XPost: alt.astrology, alt.philosophy   
   From: Stargazer-Silveen@t-online.de   
      
   "Edmond H. Wollmann"  schrieb im Newsbeitrag   
   news:4AF8EE0B.6E21@earthlink.net...   
   > Claude Latremouille wrote:   
   >   
   >> *   
   >> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:48:13 -0500, arcturianone@earthlink.net   
   >> wrote about what   
   >> *   
   >> On Mar 31, 9:45am, cj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Claude Latremouille)   
   >> wrote:   
   >> *   
   >> [...]   
   >> *   
   >> >One small point you and Roger keep missing. If one has unconscious   
   >> >beliefs how do you know what they are? That is the definition of   
   >> >unconscious. Astrology helps us understand those unconscious beliefs,   
   >> >and unless you are extremely aware of your own chart and beliefs   
   >> >(which is what begins to render astrology useless) you cannot say that   
   >> >a certain collectivity does not share sufficient similar beliefs to   
   >> >have all agreed on some level albeit unconscious to remain there and   
   >> >die.   
   >> *   
   >> As you might have guessed, my approcach (I can't speak for Rog)   
   >> to astrology is more 'objectively-minded' than the one you   
   >> propose. Although I probably agree with most of what you wrote   
   >> above, I tend to view astrology as a witness to 'real' events (at   
   >   
   > Since when is the unconscious "unreal"?   
      
   Gentlemen:   
   talking about "unconscious":   
   should there not be made a difference between the _un-conscious_ versus   
   the _sub-conscious_. The unconscious, like being knocked out flat vs. the   
   subconscious, where our regular memory is stored, which is (most of the   
   time)   
   quite readily being accessed by the conscious.   
   And, not to forget then, the _sub-sub-consious_  which is getting accessed   
   through hynotherapy, if we want to reach old, very old memories, all the way   
   to past life experiences.   
   The unconsious being a (hopefully only) temporary mental disconnect.   
      
   Just thought I mention that.   
   So much for now.   
   Take care and be well,   
   IRH/Silveen   
      
   >   
   >> least mundane astrology would be so), i.e., events which do not   
   >> need the consciousness (or lack thereof) of humans to be   
   >> happening.   
   >   
   > The entire universe is consciousness, so that "type" of astrology is not   
   > only not possible, but is disconnected schizophrenically from the very   
   > reality you speak of.   
   >   
   >> At the same time, I recognize that one's chart accounts for   
   >> certain events only to the extent that one is aware of them. But   
   >   
   > No, it accounts for all events, however those events, like the   
   > consciousness of the identity in question and their chart are not fixed.   
   >   
   >> as you were referring to the Tangshan earthquake of July 1976 and   
   >> its more than 800,000 deads (an example I picked), I tend to view   
   >> the notion of collective unconscious as it is being applied to   
   >> this event to have been stretched a little too much.   
   >   
   > That is like saying "believiing that all the cells in my body have a   
   > collected consciousness that work in harmonious collaboration is   
   > "stretching" the consciousness of the self, no matter how represented.   
   >   
   >> *   
   >> To speak more plainly, I have some difficulty imagining that the   
   >> 800,000 Chinese who died then did share a certain belief system   
   >> which led them to die in the earthquake. Especially since I do   
   >   
   > Then you have little imagination. Because the entire populace of the   
   > Earth shares a common belief in physical laws and reality. These laws   
   > and experiences we have here on Earth are not "THE" truth, they are one   
   > collective belief system we choose to create in order to explore the   
   > idea of limitation. So to say peoples who experience similar events   
   > because they buy into the very idea that it CAN happen to them is not   
   > far-fetched at all.   
   >   
   >> remember that a planetary configuration of the times (I forget   
   >> what it was but did later publish an article about it) pointed   
   >> very closely (within a few kilometres as I recall) to the   
   >> longitude of Tangshan.   
   >   
   > Alright, which simply reflects the convergence of similar collective   
   > beliefs in that area.   
   >   
   >> *   
   >> To me, that 'coincidence' was evidence of astrology being more   
   >> than a psychological tool (which I do recognize) for   
   >> understanding mankind. It had an objective content.   
   >> *   
   >   
   > Objective effects ARE the effect of consciousness, unless you believe   
   > that effects have no cause, which would be delusional.   
   >   
   >> >> >Assuming that you are correct and the astrological configurations   
   >> >> >"caused" the quake instead of the conciousness of the collectivity   
   >> >> >choosing to participate in it.   
   >> >   
   >> >> *   
   >> >> Oh, but I did not assert that the astrological configurations   
   >> >> "caused" the quake. My point of view is that the astrological   
   >> >> configuration is a witness to that event. Or, to put it in more   
   >> >> Einsteinian terms, the astrological configuration *IS* the event.   
   >   
   > This makes no sense.   
   >   
   >> >Ok. But have you ever contemplated the notion, that if you truly were   
   >> >fated (and others as well) you would never know you were because that   
   >> >freedom of self-reflectivity would not be available to a conciousness   
   >> >so constrained?   
   >> *   
   >> As I have just finished indicating yet again that mundane charts   
   >> account for 'real' events, independent from the belief system   
   >   
   > Belief systems ARE real events, all is real, there is nothing that   
   > exists that is not real. That is not possible.   
   >   
   >> espoused by those who are affected by them (and by belief system,   
   >> I am referring to fate vs free will), the apparent contradiction   
   >> you are proposing does not exist. I shall repeat myself:   
   >> *   
   >> 1. The way the world works has nothing to do with how humans   
   >> might view it.   
   >   
   > Then is cannot exist. There is no "thats the way it is" the way it is is   
   > the way the observer and the onbserved co-create it TO exist, otherwise   
   > it doesn't. Everything we can imagine MUST exist on some level or we   
   > cannot imagine it.   
   >   
   >> 2. Had mankind never existed, the world would work exactly in the   
   >> same manner as it does now.   
   >   
   > Not only not possible, but undiscernable.   
   >   
   >> Back to your statement, here is how your statement articulates:   
   >> *   
   >> First, you decide that self-reflectivity is evidence of free   
   >> will. (You call it the 'freedom of self-reflectivity'.)   
   >> *   
   >   
   > If you cannot see yourself outside of your own consciousness and   
   > reflections then there is no free will, its not how I see it, it is   
   > logic.   
   >   
   >> Second, you suggest that to be fated deprives a person of the   
   >> ability to self-reflect.   
   >   
   > Which indiscates there is no fate. Because all can and do reflect.   
   >   
   >> Ergo, you conclude that a fated person would be unable to self-   
   >> reflect, as their consciousness would be too constrained to allow   
   >> them to do so.   
   >   
   > There is no feedback loop.   
   >   
   >> I deny your first proposition: what you call 'the freedom of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)