence, in
> repeatable experiments, that their system is accurate?
Well this is a poor analogy-psychology doesn't either and its not some
"third approach"-this is simply the effect of any subject that has tried
to categoirize human nature, free will and behavior-none of it is very
reliable because the observer and the observed are both part of the
observation-just designing a model to sample, find a standard deviation
etc. is exceedingly difficult-so first we would need to research and
construct a model that we could then build some sort of experiement
from. I can pretty much repeat my delineations-except there is one silly
little problem-they are never the same samples.
53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
-5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
combinations, and from that like any other data you can infer what you
wish and construct all sorts of things to make "statistically relevent
inferences".
> How many
> astrologers can defend their system from skeptics?) Indeed, Astrology
> seems to depend upon tradition and upon interpretations of old magickal
> and mystical systems. (Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.)
Well you are wrong on this point. And that is where the difficulty often
lies-you like others feel (not empirically in any real way KNOW) you
know what astrology is from what you can "gather"-try letting some other
person who "feels they know" what particle physics is peer review Niels
Bohr-not gonna happen. So I suggest at least in conversation with me
about astrology, that if you wish to know ask-otherwise demonstrate some
real astrological knowledge or what you think you know so I can correct
misconceptions as we converse. Of course I can't spend eternity
educating each debator of the principles and practice of astrology-is
this registering? It is an art/science it works. Do we know how? No.
Does that stop it from working? No. Does it make more sense that it
WOULD work than not? Of course-in the same sense that a whale or dolphin
can detect sounds miles from its location in "other" water.
> This might bring it close to religion, but nowhere near close to
> science. In this sense, then, they fail to co-exist on the same level
> (except as mere concepts).
Pls see my post on "Intuition and Intellect" they are really different
ends of the same concept-simply with different degrees of focus.
> : All truths are legitimate.
> The key word here is "truths." There is very little which we know to be
> true.
Including science. There is no one truth-if there was there would only
be one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths or-"All That
Is" combined-therefore I reassert-which aspect shall we deem "truer"
than the other?
> : If the "Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we deem
> : "better" than another?
> This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
Not possible. But this requires a bigger model of-as you call it-God.
Which with our limited focus at this present time is incomprehensible in
any other way than the way I present it (or others percieve it), it
cannot be comprehensively known.
> Or, since we are talking about a multiverse, is the multiverse
> ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
Why does it have to be uniform to be all one thing? Can it not manifest
in forms BEYOND your conscious perception of it?
> the first leads to the universe creating itself out of nothing at all,
Everything comes from something-the trick is whats outside of that and
that and that....
> the second implies that, for example, matter/energy is exactly the same
> as the laws that guide it.
Mind is matter and vice versa-but mind "causes" matter and vice
versa-not.
> : Subjective value judgments will be all you can muster.
> Hmm. Before I judge, I usually like to throw objections at a worldview
> until it breaks or until I have no reasonable grounds to object
> anymore. It's the same thing that got me to leave the Church I guess.
Then you must reject your own existence for you will not find enough
empirical reasons to continue doing it and will discover it is not data,
facts, or logic that drives you forward.
> : > Before going further in the exploration of astrology, I would highly
> : > recommend that persons also pick up a book called The Demon Haunted
> : > World by Carl Sagan, in order to gain a ballance of opinions on the
> : > subject of astrology (and the "paranormal" in general).
: Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
: HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This
document
: wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university
professors,
: some Nobel Prize winners.
: Carl Sagan. In his
: letter to the editor, he stated:
: "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.
[remainder of letter deleted]
> So you agree that Sagan is probably one of the less prejudicial sources
> on the subject of astrology?
Absolutely not. Only those skilled and knowledgable in any paradigm can
realistically assess it-but then you also must be knowledgable of it to
discern just who IS qualified-you cannot discern things you know nothing
about-unless you violate your own reasoning premise that you keep
asserting.
> If so, then his book might best represent
> the skeptical viewpoint on this subject.
Yes the skeptical view-of its validity-not its viability. Theories are
constructed from beliefs and assumptions, then that system of belief
with its reinforcing logic presents "proof" to reinforce that system of
belief. All systems of belief have their own reinforcing logic. This is
how experiential realities are created.
Astrology is operationally obvious in its workings if you are skilled
and able to apply it properly. Even IF prediction were its main benefit
which it is not, we must have philosphical constructs in place to know
what to do with this ability-that is where most astrologers and
scientists alike fall short-philosophy, the foundation of the world(s).
"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of
the peace." Baruch Spinoza
--
The Essential structure of all philosophies
Positive manifestations+ -Negative manifestations
Positive action Negative re-action
allowance judgements/separation
preference/integration playing not to lose
winning/playing to win playing to lose
playing not to win losing
Where your attitude fits on this chart determines the quality of your
life.
From "The New Metaphysics" Bashar, 1987, Light and Sound Communications
Inc
Matt Nathan
Michael Smith wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
>
> > If the "Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we deem
> > "better" than another?
>
> This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
> ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
> as the laws that guide it.
I don't have much to say about the whole thread, but I
just wanted to comment on your use of the word "law". I
think you're mixing contexts. In the legal system, "law"
is prescriptive (or proscriptive). In physics, "law" is
descriptive. In physics, matter/energy is not
"guided" by laws. The laws are descriptions of
how matter/energy is observed to behave. If you
want a reason why matter/energy behaves the way it does,
it is because it is what it is. In this sense, matter/energy
is exactly the same as the reason why it behaves the way it does.
(Incidentally, I'm reading and responding in alt.meditation.)
Matt Nathan
Michael Smith
Matt Nathan (ma...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
: > Or, since we are talking about a multiverse, is the multiverse
: > ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
: > the first leads to the universe creating itself out of nothing at all,
: > the second implies that, for example, matter/energy is exactly the same
: > as the laws that guide it.
: I don't have much to say about the whole thread, but I
: just wanted to comment on your use of the word "law". I
: think you're mixing contexts. In the legal system, "law"
: is prescriptive (or proscriptive). In physics, "law" is
: descriptive. In physics, matter/energy is not
: "guided" by laws.
But notice that I never mentioned the laws of *physics* in specific. Those
are man-made phenomena. I was refering to the laws of *nature*, those
rules which matter and energy follow that cannot be broken and which are
not well understood; that which Physics seeks to discover.
Other than that I agree with you completely. (I'm a mathematician, my
father is a lawyer, I've learned the difference :))
: Matt Nathan
Michael Smith
: Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that I disagree with your contention
that lack of trust comes from fear ... even if this were true, you must
admit that one has very good reason to doubt astrology, given that (1)
astrological systems from different cultures contradict each other, (2)
the justification given for astrology is weak at best, both from
scientific and philosophical points of view, and (3) astrology has an
unreliable record as a predictor of the future (which is, you must admit,
how most people perceive Astrology).
: What you are
: expressing is doubt from mistrust that "All That Is" is all that is.
The above statement is nonsense. I have perfect faith that All That Is is
all that is. My doubt lies in accepting Astrology as part of All That Is
(True).
: I am not talking about critical thinking which can be the effect of trust
: or doubt-it depends upon the approach. Since I was not citing detailed
: fact,
But in fact you were citing detailed fact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence for extraterrestrial life is becoming a very concrete reality
with the discovery of planets around a star in the constellation
Pegasus. When the populace is ready, the teachers appear. Mechanical
propulsion will not move us across space to visit them, or anything
else, as will the revelation induced velocity of a accelerated and
changed mind.
We see the world through Mercury, it rules the sense of sight. It is the
eyes of the spirit in the physical world. It is reflective of the
personified idea of the logos through the individual. The Universe is
the manifestation of all the different ways that God has of thinking
itself into existence in its search. We are those ideas, and a part of
that search. Time and space is the sequential experience of ideas that
actually exist all-at-once, therefore thinking is not only the best way
to travel, it is the only way. Because nothing is really "going"
anywhere. But we determine the quality of our vehicle's trip and
sightseeing on that journey through conscious commandment, and chose the
reality we believe in, when we trust it. Just because we will it to be
so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above two paragraphs you laid down a claim which states,
essentially, that that the *only* way we can contact extra-terrestrial
life is through some kind of movement of the mind. Unless you are
speaking about using the creativity of mankind to devise some sort
of interstellar spacecraft or clever means of communication, it seems
that you're talking about making some kind of psychic contact with these
aliens. TO continue:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just past the sharply focused realm of Saturn, lies the planet of
unconscious forgotten knowledge, Uranus. Awakening this unconscious
knowledge leads to the merging and blending with the other dimensional
or spiritual awareness at Neptune. The further out from the Sun we move
through the solar system, the deeper and more expanded into aspects of
ourselves we go, until at Pluto we transform to a whole new fourth
dimensional realm of reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This also appears to be a specific fact, that somehow by interacting with
Pluto one escapes into some "fourth dimention" of reality. I asked four
friends of mine who are professional and/or highly experienced astrologers
and none of them could tell me what this fourth dimention was except to
guess that it might have some physical context. Could you clear this up
for us, perhaps provide some sort of a reference?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This new reality of course, depends on our ability to recognize the
choice in the creation of our reality and experiences (Uranus). If we
believe that physical reality exists outside of us empirically (Saturn),
this recognition may be invalidated. If however, physical reality is
seen as simply a focused dream (Saturn) and dream reality, or other
dimensional consciousness as an expanded dream (Neptune), then the
paradox that the conscious mind feels about these polarities and its
"control" over them, is eased through the recognition of choice, either
consciously or unconsciously at Uranus.
The "unexpected" occurrences associated with Uranus are simply
forgotten choices, made at an unconscious level, that appear as "fate".
Primarily it comes through the expectations of conscious mind focus and
judgement (Saturn).
By taking responsibility for our reality at Saturn, we acknowledge our
choice in the creation of our reality at Uranus, which then allows for
merging with a broader reality at Neptune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now aside from the fact that this paragraph urges the would-be student to
suspend belief in an independent physical reality (all the belief in the
world is not going to prevent you from falling to your death when you step
out a fifty-story window), there is also the claim that by moving from
realization that physical reality is a "focused dream" and so on, we can
come to "merge with a broader reality" at Neptune. This is a very specific
statement on your part, essentially a claim that your system can expand
the mind to other ontologies. How do you suppose to justify this claim?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mayans re-cognized that 1992 would mark the beginning of the last 20
year cycle of a galactic cycle of 5125 years in length, during which we
will totally transform into a whole new dimension. It seems that our
solar system and its planetary configurations confirm this. Perhaps an
awakening into the association of worlds. And if physical reality is
simply a focused dream, and is as malleable as our unconscious dreams
while we sleep, then in an overall sense, I would submit that the
Uranus/Neptune conjunction that we have past, was a signpost for mankind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to wake up, and dream the dream it prefers to dream.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is another specific claim on your part. The claim is actually
twofold, (1) that mankind is *capable* of living *any* reality it chooses
(which may simply be an exagerated statement of basic free will; then
again, it reads like a claim that one *could* step out of a fifty story
window and suspend gravity mentally, or whatever, so as not to get hurt on
arriving on the ground) and that (2) mankind *should* actively engage in
bending reality to its will. If this is a claim that humans have free
will, it requires philosophical justification. If this is a claim that
humans are capable of *bending physical laws* by one's will, then it
constitutes an incredible claim and requires justification through
evidence and analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paradigm shift of 2012 will be from material or scientific standards
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of validity, to quality of life and relationship standards, of course
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this takes power from certain groups that are no longer necessary or
fair, the battle of the ego may be great, but as history has shown
through these quadratures in the past, transforming has never been the
result of mediocre people or events. If there was only one truth, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
one basis to form our assumptions about the nature of existence from,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
obviously paradigms would never shift and discovery would not exist. It
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from tiny Pluto's perspective the only way to find significance and
meaning in the vast sea of time and space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is the most specific claim of all and the one that is least able
to be justified. How do you know (1) such a paradigm shift will take place
at all, (2) that it will happen in 2012? Also, the second statement I
underlined begs the question of whether paradigms are *capable* of
changing even if there *is* only one truth. Just because we shift to a new
paradigm does not mean the paradigm is true.
: needed for empirical proof-but instead integral recognitions based
: on best assessments (mine of course) from years of digesting those
: "facts" and data, I would be inclined to discuss aspects of the CONCEPTS
: in a more analytically discerning way-but what I was POSTULATING were
: these concepts based on these best assessments from what I think I know.
: It is the theory that determines WHAT we can or DO observe.
: Simply, they were not presented as facts, therefore I need not defend
: them as such.
Let me suggest, then, that you be far more careful in your presentation of
your statements. Everything I quoted above was from your article,
presented in original form, and certainly all of it read as if you were
presenting them as facts.
: > : that they cannot all work together-in the same
: > : manner that they exist together.
:
: > WHich begs the question, in what sense do these exist together?
: In the obvious sense-do they not all exist? And do they all not exist
: now? And in that way share the same time and space not only physically
: but ephemerally as concepts-they exist period-therefore in the
: pantheistic way they ARE all that is NOW.
: > Religion and science are quite different realms of human endeavor, with
: In the MIND of MEN engaged in those endeavors-begging the question- is
: that how they truly exist? Simply being focused on a book doesn't make
: the book a "different endeavor" than the person reading it or the room
: that surrounds them.
You present a poor analogy. The human being, the book, and the room are
different things which share a few properties. Science and Philosophy are
schools of thinking which share a few properties. A book is different than
a human body is different from a room; Science is fundamentally different
from Philosophy.
: > fundamentally different bases for judgement (religion is based on faith
: They are both based on the need for significance-one secured through
: trust and one through proof that ALLOWS trust. I must clarify here I am
: speaking of spirituality-religion was meant to be a way to re-ligio
: (relink) back to our source but orthodox religion has become the science
: of following like politics and really has no relevance to spirituality
: in my mind-it is a habitual ritual based on fear and mistrust.
: > while science is based on doubt) and for confirming what you believe
: > (religion relies on philosophy where science relies on observation and
: > analysis of data).
: All of academia-the entire multiverse is "based on"
: ideas-philosophies-science is the "philosophy" of studying the universe
: (not multiverse since it cannot measure non-physical reality) and its
: physically organized laws and effects (which are the EFFECT of spiritual
: premise). Logic derivates from philosophy-math and empiricism from
: logic.
: > Astrology takes an entirely different, third
: > approach, based neither on scientific nor philosophical principles (how
: > many astrologers here have demonstrated with 99.7% confidence, in
: > repeatable experiments, that their system is accurate?
: Well this is a poor analogy-psychology doesn't either and its not some
: "third approach"-this is simply the effect of any subject that has tried
: to categoirize human nature,
You are correct that psychology is not a third approach. It is a
combination of philosophy and science, a messy one at that, with some
psychologists taking data and doing analyses and some psychologists
developing theories in the same manner as philosophy.
However, astrology does neither of these.
: I can pretty much repeat my delineations-except there is one silly
: little problem-they are never the same samples.
: 53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
: -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
: earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
: combinations, and from that like any other data you can infer what you
: wish and construct all sorts of things to make "statistically relevent
: inferences".
What you are saying, then, is that the system you have developed is so
complicated as to defy scientific justification.
: Well you are wrong on this point. And that is where the difficulty often
: lies-you like others feel (not empirically in any real way KNOW) you
: know what astrology is from what you can "gather"-try letting some other
: person who "feels they know" what particle physics is peer review Niels
: Bohr-not gonna happen. So I suggest at least in conversation with me
: about astrology, that if you wish to know ask-otherwise demonstrate some
: real astrological knowledge or what you think you know so I can correct
: misconceptions as we converse.
On the other hand, since you have made specific claims of fact with
regards to astrology and the future (see above), the system which creates
those claims is subject to rigorous verification. I may not be a chemist
but that doesn't mean that chemestry is not subject to verification by
outside agents.
: Of course I can't spend eternity
: educating each debator of the principles and practice of astrology-is
: this registering? It is an art/science it works.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again, you are making a claim you cannot justify with evidence.
: Do we know how? No.
: Does that stop it from working? No.
Again, begging the question of whether this system works or not.
: Does it make more sense that it
: WOULD work than not? Of course-in the same sense that a whale or dolphin
: can detect sounds miles from its location in "other" water.
This, however, has an explanation. Sound waves can travel through solid
rock into other bodies of water quite handily. More to the point, we can
demonstrate that this phenomenon is real with repeated observation of
dolphins and whales.
: > This might bring it close to religion, but nowhere near close to
: > science. In this sense, then, they fail to co-exist on the same level
: > (except as mere concepts).
: Pls see my post on "Intuition and Intellect" they are really different
: ends of the same concept-simply with different degrees of focus.
While intuition is definitely irreplacable in order to understand the
universe, it is possible for intuition to lead us all the hell the wrong
way. Even the most sane people will occasionally hear the voice of someone
long dead. This is where science and logic come in; they assure us that we
will not be tricked by ourselves.
: > : All truths are legitimate.
:
: > The key word here is "truths." There is very little which we know to be
: > true.
: Including science.
Granted. However, there is greater probability that a scientifically
established fact is true (rapidly converging to virtual certainty with
repeated observations) than a speculation on what may or may not happen in
2012 will be true.
: There is no one truth-if there was there would only
: be one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths or-"All That
: Is" combined-therefore I reassert-which aspect shall we deem "truer"
: than the other?
Are you suggesting that reality is entirely subjective?
: > : If the "Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we deem
: > : "better" than another?
:
: > This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
: Not possible.
How is this not possible?
Also, if God and the Universe are the same then the Universe was created
ex nihilo. How is *this* possible?
: But this requires a bigger model of-as you call it-God.
: Which with our limited focus at this present time is incomprehensible in
: any other way than the way I present it (or others percieve it), it
: cannot be comprehensively known.
Then how can you possibly claim that God cannot be separate from the
Universe with any veracity?
: > Or, since we are talking about a multiverse, is the multiverse
: > ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
: Why does it have to be uniform to be all one thing?
Because, again, if it is not ontologically uniform then you would end up
with contradictions such as the laws of nature being the same as the
matter and energy that they guide.
: Can it not manifest
: in forms BEYOND your conscious perception of it?
If this is so then your astrological system falls to peices.
: > the first leads to the universe creating itself out of nothing at all,
: Everything comes from something-the trick is whats outside of that and
: that and that....
Then you acknowledge that God *can* be separate from the Universe?
: > the second implies that, for example, matter/energy is exactly the same
: > as the laws that guide it.
: Mind is matter and vice versa-but mind "causes" matter and vice
: versa-not.
The above statement makes no sense?!?
: > : Subjective value judgments will be all you can muster.
:
: > Hmm. Before I judge, I usually like to throw objections at a worldview
: > until it breaks or until I have no reasonable grounds to object
: > anymore. It's the same thing that got me to leave the Church I guess.
: Then you must reject your own existence for you will not find enough
: empirical reasons to continue doing it and will discover it is not data,
: facts, or logic that drives you forward.
The above paragraph is entirely bullshit and I think you know better than
to try to pull that one. My existance is self-evident, since something
must be perceiving the world in the way I do even if it's not what I think
it is. You are correct that it is not data facts or logic that drives me
foreward, but you are changing the subject; my motivations are not at
issue here, what is at issue is the veracity of your system.
: > So you agree that Sagan is probably one of the less prejudicial sources
: > on the subject of astrology?
: Absolutely not. Only those skilled and knowledgable in any paradigm can
: realistically assess it-but then you also must be knowledgable of it to
: discern just who IS qualified-you cannot discern things you know nothing
: about-unless you violate your own reasoning premise that you keep
: asserting.
However when that paradigm makes claims of fact (again, you made a claim
of fact about the year 2012), then it is subject to outside scrutiny with
good reason. I have no quarrel with astrology as a system of thinking,
except when it asserts claims of fact.
: > If so, then his book might best represent
: > the skeptical viewpoint on this subject.
: Yes the skeptical view-of its validity-not its viability.
And what is the difference? A theory must be viable if it is to be valid;
if the validity is under question, then the viability also is under
question.
: Astrology is operationally obvious in its workings if you are skilled
: and able to apply it properly.
I'm sure that it is.
: Even IF prediction were its main benefit
: which it is not, we must have philosphical constructs in place to know
: what to do with this ability-that is where most astrologers and
: scientists alike fall short-philosophy, the foundation of the world(s).
Agreed.
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>Michael Smith wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
>> : Michael Smith wrote:
> :
> : > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
> : > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking
>about
> : > to people of both camps...
>
> : Fear is what you express
>
>> *Doubt* is what I express.
>Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
I do not trust my daughter to stay out of trouble at all times, yet I
do not fear her in the least.
Similarly, Michael appears not to trust your assertions without
evidence, yet he shows no signs that he fears you or your assertions.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
Edmond Wollmann
JeffMo wrote:
> >> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
> >> : Michael Smith wrote:
> > : > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
> > : > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking
> >about
> > : > to people of both camps...
> > : Fear is what you express
> >> *Doubt* is what I express.
> >Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
> I do not trust my daughter to stay out of trouble at all times, yet I
> do not fear her in the least.
Then you fear that she will get in trouble "sometimes".
> Similarly, Michael appears not to trust your assertions without
> evidence, yet he shows no signs that he fears you or your assertions.
And he demonstrates better arguments too.
Neil Urquhart
I wonder if a kind soul out there would mind answering a question.
I am currently searching for a new job and my (tropical) transits for
early March and the 31st of March (I would be starting any new job
March 31st or the day after) look very good: transiting Jupiter sxt my
MC March 8th and transiting Sun, Venus and Saturn ALL trine my MC on
March 31st. All fine and dandy but the fly in the ointment is Mars retro
which is transiting my 7th. Now I'm aware that Mars retro can be a real
trouble-maker (esp. where new plans are concerned) and it is not an
especially auspicious time to make changes (drives are frustrated, plans
backfire, new beginnings often prove to be premature etc) but I don't
have enough experience to weigh this one up. Which will prove to be the
greater influence?
[Another minor (?) factor is that I live in Japan and the Japanese
change their jobs at the beginning of April so there are literally
thousands of people searching for and getting new jobs at this time
(i.e. intiating new activities)]
Thanks in advance,
Neil
Chart details are as follows:
6th Sep 1970, 18:50 (British Summer Time), Inverness, Scotland (4W12,
57N29)
Tropical Placidus pos'ns are:
Su 13Vi43 7th
Mo 18Sc42 8th
Me 25Vi12 7th
Ve 29Li41 8th
Ma 02Vi15 7th
Ju 03Sc27 8th
Sa 22Ta37 3rd
Ur 07Li35 7th
Ne 28Sc20 9th
Pl 26Vi43 7th
NNode 02Pi07 1st
Asc 02Aq25
MC 10Sa19
2nd 17Ar10
3rd 21Ta26
5th 24Ge57
6th 09Can52
--
You ask me why I live in the grey hills,
I smile but do not answer, for my thoughts are elsewhere.
Like peach petals carried by the stream, they have gone
To other climates, to countries other than the world of men.
Li Po
We rise by kneeling; we conquer by surrendering; we gain by giving up.
Advice given to Hercules before his Eighth Labour
Things are not so comprehensible and expressible as one would mostly
have us believe; most events are inexpressible, taking place in a realm
which no word has ever entered, and more inexpressible than all else are
works of art, mysterious existences, the life of which, while ours
passes away, endures.
Rainer Maria Rilke, LETTERS TO A YOUNG POET, p17
EWollmann
Michael Smith wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
> : Michael Smith wrote:
:
: > Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
: > : Michael Smith wrote:
: :
: > *Doubt* is what I express.
: Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
> Setting aside for a moment the fact that I disagree with your contention
> that lack of trust comes from fear ... even if this were true, you must
> admit that one has very good reason to doubt astrology,
No I do not-these are YOUR very good reasons to doubt astrology-as I wrote
in the passages snipped or at bottom every system of belief has its own
reinforcing logic that justifies it.
> given that (1)
> astrological systems from different cultures contradict each other,
I cannot speak for other astrologers or systems-I can account for the fact
that I can delineate the horoscope psychologically and understand the
psyche involved using the methods I use.
>(2)
> the justification given for astrology is weak at best,
Which justification, I don't remember giving you one-this is profoundly
vague.
> both from
> scientific and philosophical points of view,
Followed by a quick slippery slope fallacy of induction.
> and (3) astrology has an
> unreliable record as a predictor of the future (which is, you must
admit,
> how most people perceive Astrology).
Whether most percieve it as such is not a basis for analysis-I thought you
were trying to be scientific? Most people can't name the planets
either-this is irrelevant.
: What you are
: expressing is doubt from mistrust that "All That Is" is all that is.
> The above statement is nonsense. I have perfect faith that All That Is
is
> all that is. My doubt lies in accepting Astrology as part of All That Is
> (True).
Then why didn't you answer my second part of the question that you
cleverly snipped-which part shall we deem valid and invalid? The parts you
believe to be true or the parts others do?
That is the way ANYTHING happens anyway-you may percieve it as matter-but
mind is matter.
> Unless you are
> speaking about using the creativity of mankind to devise some sort
> of interstellar spacecraft or clever means of communication, it seems
> that you're talking about making some kind of psychic contact with these
> aliens. TO continue:
No-I am saying that physical propulsion will not get us there ALONE-it
will take linking computers and mind to "relocate" us (the location being
a PART of the equation of any space/time coordinate) when we learn to
decipher vibrational frequencies as such-of course this may distort time
as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just past the sharply focused realm of Saturn, lies the planet of
unconscious forgotten knowledge, Uranus. Awakening this unconscious
knowledge leads to the merging and blending with the other dimensional
or spiritual awareness at Neptune. The further out from the Sun we move
through the solar system, the deeper and more expanded into aspects of
ourselves we go, until at Pluto we transform to a whole new fourth
dimensional realm of reality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> This also appears to be a specific fact, that somehow by interacting
with
> Pluto one escapes into some "fourth dimention" of reality.
No, the LEVEL of Pluto by its orbit reflects the idea of transcendence and
transformation-this is well known in astrology.
> I asked four
> friends of mine who are professional and/or highly experienced
astrologers
> and none of them could tell me what this fourth dimention was except to
> guess that it might have some physical context.
Appeal to authority-pls identify these astrologers-if they are who you say
I have heard of them or know them. Also it does not mean that I have not
pioneered beyond their understanding simply because they don't get it.
Transformation AT ANY LEVEL (3D to 4D to 5D) is the recognition (at all
levels of psychic material) that you are the reality you previously
believed you existed within.
> Could you clear this up
> for us, perhaps provide some sort of a reference?
There are about 100,000 references metaphysically, philosophically, in
physics, religion, ancient cultures and other paradigms-the theory of
relativity all but says this in plain english-this is a personal juorney
that can only be "proven" to the traveler. The psyche is a valid thing. At
this point I must ask for evidence from you as to astrological or
metaphysical awareness-so I am not wasting my time by going further-are
you at least familiar with Joseph Campbell and myths? Or are you seeking
to inquire about the Multiverse totally from the limitations of science?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This new reality of course, depends on our ability to recognize the
choice in the creation of our reality and experiences (Uranus). If we
believe that physical reality exists outside of us empirically (Saturn),
this recognition may be invalidated. If however, physical reality is
seen as simply a focused dream (Saturn) and dream reality, or other
dimensional consciousness as an expanded dream (Neptune), then the
paradox that the conscious mind feels about these polarities and its
"control" over them, is eased through the recognition of choice, either
consciously or unconsciously at Uranus.
The "unexpected" occurrences associated with Uranus are simply
forgotten choices, made at an unconscious level, that appear as "fate".
Primarily it comes through the expectations of conscious mind focus and
judgement (Saturn).
By taking responsibility for our reality at Saturn, we acknowledge our
choice in the creation of our reality at Uranus, which then allows for
merging with a broader reality at Neptune.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Now aside from the fact that this paragraph urges the would-be student
to
> suspend belief in an independent physical reality (all the belief in the
> world is not going to prevent you from falling to your death when you
step
> out a fifty-story window)
You do not understand the levels of the psyche and have answered my
question above. No one "tests" unconscious belief structures by stepping
out windows this is sheer stupidity-a poor analogy, and reflects your
rigid focus on the conscious as the only bank of psychic material. Any
psych 101 class leads beyond this understanding.
>, there is also the claim that by moving from
> realization that physical reality is a "focused dream" and so on, we can
> come to "merge with a broader reality" at Neptune.
You do it every night when you sleep. I am speaking of conscious
commandment which comes through great introspection, insight and
understanding of different levels of the psyche and of the individuated
self-have you an awareness of Jung's perspective?
> This is a very specific
> statement on your part, essentially a claim that your system can expand
> the mind to other ontologies. How do you suppose to justify this claim?
It is not "my system"-it is an understanding of the nature of reality
through inner journeys and relating them to the apparent outer
reality-this like all things worthy of effort takes much. You would first
have to rid (or transform) yourself of your paranoic association of the
ego self you believe yourself to be-as the only self you are. Christ,
Buddha, and many so enlightened individuals all say these things in their
own way with their own personal touch-but it is the same message all the
same. I do not have the level of awareness as these individuals had-but am
at the point of cognizing the truth behind it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mayans re-cognized that 1992 would mark the beginning of the last 20
year cycle of a galactic cycle of 5125 years in length, during which we
will totally transform into a whole new dimension. It seems that our
solar system and its planetary configurations confirm this. Perhaps an
awakening into the association of worlds. And if physical reality is
simply a focused dream, and is as malleable as our unconscious dreams
while we sleep, then in an overall sense, I would submit that the
Uranus/Neptune conjunction that we have past, was a signpost for mankind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to wake up, and dream the dream it prefers to dream.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Here is another specific claim on your part. The claim is actually
> twofold, (1) that mankind is *capable* of living *any* reality it
chooses
Not only is it capable-but this is what it does-observe the idea that 200
years ago a person would have considered typing this message with
electronic pulses and sending them around the world to be read by any
individual with their own "computer" far more scary and spacey than the
things I say now.
> (which may simply be an exagerated statement of basic free will; then
> again, it reads like a claim that one *could* step out of a fifty story
> window and suspend gravity mentally, or whatever, so as not to get hurt
on
> arriving on the ground)
If one was fully integrated AS the dimension it APPEARS it exists
within-not only would they not hit the ground but the temtation to do so
would be recognized as the mistrust that it is and would therefore KNOW
that they would hit the ground and die when and if they did.
> and that (2) mankind *should* actively engage in
> bending reality to its will.
There are no shoulds. But this is based on your perception that reality is
external to you to begin with-your preoccupation with science as the only
way to trust and control it is "proof" that reinforces this cognition. It
is a state of mind (reality) not a "thing" external from you-but you
cannot recognize this until you get to a point where you are ready and
then-through the exploration of inner space it will become apparent to
you-you may have to have all reliance upon the external removed before
this can occur. This can only happen through changes in your awareness-not
through some proving experiement. Therefore persons like yourself (and
everyone for that matter) creates the reality they believe to be the most
LIKELY reality to be true based on what they believe and have been taught
to believe is true.
> If this is a claim that humans have free
> will, it requires philosophical justification.
Pls see my post on self awareness and free will-these are YOUR
requirements and can only be achieved and proven by you to you.
> If this is a claim that
> humans are capable of *bending physical laws* by one's will, then it
> constitutes an incredible claim and requires justification through
> evidence and analysis.
For a scientist-not for a metaphysicion who already has proved these
things to himself. I am not asking anyone to believe anything I say just
because I say it-when the student is ready the teachers appear-and
everyone finds what they need when they need it-it is not a matter of
proof-it is a matter of vibrational experience, preference and
intention-like attracting like (or its polarity for contrast) each person
creates their experiential reality regardless of whether they percieve it
as external or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paradigm shift of 2012 will be from material or scientific standards
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of validity, to quality of life and relationship standards, of course
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this takes power from certain groups that are no longer necessary or
fair, the battle of the ego may be great, but as history has shown
through these quadratures in the past, transforming has never been the
result of mediocre people or events. If there was only one truth, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
one basis to form our assumptions about the nature of existence from,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
obviously paradigms would never shift and discovery would not exist. It
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is from tiny Pluto's perspective the only way to find significance and
meaning in the vast sea of time and space.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The above is the most specific claim of all and the one that is least
able
> to be justified. How do you know (1) such a paradigm shift will take
place
> at all,
Because one took place at the last Uranus/Pluto quadrature (conjunction)
in 1965-and all predictions are based on the sensing of the momentum of an
idea should the energy not change-and as far as I can discern that
momentum has not changed significantly enough to invalidate my
recognition-and as a matter of fact incidents seem to confirm it-what is
more amazing than my statements is how the Maya were capable of percieving
that momentum with little relevant material to go by.
> (2) that it will happen in 2012?
The quadratures begin then and do not complete their aspects until 2015
which is when the transformation will be complete-for that level at least.
> Also, the second statement I
> underlined begs the question of whether paradigms are *capable* of
> changing even if there *is* only one truth.
It only begs the question when you believe as you do that there is ONE
truth. There is NO-thing in the multiverse that does NOT change-name one!
> Just because we shift to a new
> paradigm does not mean the paradigm is true.
Exactly!
: needed for empirical proof-but instead integral recognitions based
: on best assessments (mine of course) from years of digesting those
: "facts" and data, I would be inclined to discuss aspects of the
CONCEPTS
: in a more analytically discerning way-but what I was POSTULATING were
: these concepts based on these best assessments from what I think I
know.
: It is the theory that determines WHAT we can or DO observe.
: Simply, they were not presented as facts, therefore I need not defend
: them as such.
> Let me suggest, then, that you be far more careful in your presentation
of
> your statements. Everything I quoted above was from your article,
> presented in original form, and certainly all of it read as if you were
> presenting them as facts.
Let me state then that you investigate the knowledge base of the
individual you attempt to "straighten out" before you make assumptions
instead of ask. Even facts change-history proves this(since you like
proof).
: that they cannot all work together-in the same
: manner that they exist together.
: > WHich begs the question, in what sense do these exist together?
: In the obvious sense-do they not all exist? And do they all not exist
: now? And in that way share the same time and space not only physically
: but ephemerally as concepts-they exist period-therefore in the
: pantheistic way they ARE all that is NOW.
> : > Religion and science are quite different realms of human endeavor,
with
> : In the MIND of MEN engaged in those endeavors-begging the question- is
> : that how they truly exist? Simply being focused on a book doesn't make
> : the book a "different endeavor" than the person reading it or the room
> : that surrounds them.
> You present a poor analogy. The human being, the book, and the room are
> different things which share a few properties. Science and Philosophy
are
> schools of thinking which share a few properties.
I am afraid any philospher would disagree here-did you not say that you
did not doubt that "All That Is" was indeed all that is? Go back you will
see you said this-therefore you contradict yourself in the above
statement. The room, the person, the book, the state, the country, the
world, the planet, the solar system, the collection of systems, the
galaxies ad infinitum are ALL ONE THING-"All That Is". To separate them is
the goal of the ego lest its validity dissapeare.
> A book is different than
> a human body is different from a room; Science is fundamentally
different
> from Philosophy.
Negative energy sees differences-positive sees similarities.
You are under the impression that one is "better" than another;
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that it
is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations; science
just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to appropriate
criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed in other ways.
But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of failure to meet
scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include theories that do
not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths in the
non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than some more
scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
> However, astrology does neither of these.
How do you know this? What studies have you made?
: I can pretty much repeat my delineations-except there is one silly
: little problem-they are never the same samples.
:
53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000.
: -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a million
: earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
: combinations, and from that like any other data you can infer what you
: wish and construct all sorts of things to make "statistically relevent
: inferences".
> What you are saying, then, is that the system you have developed is so
> complicated as to defy scientific justification.
It is not -once again-"my system", it is an understanding of many things
and how they fit together-I can read your chart as easily as anyone elses
and will know pretty conclusively your state of being-your awareness, this
then adds to this understanding by outlining what you have done with what
I see.
: Well you are wrong on this point. And that is where the difficulty
often
: lies-you like others feel (not empirically in any real way KNOW) you
: know what astrology is from what you can "gather"-try letting some
other
: person who "feels they know" what particle physics is peer review Niels
: Bohr-not gonna happen. So I suggest at least in conversation with me
: about astrology, that if you wish to know ask-otherwise demonstrate
some
: real astrological knowledge or what you think you know so I can correct
: misconceptions as we converse.
> On the other hand, since you have made specific claims of fact with
> regards to astrology and the future (see above), the system which
creates
> those claims is subject to rigorous verification.
All that has to "happen" for what I have stated is for these things to
come to pass-which they will.
> I may not be a chemist
> but that doesn't mean that chemestry is not subject to verification by
> outside agents.
Chemists peer review chemists-what you think I was born yesterday? :-)
: Of course I can't spend eternity
: educating each debator of the principles and practice of astrology-is
: this registering? It is an art/science it works.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Again, you are making a claim you cannot justify with evidence.
I have done it for 25 years-my articles provide examples on HOW it is
done-there will be more and I am working on some that perhaps may be
acceptable to more rigorous testing procedures-but this in no way detracts
from my service until then-just like weather predicting gets better-they
didn't stop doing it until they got it perfectly correct-or they would
have stopped long ago. It is practice that make perfect not perfect and
then practice.
: Do we know how? No.
: Does that stop it from working? No.
> Again, begging the question of whether this system works or not.
Again-if it works for those who think it works for them so be it-if it
doesn't don't use it-but I would suggest that investigating it would be
the first step of an intelligent person BEFORE rejection.
: Does it make more sense that it
: WOULD work than not? Of course-in the same sense that a whale or
dolphin
: can detect sounds miles from its location in "other" water.
> This, however, has an explanation. Sound waves can travel through solid
> rock in
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Professional Member of the American Federation of Astrologers, AFAN, ISAR
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>JeffMo wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Michael Smith wrote:
>> >> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
>> >> : Michael Smith wrote:
>> > : > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
>> > : > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking
>> >about
>> > : > to people of both camps...
>> > : Fear is what you express
>> >> *Doubt* is what I express.
>
>> >Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
>
>> I do not trust my daughter to stay out of trouble at all times, yet I
>> do not fear her in the least.
>Then you fear that she will get in trouble "sometimes".
So Michael's 'fear' can be simply defined as the fear that the
haphazard mixing of religion and science is terribly misguided?
>> Similarly, Michael appears not to trust your assertions without
>> evidence, yet he shows no signs that he fears you or your assertions.
>And he demonstrates better arguments too.
Of course he does; that was exactly my point. It just that we didn't
think you would admit the inferiority of your arguments so easily.
Religion and science are based on different cognitive circuits, have
different methods and different goals, and there are appropriate areas
of inquiry for each. Religion is individual by nature and its domain
is intangible. Science is universal by nature and its domain is
phenomenal.
Generally, the problems don't start until one camp or the other loses
this focus.
Edmond Wollmann
Again-if it works for those who think it works for them so be it-if it
doesn't don't use it-but I would suggest that investigating it would be
the first step of an intelligent person BEFORE rejection.
: WOULD work than not? Of course-in the same sense that a whale or
dolphin
: can detect sounds miles from its location in "other" water.
> This, however, has an explanation. Sound waves can travel through solid
> rock into other bodies of water quite handily. More to the point, we can
> demonstrate that this phenomenon is real with repeated observation of
> dolphins and whales.
Well I already posted one of your own-Carl Sagan with an argument
counter to this one you now try to reassert.
> : > This might bring it close to religion, but nowhere near close to
> : > science. In this sense, then, they fail to co-exist on the same level
> : > (except as mere concepts).
> : Pls see my post on "Intuition and Intellect" they are really different
> : ends of the same concept-simply with different degrees of focus.
> While intuition is definitely irreplacable in order to understand the
> universe, it is possible for intuition to lead us all the hell the wrong
> way. Even the most sane people will occasionally hear the voice of someone
> long dead. This is where science and logic come in; they assure us that we
> will not be tricked by ourselves.
Now you are discussing trust again and negative and positive expressions
of intuition and intellect not the subject itself. There is a difference
and I would suggest you read something that helps you to separate these
arguments that you are lumping together-it would be too time consuming
for me to break them apart and explain each one.
> : > : All truths are legitimate.
> : > The key word here is "truths." There is very little which we know to be
> : > true.
> : Including science.
> Granted. However, there is greater probability that a scientifically
> established fact is true
Only in your reality and those who agree it is THE truth, and only in
this dimension with this collective perspective at this time. It is a
VIEW not a truth of the multiverse set in stone.
> (rapidly converging to virtual certainty with
> repeated observations) than a speculation on what may or may not happen in
> 2012 will be true.
Based on information you don't (and didn't even) know I possess.
: There is no one truth-if there was there would only
: be one person. THE truth is the composition of all truths or-"All
That
: Is" combined-therefore I reassert-which aspect shall we deem "truer"
: than the other?
> Are you suggesting that reality is entirely subjective?
Experiential realities-yes-projected agreed upon collective-not totally
but to a great degree yes. It only follows collectively agreed upon
archetypes-if we were capable for example of collectively changing our
perspective in a heartbeat-the reality would change just as fast. This
is what allows a good astrologer to predict to begin with as they read
the momentum of the collective or the individual.
: > : If the "Multiverse"(God) is all one thing which parts shall we
deem
: > : "better" than another?
:
> : > This statement begs the question: is God separate from the Universe?
> : Not possible.
> How is this not possible?
How is it possible is a more logical question -other than an illusion of
perspective and focus? This again would require a long philosophical
dissertation I am not prepared to give. You can find much of this in any
philosophy text or in physics (if you are aware of course).
> Also, if God and the Universe are the same then the Universe was created
> ex nihilo. How is *this* possible?
Well-not only is this unknowable but I think you know ANY way is
unknowable at this point. I think it exists eternally and there is not
really such a thing as time. This seems to be borne out in many
paradigms.
: But this requires a bigger model of-as you call it-God.
: Which with our limited focus at this present time is incomprehensible
in
: any other way than the way I present it (or others percieve it), it
: cannot be comprehensively known.
> Then how can you possibly claim that God cannot be separate from the
> Universe with any veracity?
Because that definition in an of itself is a limiting ego definition
that has little relevance to our experience of reality-pls read my post
on self awareness and free will-I said-the fact that we are self
reflective in nature implies an open ended creatable reality without
limits-but you are talking about a long philosophical discourse here-I
can claim anything about the subject with as much veracity as you can
with your assertions-it is unknowable with any degree of great
certainty-correct?
In that sense mine as as valid as yours-without argument.
> : > Or, since we are talking about a multiverse, is the multiverse
> : > ontologically uniform? Either position IMO is virtually indefensible;
> : Why does it have to be uniform to be all one thing?
> Because, again, if it is not ontologically uniform then you would end up
> with contradictions such as the laws of nature being the same as the
> matter and energy that they guide.
They reflect -not guide.
> : Can it not manifest
> : in forms BEYOND your conscious perception of it?
> If this is so then your astrological system falls to peices.
I said yours not mine. Beyond mine-things are unknowable to me-I didn't
say anyone was in ultimate awareness-on the contrary I said there were
different levels.
> : > the first leads to the universe creating itself out of nothing at all,
: Everything comes from something-the trick is whats outside of that
and
: that and that....
> Then you acknowledge that God *can* be separate from the Universe?
I will only acknowledge that it appears that way from this perspective.
> : > the second implies that, for example, matter/energy is exactly the same
> : > as the laws that guide it.
> : Mind is matter and vice versa-but mind "causes" matter and vice
> : versa-not.
> The above statement makes no sense?!?
Ask a physiscist.
> : > : Subjective value judgments will be all you can muster.
> : > Hmm. Before I judge, I usually like to throw objections at a worldview
> : > until it breaks or until I have no reasonable grounds to object
> : > anymore. It's the same thing that got me to leave the Church I guess.
: Then you must reject your own existence for you will not find enough
: empirical reasons to continue doing it and will discover it is not
data,
: facts, or logic that drives you forward.
> The above paragraph is entirely bullshit and I think you know better than
> to try to pull that one. My existance is self-evident, since something
> must be perceiving the world in the way I do even if it's not what I think
> it is.
Alright since you use that argument-which was the point-it is self
evident to me many of the things I see that you cannot. Which is my
point that you can prove these things to yourself-many I cannot prove to
you-just as you can prove to yourself you exist-but that is meaningless
to me or anyone else.
> You are correct that it is not data facts or logic that drives me
> foreward, but you are changing the subject; my motivations are not at
> issue here, what is at issue is the veracity of your system.
No it is the issue-if you continue that argument as the reason I must
prove the varacity of a system before I rely upon it-you rely upon the
energy that drives you forward-yet cannot prove its varacity-it just is.
Self evident. It works for me (and many like me) just like your
unknowingness of what drives you forward is SUFFICIENT to rely upon
unquestioningly to you-to me that is not good enough I must know WHAT
drives me forward-lest I be the fool I think you are- that you think I
am.
> : > So you agree that Sagan is probably one of the less prejudicial sources
> : > on the subject of astrology?
: Absolutely not. Only those skilled and knowledgable in any paradigm
can
: realistically assess it-but then you also must be knowledgable of it
to
: discern just who IS qualified-you cannot discern things you know
nothing
: about-unless you violate your own reasoning premise that you keep
: asserting.
> However when that paradigm makes claims of fact (again, you made a claim
> of fact about the year 2012), then it is subject to outside scrutiny with
> good reason. I have no quarrel with astrology as a system of thinking,
> except when it asserts claims of fact.
Well this is not a fact-it is a sensing of a most likely probability
based on past momentums-you need facts-I use them but they don't
strangle me.
> : > If so, then his book might best represent
> : > the skeptical viewpoint on this subject.
> : Yes the skeptical view-of its validity-not its viability.
> And what is the difference? A theory must be viable if it is to be valid;
Astrology is viable and I use it everyday-not everything has to be an
empirically working model to be viable this is a value judgment on your
part-it is up to the person served-if it improves THEIR quality of life
as to whether it is viable or not.
> if the validity is under question, then the viability also is under
> question.
You are questioning the validity-it is not coming from some god on
high-if you don't prefer it so be it-this is not an indication of
viability or validity-except to you.
: Astrology is operationally obvious in its workings if you are skilled
: and able to apply it properly.
> I'm sure that it is.
: Even IF prediction were its main benefit
: which it is not, we must have philosphical constructs in place to
know
: what to do with this ability-that is where most astrologers and
: scientists alike fall short-philosophy, the foundation of the
world(s).
> Agreed.
Thanks for your responses, but this is a little long for me to
participate in-if you have specific questions I may try to answer them,
but I am constrained by efficiency concerns right now-hope you
understand.
Ed
--
Reality?
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"Michael Smith
wrote:
JeffMo
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
<all other attributions were missing at the top of this post>
<snip>
>> : > : All truths are legitimate.
>> : > The key word here is "truths." There is very little which we know to be
>> : > true.
>
>> : Including science.
>
>> Granted. However, there is greater probability that a scientifically
>> established fact is true
>Only in your reality and those who agree it is THE truth, and only in
>this dimension with this collective perspective at this time. It is a
>VIEW not a truth of the multiverse set in stone.
Mr. Wollmann:
Let's call the previous statement X, to wit:
X = "there is greater probability that a scientifically
established fact is true"
Now, let's paraphrase your statement as Y, to wit:
Y = "[X] is only a VIEW not a truth of the multiverse set in stone"
Well, unless you are a hopeless egotist, you must be willing to admit
the possibility that Y is only a VIEW, and not a truth of the
multiverse set in stone. In other words, your view might just be
wrong, and X could be correct.
In that case, it is at least possible that X *is* a truth of the
multiverse set in stone. For you to claim otherwise without evidence
is simple assertion.
Edmond Wollmann
> >> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >> >Michael Smith wrote:
> >> >> Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
> >> >> : Michael Smith wrote:
> >> > : > And so on, and so on, mixing analogies and throwing around terms of
> >> > : > science and of religion to try to legitimize what you're talking
> >> >about
> >> > : > to people of both camps...
> >> > : Fear is what you express
> >> >> *Doubt* is what I express.
> >> >Doubt results from lack of trust, lack of trust from fear.
> >> I do not trust my daughter to stay out of trouble at all times, yet I
> >> do not fear her in the least.
> >Then you fear that she will get in trouble "sometimes".
> So Michael's 'fear' can be simply defined as the fear that the
> haphazard mixing of religion and science is terribly misguided?
No-it is from the ego's locked perpective on physicality that secures
identity.
Let's see thats "haphazard mixing", and "terribly misguided". If it
wasn't for the fact that you have joined with Michael "to teach me
science" (I guess) I would have let this go-as in people who really
desire insight and assistance in regard to considerations of the
psyche-but since your sig file message has this idea of what "arguments
really are" you invite it. These are emotive words that spin doctors use
in politics, they give color and vitality to language, but EVIDENCE is
conveyed through words that have cognitive as opposed to emotive
meaning.
Now, you have done nothing in this thread BUT try to put spin and
emotive meanings to the post-therefore I have no desire to further any
discussion with you as your bias glares like a sore thumb.
> >> Similarly, Michael appears not to trust your assertions without
> >> evidence, yet he shows no signs that he fears you or your assertions.
> >And he demonstrates better arguments too.
> Of course he does; that was exactly my point. It just that we didn't
> think you would admit the inferiority of your arguments so easily.
I meant you of course.
> Religion and science are based on different cognitive circuits, have
> different methods and different goals, and there are appropriate areas
> of inquiry for each. Religion is individual by nature and its domain
> is intangible. Science is universal by nature and its domain is
> phenomenal.
Spin doctor. I already defined my argument-I am not open to your
redefinition based on emotive meanings.
> Generally, the problems don't start until one camp or the other loses
> this focus.
Each one fears what the other represents with regard to the end of the
spectrum of intellect vs intuition-I repeat-pls see my post on the
subject-degrees of focus is the only difference between these
subjects-and the integral individual is not pursuaded nor confused by
emotive spin doctors.
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
A valid argument has a true premises and a true conclusion-it is sound
if it is valid and has a true premises-if it is deductive, which
contains nothing new in the conclusion (like math). Inductive arguments
are weak or strong (never certain which all are here- inductive) if they
have a true premises and true conclusion (strong) or true premises and
(probably) false conclusion (weak). In this way they are determined to
be cogent or not based on strong argument+True premises. Thats all for
now the rest you will have to look up.
Here is the fallacy the two of you are subject to in this argument
against astrology (ps I have removed this from alt.astrology.metapsych
as there are no arguments as to the validity of astrology there) ;
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."
Logic, 4th Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing,
1991, page 128, "Informal Fallacies".
> "A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
And you obviously teach best what you most need to learn.
--
"With your head held high and your scarlet light you came down to me
from the open sky-its either real or its a dream there is nothing that
is in between-twilight, I only meant to stay awhile, twilight, I gave
you time to steal my mind away from me!" ELO "Twilight"
Mountain Man
JeffMo wrote:
> Religion and science are based on different cognitive circuits, have
> different methods and different goals, and there are appropriate areas
> of inquiry for each.
The doctrines of both religion and science in todays western society
border on dogma ... religion due to a number of obvious facts such as
the exclusivity of certain interpretations of religious figures,
and science due to its implicit acceptance of the doctrine of matter.
What were once the "natural sciences" are now the "physical scences".
Your phenomenal nature is presumed physical, requiring physical
evidential theories and physical interpretations thereof.
Both are doctrines - disciplines - ways of philosophical approach
and being - structured, published and have many proponents.
> Religion is individual by nature and its domain
> is intangible. Science is universal by nature and its domain is
> phenomenal.
One might say that the religious path is the path of the heart.
And that the scientific path is the path of the mind.
Yet an individual possesses both faculties *at the same time*
as a binary system exhibits both complementary and dual natures.
Therefore, the pursuit of either one is not mutually exclusive
to the other, neither - more importantly - is one therefore
of greater importance than another for both are necessary.
The way of the heart concerns survival - food (earth), water, air,
warmth and light (fire) and, although such mundane things are
often neglected and disregarded by those who have sufficiencies,
there are many on this planet who are in need of the basics.
Those who give thanks to their religion for food and water
as part of the daily struggle might not view the world in the
same manner as one who - in the confidence of his intellectual
abilities - relegates the management of the affairs of the
heart to a background position.
It is easy to observe division of nature, the observation
of its commonalities is more difficult.
The nature of the universe - whether looked upon by a
scientific or a religious figure - is the same nature.
Whether you call it scientific or religious:
this is immaterial.
The inner nature of man is of the same nature.
Nature is one continuum.
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
Thematics: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "All things are Connected" - Chief Seattle (1854)
---------------------------------------------------------------------