Einstein quote
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST ON
ALT.ASTROLOGY? WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER
THE QUESTION
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ZERO ARIES?
WHY DO YOU POST YOUR FOUL ANTI ASTRO
TIRADES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ZERO ARIES?
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <34099564...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
><awal...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:29:47 +1200, Adonis
>><adonisRE...@spamBLOCKihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
>>>they are not certain, and as far as they are certain,
>>>they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein
>>
>>Thanks, Adonis. That one is terrific.
>
>It seems to rather put the kibosh on any claims some astrologers might
>have had that Einstein was a believer in astrology, at any rate--at
>least assuming that my assessment of astrology as essentially a
>numerological discipline is correct.
>--
>Sherilyn
>For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
Wm G. Smith
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>
> pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST ON
>
> WHY DO YOU POST YOUR FOUL ANTI ASTRO
> TIRADES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
>
Why not post in alt.astrology? If you and your deluded friends want a
newsgroup that only allows posts from others similarly deluded start an
alt.kook.astrology.moderated newsgroup. As long as your ng is open to
the Internet public, it will happen that from time to time a person
still in possession of his wits will stumble into your group and find
himself unable to resist the temptation to cure as many of you as he can
of your superstition.
If you don't like being reminded from time to time that sensible people
are simply unable to give any credence to your superstitions start a
moderated newsgroup. Until then, deal with the fact that there are
doubters in the world and that they too have as much right to speak on
the astrology superstition as Believers have.
--
The Law Office of Wm G. Smith
P.O. Box 3017
Saxonville Station
Framingham, Mass. 01705
Phone: (508)877-3119
Fax: (508)877-3028
Haizen Paige
=========================================================
Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
of Children, by Julius Spier:
"The rise of the Natural Sciences and with it of rationalism in the 18th
Century were responsible for the contemptible treatment and defamation of
theses ancients arts which could pride themselves on a thousand years of
history, and this led to the rejection of everything which on the one hand
defied a reasonable explanation and verification by experiment or, on the
other, made too exclusive a claim on intuition.
"In the 20th Century, however, after 200 years of intensive scientific
progress, we can risk resurrecting these almost forgotten Arts which have
dragged on a despised existence in semiobscurity; and we can risk testing
them in the light of modern knowledge for possible truths."
=============================================================
ASTROLOGY_AND_SCIENCE RESOURCES ON THE NET
ALT.ASTROLOGY FAQ --
WHY SKEPTICS SHOULD POST ELSEWHERE
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
ASTROLOGY RESOURCES (GENERAL)
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/
FREE "ASTROLOG" SOFTWARE WEB SITE
http://www.speakeasy.org/~cruiser1/astrolog.htm
AN ASTROPHYSICIST'S SYMPATHETIC
AND CRITICAL VIEW OF ASTROLOGY
(Highly recommended)
http://lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html
ABOUT THE GAUQUELIN PLANETARY EFFECTS: MISUNDERSTANDINGS, MISREPRESENTATIONS
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS & FREQUENTLY
VOICED OBJECTIONS. (Start here on Gauquelin's work. Superb.)
http://members.aol.com/kirving/mmf.htm
PART I - SCIENCE, ASTROLOGY AND THE GAUQUELIN
PLANETARY EFFECTS
http://members.aol.com/kirving/sciast1.htm
REVIEW OF THE MARS EFFECT, A FRENCH TEST OF OVER 1,000 SPORTS CHAMPIONS
http://members.aol.com/kirving/marsfxre.htm
THE TRUE DISBELIEVERS: MARS EFFECT DRIVES SKEPTICS TO IRRATIONALITY -
(PART I) BY RICHARD KAMMANN
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/kammann.html
A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE MARS EFFECT CONTROVERSY
http://members.aol.com/kirving/marchron.htm
THE RAWLINS-STARBABY REPORT
Science, Fraud and Corruption in the Investigation of the Mars Effect:
ftp://ftp.primenet.com/pub/lippard/rawlins-starbaby
SUMMARY OF MICHEL AND FRANCOISE GAUQUELIN'S WORK
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/gauqueli.n
ASTROLOGICAL HOUSES AND THE GAUQUELINS' RESEARCH
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/gauqueli.n2
ASTROLOGY AND METALS
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/metals1
CHEMICAL EFFECTS OF A MARS-SATURN CONJUNCTION
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/metals2
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE METAL EXPERIMENTS
http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/metals3
SCIENCE AND ASTROLOGY BY ARTHUR M. YOUNG
http://www.hypersphere.com/ay/astroexc.html
SOLAR MAGNETISM INTEGRATES ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY
http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Astro/solar-magnetism.html
GANN'S LAW OF PRICE MOVEMENT APPLIED TO TODAY'S MARKET
http://ison.com/mktsys/gann1.txt
INTERVIEW ON ASTROLOGY / RADIO NEW ZEALAND
http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Astro/astrology-interview.html
===============================================
In article <340B42...@ix.netcom.com>, "Wm G. Smith"
Sherilyn
In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
<hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>=========================================================
>Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
>of Children, by Julius Spier:
Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
PZ Myers
In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>,
hai...@sedona.net* (Haizen Paige) wrote:
> =========================================================
> Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
> of Children, by Julius Spier:
I believe he was a psychiatrist, not a psychologist...two rather different
things, you know.
>
> "The rise of the Natural Sciences and with it of rationalism in the 18th
> Century were responsible for the contemptible treatment and defamation of
> theses ancients arts which could pride themselves on a thousand years of
> history, and this led to the rejection of everything which on the one hand
> defied a reasonable explanation and verification by experiment or, on the
> other, made too exclusive a claim on intuition.
>
> "In the 20th Century, however, after 200 years of intensive scientific
> progress, we can risk resurrecting these almost forgotten Arts which have
> dragged on a despised existence in semiobscurity; and we can risk testing
> them in the light of modern knowledge for possible truths."
He was also a mystical visionary fruitcake. Not the kind of guy you
want to quote in an attempt to add a patina of rationalism to a
silly superstition.
> =============================================================
> ASTROLOGY_AND_SCIENCE RESOURCES ON THE NET
Ummm...there's a little contradiction in terms above. You might
want to fix it.
Isn't it lovely how easy HTML is? Even the loons can use it.
> ===============================================
> In article <340B42...@ix.netcom.com>, "Wm G. Smith"
> <w.s...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Why not post in alt.astrology? If you and your deluded friends want a
> > newsgroup that only allows posts from others similarly deluded start an
> > alt.kook.astrology.moderated newsgroup. As long as your ng is open to
> > the Internet public, it will happen that from time to time a person
> > still in possession of his wits will stumble into your group and find
> > himself unable to resist the temptation to cure as many of you as he can
> > of your superstition.
> >
> > If you don't like being reminded from time to time that sensible people
> > are simply unable to give any credence to your superstitions start a
> > moderated newsgroup. Until then, deal with the fact that there are
> > doubters in the world and that they too have as much right to speak on
> > the astrology superstition as Believers have.
And how was this oh-so informative post relevant to the comment of Mr.
Smith? It's very nice that many of the astrology kooks can work out their
obsessions on the web, but Smith was commenting on the Odious and Obnoxious
Pete's efforts to stifle commentary in the open forum of alt.astrology.
--
Paul Z. Myers
http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Sherilyn
In article <haizen-0109...@client49.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
<hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>
>In article <qiNFpgBoA0C0Ew$c...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
>> <hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>> >
>> >of Children, by Julius Spier:
>>
>Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to refer
>to him as a psychologist because his work covers the entire field of
>psychology and he is generally referred to as a psychologist rather than a
>psychiatrist.
To clarify, Jung was _not_ a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist with
some training in psychoanalysis.
Wade Ramey
> To clarify, Jung was _not_ a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist with
> some training in psychoanalysis.
> --
> Sherilyn
I have to agree with Haizen Paige here. It matters little how a person was
trained or what degrees were conferred on him at some early age. What
matters are his ultimate contributions. The American Heritage Dictionary
has this to offer:
"Jung (yÜng), Carl Gustav. 1875-1961.
Swiss psychiatrist who founded analytical psychology. Among his
contributions to the understanding of the human mind are the concepts of
extraversion and introversion and the notion of the collective
unconscious. Jung's works include The Psychology of the Unconscious (1912)
and Psychological Types (1921)."
Jung's important work was in the field of PSYCHOLOGY. That makes him a
psychologist.
Wade
Sherilyn
In article <ramey-02099...@ramey.mth.msu.edu>, Wade Ramey
<ra...@math.msu.edu> writes
>
>> To clarify, Jung was _not_ a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist with
>> some training in psychoanalysis.
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>
>I have to agree with Haizen Paige here. It matters little how a person was
>trained or what degrees were conferred on him at some early age. What
>matters are his ultimate contributions. The American Heritage Dictionary
>has this to offer:
>
>"Jung (yÜng), Carl Gustav. 1875-1961.
>Swiss psychiatrist who founded analytical psychology. Among his
>contributions to the understanding of the human mind are the concepts of
>extraversion and introversion and the notion of the collective
>unconscious. Jung's works include The Psychology of the Unconscious (1912)
>and Psychological Types (1921)."
Jung, Carl Gustav (1875-1961), Swiss psychiatrist, who founded the
analytical school of psychology. Jung broadened Sigmund Freud's
psychoanalytical approach, interpreting mental and emotional
disturbances as an attempt to find personal and spiritual wholeness.
Born on July 26, 1875, in Kesswil, Switzerland, the son of a Protestant
clergyman, Jung developed during his lonely childhood an inclination for
dreaming and fantasy that greatly influenced his adult work. After
graduating in medicine in 1902 from the universities of Basel and
Zürich, with a wide background in biology, zoology, paleontology, and
archaeology, he began his work on word association, in which a patient's
responses to stimulus words revealed what Jung called “complexes”—a term
that has since become universal. These studies brought him international
renown and led him to a close collaboration with Freud. With the
publication of Psychology of the Unconscious (1912; trans. 1916),
however, Jung declared his independence from Freud's narrowly sexual
interpretation of the libido by showing the close parallels between
ancient myths and psychotic fantasies and by explaining human motivation
in terms of a larger creative energy. He gave up the presidency of the
International Psychoanalytic Society and cofounded a movement called
analytical psychology."Jung, Carl Gustav," Microsoft (R) Encarta.
Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk &
Wagnall's Corporation.
>
>Jung's important work was in the field of PSYCHOLOGY. That makes him a
>psychologist.
...
I beg to differ. His important work was in the field of psychoanalysis.
He also had some mystical ideas which he chose to dress up as a movement
in psychology.
Haizen Paige
In article <qiNFpgBoA0C0Ew$c...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
> <hai...@sedona.net*> writes
> >
> >Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
> >of Children, by Julius Spier:
>
> Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
>
> http://www.cgjung.com/
> --
> Sherilyn
> For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
==============================
Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to refer
to him as a psychologist because his work covers the entire field of
psychology and he is generally referred to as a psychologist rather than a
psychiatrist. The numerous listings on any of the web search engines by
the proponets of Jungian psychology are also supportive of this view, as
well as other reference resources. Other than this I really have nothing
to share with you on alt.astrology, other than to say that I do hope you
get whatever you're looking for out of the usenet experience. Thank you
for the opportunity to share more of Jung's thoughts on astrology.
Sincerely,
Haizen Paige
======================================================
> Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
> of Children, by Julius Spier:
>
> "The rise of the Natural Sciences and with it of rationalism in the 18th
> Century were responsible for the contemptible treatment and defamation of
> theses ancients arts which could pride themselves on a thousand years of
> history, and this led to the rejection of everything which on the one hand
> defied a reasonable explanation and verification by experiment or, on the
> other, made too exclusive a claim on intuition.
>
> "In the 20th Century, however, after 200 years of intensive scientific
> progress, we can risk resurrecting these almost forgotten Arts which have
> dragged on a despised existence in semiobscurity; and we can risk testing
> them in the light of modern knowledge for possible truths."
======================================================
*Interview with Psychologist Carl Jung
The following is an interview that Jung gave on 26 May, 1954, which
was given to Andre Barbault, Editor of Astrologie Moderne. It was
translated for the American Federation of Astrologers Bulletin and I
have made only two minor changes re-inserting words omitted in the
original translation. I have noted these with an asterisk, the asterisk
being placed to the right of the word omitted from the original
translation. One or two of you post to the Jung board and you might
like to post this interview there. Garth.
Q. Maitre, what relationship do you see between astrology and
psychology?
J. There have been many striking analogies between the astrological
constellation and the psychological event or the horoscope and the
characterological disposition. For example, there is even a possibility
of predicting somewhat the psychic effect of a transit. One can expect
with considerable assurance that a given well-defined psychological
situation will be accompanied by an analogous astrological
configuration. Astrology consists of configurations symbolic of the
collective unconscious which is the subject matter of psychology; the
'planets' are the gods, symbols of the powers of the unconscious (of the
first order and beyond).
Q. In what way, physical, causal, or synchronous, do you think these
relations maybe established?
J. It seems to me that it is primarily a question of the parallelism of
sympathy which I call SYNCHRONICITY, as a causal connection
expressing the relations that cannot be formulated on the basis of
causality, such as precognition, premonition, psychokinesis (PK), and
what we call telepathy. In as much as causality is a statistical fact,
there are exceptions of an acasual nature touching on the category of
synchronistic (not "synchronous") events. These deal with the
'qualified time'.
Q. What is your attitude toward the positions taken by astrologers who
admit the existence of a psychological field from birth on and of the
psycho-analysts who explain the etiology of neuroses from very early
experiences?
J. The first experiences in life owe their specific (pathogenic) effect to
environmental influences on the one hand, and on the other to a
psychic predisposition that is, to heredity, which seems to be expressed
in a recognizable way in the horoscope. At a certain moment thislatter
seems to correspond to the mutual relationship of the gods, which is to
say, the psychic archetypes.
Q,. In its principles, astrology introduces the concept of qualitative
time in the universe; do you recognize its role in the individual
pshyche (problem of cycles and transit)?
J. I used this concept at one time, but I replaced it with the idea of
synchronicity, which is analogous to the sympathy of correspondentia,
or the pre-established harmony of Leibnitz. Time consists of nothing.
It is only a modus cogitandi that is used to express and formulate the
sequence of things and events, just as space is nothing but a manner of
characterizing the existence of a body.
When nothing occurs in time, and when there is no body in space, there
is neither time nor space. Time is always and exclusively 'qualified'
by events as is space by the extension of bodies. But this is a
tautology not worth repeating, whereas synchornicity (not
'synchronism') expresses the parallelism and analogy of even non-
causal events. In contrast the hypothesis of 'qualitative time' attempts
to explain the parallelism of events in terms of causa and effectus. But
since qualitative time is nothing but a sequence of things, and
moreover 'nothing' but space, this hypothesis establishes nothing but
the tautology of the sequence of things and events and the cause of the
sequence of things, etc...
Synchronicity negates causality in the analogy of terrestrial events
with the constellations (except for the deflection of solar protons and
their possible effect on terrestrial events) and particularly in the
various cases of extra-sensory perception (ESP), especially
precognition since it is inconceivable that one could observe the effect
of a non-existent cause or a cause not yet in existence.
The thing that astrology can establish is the analogy of agents, but
certainly not one series as the effect or cause of another. For example,
the same constellation indicating a catastrophe one time and another
time,under the same conditions, a cold. Nevertheless, astrology does
not present a completely simple case. There is the deflection of solar
protons caused by conjunctions, oppositions, and quartile aspects on
the one hand, and the trine and ssextile aspects on the other, and the
effects of these on radio and many other things. I am not competent to
say what importance should be attributed to this possibility.
In any case, astrology's place among the intuitive methods is special
and unique, and there is reason to be dubious of both a causal theory
and the exclusive validity of the synchronistic hypothesis.
Q. In the course of analytic treatment, have you observed phases of
resistance and denouement in connection with transits in the make-up
of the patient?
J. I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological
phase or an analogous events has been accompanied by a transit
(particularly the afflictions of Saturn and Uranus).
Q. What major criticism do you have of astrologers?
J. If I may express myself in an area that I know only very
superficially, I should say that the astrologer does not always regard
his indications as pure possibilities. The interpretation is sometimes
too literal and too personal, and too little symbolic. The zodiac and
the planets are not personal traits, but rather impersonal and objective
facts. Moreover, interpretation of the houses should consider several
'levels of meaning'.
Q. What orientation of astrological thought do you consider
desirable?
J. Obviously astrology offers much to psychology, but that which
the latter can contribute to its elder sister is less obvious. In as far
as I can judge, it seems to me that it would be advantageous to
astrology if it would recognize the existence of psychology,
particularly that of the personality and the unconscious. I am
almost certain that something of the method of symbolic
interpretation of archetypes (the gods) and their mutual relations
is common to the two arts. The psychology of the unconscious is
particularly concerned with archetypal symbolism. [End.]
=============================================
>ASTROLOGY_AND_SCIENCE RESOURCES ON THE NET
>
>ALT.ASTROLOGY FAQ --
>http://www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
>
>AN ASTROPHYSICIST'S SYMPATHETIC
>AND CRITICAL VIEW OF ASTROLOGY
>(Highly recommended)
>http://lightlink.com/vic/astrol.html
>
>ABOUT THE GAUQUELIN PLANETARY EFFECTS: MISUNDERSTANDINGS, >MISREPRESENTATIONS
>FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS & FREQUENTLY
>VOICED OBJECTIONS.
>FREE "ASTROLOG" SOFTWARE WEB SITE
>http://www.speakeasy.org/~cruiser1/astrolog.htm
=====================================
mjs...@interlog.com
In article <qQLlFhCz...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <haizen-0109...@client49.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
> <hai...@sedona.net*> writes
> >
> >In article <qiNFpgBoA0C0Ew$c...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> ><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
> >> <hai...@sedona.net*> writes
> >> >
> >> >Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
> >> >of Children, by Julius Spier:
> >>
> >> Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
> >>
> >> http://www.cgjung.com/
> ...
> >Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to refer
> >to him as a psychologist because his work covers the entire field of
> >psychology and he is generally referred to as a psychologist rather than a
> >psychiatrist.
>
> To clarify, Jung was _not_ a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist with
> some training in psychoanalysis.
> --
> Sherilyn
> For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
This is a rather inane argument over titles. Carl Jung was the father of
depth psychology and if you would read his collected works (all 20
volumes) you would know that Dr. Jung was an M.D. At the time Jung trained
there were neither psychologists nor psychiatrists. As for some training
in psychoanalysis Jung and Freud invented the field and then quarrelled
over Freud's theory of Neurosis which is a reductio argument that leads to
'penis envy' etc and the paired complexes of sexual fixation on the
contrasexual parent. Jung rejected Freud's theory as being too shallow
and as failing to explain much of the material that surfaced during
analysis. He then embarked on the research that gave him the standing he
now has as a giant among midgets.
Martin
Andri Lindbergs
Sherilyn wrote:
> >> Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
> >Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I think it reasonable to refer
> >to him as a psychologist because his work covers the entire field of
> >psychology and he is generally referred to as a psychologist rather than a
> >psychiatrist.
>
> To clarify, Jung was _not_ a psychologist. He was a psychiatrist with
> some training in psychoanalysis.
> --
> Sherilyn
> For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
With all respect, Sherilyn, this is a futile argument. If psychology is
what you do then you are a psychologist. Freud wasn't educated as a
psychologist, yet most people refer to him as such. Another noted
psychologist of this century, Erik Erikson, the father of Psycho-social
developmental theory, had no education in psychology (he studied to
become an artist) yet everyone refers to him as such. Despite his lack
of education, he held a high office at Harvard psychology department.
You are what you do!!!
You seem to like arguing only for the arguments sake.
Regards,
Andri
ado...@ihug.co.z
Actually, he trained as a psychoanalyst and then started his own
branch called analytical psychology.
On Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:22:32 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
><hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>>=========================================================
>>Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
>>of Children, by Julius Spier:
>
>Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
>
Blue Wolf
}In article <34099564...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Ann Shermann
}<awal...@ix.netcom.com> writes
}>On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 15:29:47 +1200, Adonis
}><adonisRE...@spamBLOCKihug.co.nz> wrote:
}>
}>>"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
}>>they are not certain, and as far as they are certain,
}>>they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein
}>
}>Thanks, Adonis. That one is terrific.
}
}It seems to rather put the kibosh on any claims some astrologers
might
}have had that Einstein was a believer in astrology, at any rate--at
}least assuming that my assessment of astrology as essentially a
}numerological discipline is correct.
}--
}Sherilyn
}For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
To be called to account publicly for everything one has said, even in
jest, in an excess of high spirits or in momentary anger, may possibly
be awkward, yet up to a point it is reasonable and natural. But to be
called upon to account publicly for what others have said in one's
name, when one cannot defend oneself, is indeed a sad predicament.
~ Albert Einstein~
Ideas and Opinions pg. 15
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
It appears that the quote that has been repeatedly posted without the
source being mentioned is a sad attempt to misuse AE's reputation as a
source of someone else's personal legitimacy.
This is WRONG.
If you are looking for "famous" persons who give credence to
Astrological concepts, there are a number of them. Please pick one to
quote who ACTUALLY said something postitive about Astrology.
If you are looking for "intelligent" persons who give credence to
Astrological concepts, there are a number of them. There is a
Parapsychology SIG (special interest group) of American Mensa and a
number of Pagan and Occult SIGs in the Metropolitan Washington Mensa
group. (American Mensa also has a Transgender SIG.......)
HOWEVER>>> Quoting any of these people would only show that they lend
credence to these systems. IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SPEAK FOR =YOUR=
PERSONAL ABILITY OR LEGITIMACY. Only YOUR OWN words and postings can
do that for you.
Einstein's writings (the ones that I have read) focus mainly on the
issues of science and/vs religion and war and/vs peace. These were
the main issues of his time. Science creates a weapon that kills
people on a greater scale than ever conceived.......to bring peace in
a war that generated horrors on a greater scale than anyone could
think possible. This is what his life was concerned with ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion
is lame, religion without science is blind.
~Albert Einstein~
Ideas and Opinions pg. 46
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
========================================
Lori Pontarelli
Blue Wolf's Magickal Blends
http://www.wizard.net/~bluewolf/home.htm
~Inspired by Spirit~
========================================
bluewolf...@wizard.net
remove the spam guardian from my address to email me
J. B. Stephen (Buck)
Whether Einstein said this or not, it makes sense to
a scientist.
The statement is not a refutation of mathematics, nor
of physics.
It is understood that the mathematical description of
physics is a theory. It is a mthematical
description consistent with observed data.
One can gain insight into the world with mathematical
models, but must be careful to check that they are
still consistent with reality.
This statement is a fundamental warning to scientists,
and has no bearing on psuedoscience.
BTW, I have no wish to argue foundations of
science, Popper or Kuhn. Interested parties in
such a discussion are referred to Deja News.
Buck
J Stephen
Dept Math Sci
NIU
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Why do you post on alt.astrology?
"Wm G. Smith" <w.s...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>> pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST ON
>> ALT.ASTROLOGY? ...
>>
>> WHY DO YOU POST YOUR FOUL ANTI ASTRO
>> TIRADES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
>>
>
>Why not post in alt.astrology? If you and your deluded friends want a
>newsgroup that only allows posts from others similarly deluded start an
>alt.kook.astrology.moderated newsgroup. As long as your ng is open to
>the Internet public, it will happen that from time to time a person
>still in possession of his wits will stumble into your group and find
>himself unable to resist the temptation to cure as many of you as he can
>of your superstition.
>
>If you don't like being reminded from time to time that sensible people
>are simply unable to give any credence to your superstitions start a
>moderated newsgroup. Until then, deal with the fact that there are
>doubters in the world and that they too have as much right to speak on
>the astrology superstition as Believers have.
>
>
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Pete comments: why do you post on alt.astrology?
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
><hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>>=========================================================
>>Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
>>of Children, by Julius Spier:
>
>Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
>
>http://www.cgjung.com/
Robert Roosen
On Thu, 4 Sep 1997, Blue Wolf wrote:
>
> If you are looking for "famous" persons who give credence to
> Astrological concepts, there are a number of them. Please pick one to
> quote who ACTUALLY said something postitive about Astrology.
For instance Sir Isaac Newton. When chided about his work in
astrology by Sir Edmund Halley, Newton responded, "Sir. I have studied
the subject and you have not."
Pretty much the same story today....
RR
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Charles Henning <Cha...@cytware.com> wrote:
>What a surprise!! He's a lawyer.
>
>Wm G. Smith wrote:
>
>> petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>> >
>> > pete comments: WHY DO YOU POST ON
>> > ALT.ASTROLOGY? ...
>> >
>> > WHY DO YOU POST YOUR FOUL ANTI ASTRO
>> > TIRADES ON ALT.ASTROLOGY?
>> >
>>
>> Why not post in alt.astrology? If you and your deluded friends want a
>> newsgroup that only allows posts from others similarly deluded start an
>> alt.kook.astrology.moderated newsgroup. As long as your ng is open to
>> the Internet public, it will happen that from time to time a person
>> still in possession of his wits will stumble into your group and find
>> himself unable to resist the temptation to cure as many of you as he can
>> of your superstition.
>>
>> If you don't like being reminded from time to time that sensible people
>> are simply unable to give any credence to your superstitions start a
>> moderated newsgroup. Until then, deal with the fact that there are
>> doubters in the world and that they too have as much right to speak on
>> the astrology superstition as Believers have.
Pete comments: what is taking place on alt.astrology is not reasonable
inquirey, seeking of the truth of the matter - what is taking place is
a continuance of the conspiracy of silence regarding astrology fostered
by astnomers these many years. This is the reason people such as yourself
remain ignorant of you the real world works. You cannot find out the truth
about astrology in any way. You certainly cannot attend any tax supported
school and learn about astrology - at least not the truth about astrology.
Next, you indicate you are a lawyer. As such, you should be familiar with
the local criminal calendar. Why don't you check the birth dates of
those being charged with penal code violations during the past two
years. See if you can spot the blip in birth dates which shows those
born between Mar 15 and Apr 13 are being charged way above any
normal birtdate distribution? I have.
So why not try to cure yourself of your brainwashing.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Robert Roosen <roo...@odin.ax.com> wrote:
Pete Stapleton comments: Robert, I don't think
there is anyone on sci.skeptic that can understand
what you are trying to say. These people are without
a skeptical facility - they believe what ever their
brainwashers have imprinted. So to suggest what
the 'KNOW" to be true in some way makes them
dinosaurs is beyond their ability to comprehend.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
zeus1...@aol.com (Zeus150000) wrote:
>>From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>>Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 23:22:32 +0100
>>Message-id: <qiNFpgBoA0C0Ew$c...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>In article <haizen-0109...@client19.sedona.net>, Haizen Paige
>><hai...@sedona.net*> writes
>>>=========================================================
>>>Psychologist Carl Jung said the following in his introduction to The Hands
>>>of Children, by Julius Spier:
>>
>>Carl Jung did not train as a psychologist, but as a psychiatrist.
>
>I don't understand why you seem to think this makes any difference
>whatsoever? Also miss, could you please stop harrassing persons here who
>wish to discuss their astrology? I am an old man and don't enjoy clicking
>through all these skeptical people's posts. Why don't they just study it a
>little? Even Carl Jung did that and I am sure he was a much more educated
>and powerful thinker than those who post against it here. Maybe a
>broadening of the mind is in order by some skeptics? Would you say he was
>deluded? His works are ingenious.
>Thank you for being considerate in the future.
>Zeus has spoken
>Metis, Themis, Eurynome, Demeter, Mnemosyne, Leto-Hera....Arise!
>
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh <bdkw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>>
>
>Another profound statement. One that is equally at home in
>alt.astrology. Quit spamming Pete.
>> >
>
>--
>Dr. Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh, BsD
>Sir Dave of the Giants
>Destroying Angel of Spam
>True/False Prophet of the SKEP-TI-CULT®
>CULT® Administration Officer #01-22112-324
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7945
>bdkw...@geocities.com