Astrology - Are you a believer?

[Zarathustra]

Z, I used to have all sorts of pet theories as to how astrology really could work, e.g., while there is only a short window of time w/r to a few weeks where a child could be born, it would "tend" to happen at a time when certain aspects/planets/energies were in alignment. I wouldn't use gravity to explain it, but rather the earth's electromagnetic field. And so on, and so forth.

Please read and listen to the stuff by Richard Tarnas that I've posted.

In high school, I made an argument just for the sake of it in favor of astrology about electromagnetism and/or gravity as well.

I didn't believe in it, but I made it anyway.

Tarnas' view of astrology makes those kinds of arguments completely irrelevant.

And the guy is brilliant. His book on the history of western philosophy is amazing.

In the end, however, if there were something objectively true about it, it would be proven. It wouldn't be an issue of belief. However, the reason it seems true, that it feels true, is that it takes normal human dynamics, codifies them as signs and aspects, and then recites random ones to you like a fortune cookie, the only difference being that you don't get a funny joke when you end the reading with "... in bed."

All of these normal human dynamics are common to about 80-100% of people. The 1-20% where it's off can be ascribed to the natural inaccuracy of trying to describe a complete personality.

In other words, it seems true due to confirmation bias. In fact, it's a rather good case study in the concept.

I absolutely agree about confirmation bias.

But this is also Tarnas' point: that understanding astrology, actually separating truth from illusion, requires a far higher level of critical intelligence than is required for scientific understanding.

In Tarnas' view, one must be able to use critical thinking to separate confirmation bias from actual, genuine correlation.

We might not be able to verify these actual, genuine correlations via tests, but that doesn't mean they're not true.

Absence of evidence ain't evidence of absence, just cuz you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Night]

Infering a possibility from a hypothetical postulation is not at all the same as presuming

Well, I'm inferring bullshit, ragashree. Oh, and I have the preponderance of data on my side.

 

[Zarathustra]

Also, from my relatively small (although likely more extensive than most people discussing the topic on this thread) amount of study of astrology, the one repeatable and verifiable statistical study that I have seen comparing personality/ability to birth date was a study by some 20th century French statistician who set out to statistically disprove astrology but ended up reversing his opinion when he found a statistically significant correlation between professional athletes and people who had Mars in some significant aspect (probably a conjunction) to their sun sign or in their ascendant.

It's discussed in Tarnas's book Cosmos and Psyche.

 

[Jaguar]

My birth chart that was read to me by an Ayervedic (sp?) astrologer made me cry, it was so accurate.

Only an Ni using T would actually believe in the accuracy/validity of astrology.

Your second comment seemingly contradicts your first.

 

[simulatedworld]

Wait, are you really an Aries?

Yes.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes.

I don't know too much about signs other than my own, but aren't Aries supposed to be combative, fiery personalities?

 

[Zarathustra]

This is just a bunch of big, complicated words sewn together without saying very much at all. "Fundamental holistic patterning"? "A constant synchronicity of meaningful correlation"? "Achetypal forces"?

I'll keep reading, out of good faith to you, but my skepticism has been intensified. . .

You do realize that this can happen whenever someone unfamiliar with the technical jargon of another field of study encounters the technical jargon of that other field of study, right?

I mean, someone totally ignorant in economics could say the same thing when I try to explain some advanced economic concept to them... but it doesn't mean I'm wrong...

(of course, it doesn't mean I'm right, either, just cuz I'm using some technical jargon...)

 

[SillySapienne]

Your second comment seemingly contradicts your first.

I enjoy astrology, and the astrologer who read my chart was also incredibly intuitive.

She read me well, very well.

 

[SillySapienne]

Plus, I'm an NF, I'm allowed, or even supposed to believe in astrology, right?

 

[Zarathustra]

Wait, are you really an Aries?

Yes.

From wikipedia:

Individuals born when the Sun was in this sign are considered "Aries individuals" or "Arians". In Western astrology, Aries is considered a "masculine", positive (extrovert) sign. It is also considered a fire sign, and is one of four cardinal signs. Aries is ruled by the planet Mars. Being the first sign in the zodiac, Aries is associated with the astrological first house. Furthermore, Aries is known as the pioneer of the Zodiac, and therefore, Ariens like to be first.

 

[Jaguar]

Plus, I'm an NF, I'm allowed, or even supposed to believe in astrology, right?

I don't care what you believe in, that's your own business.
I was just wondering why you were fucking with Z, in a non-sexual way.

 

[SillySapienne]

I don't care what you believe in, that's your own business.
I was just wondering why you were fucking with Z, in a non-sexual way.

He and I disagree on our views/levels of belief, regarding astrology.

Hahahahaaa, he's waaaaay more into it than I am.

And he calls himself an NT.

 

[Zarathustra]

^ I just find it interesting (when properly intellectualized, as Tarnas does).

I'm not any true believer or anything.

 

[teslashock]

Your views on Astrology?

I myself do believe in it; I won't depend my life on it, but I do 'believe' it. It's like me believing there is a 'God', but not being in a religion.

I'm very interested in hearing your ideas about astrology. I'm okay at astrology now (I've been looking at it for 2 years; it's a time-waster hobby). So if you got any questions or anything..

What is the rationale behind astrology? Why would the month in which you are born affect your personality and future?

I've just never understood why anybody would believe in it. I see more evidence for the possible existence of a god than I do for astrology. Astrology seems just as arbitrary as correlating your shoe size to your personality...

 

[Zarathustra]

^^ Also, Ni doms are the most open-minded of all types, so your little comment about NTness is, once again, retarded...

 

[Zarathustra]

What is the rationale behind astrology? Why would the month in which you are born affect your personality and future? I've just never understood why anybody would believe in it. I see more evidence for the possible existence of a god than I do for astrology...

Tesla, find the posts where I've posted a link to an interview with Richard Tarnas.

For him, the two (God and astrology) are one in the same.

And also, in astrology, your month doesn't determine your personality -- that's just your sun sign, which is literally like 1% of your entire natal chart (it just happens to be the one part that everybody knows).

There's a lot more to it than just that.

 

[teslashock]

Tesla, find the posts where I put a link to an interview with Richard Tarnas.

For him, the two (God and astrology) are one in the same.

And, if you know more about astrology, it's not that your month that determines your personality -- that's just your sun sign, which is literally like 1% of your natal chart (it just happens to be the one part that everybody knows).

Ok, well what else is there to it? Care to explain?

And why do horoscopes only go by the month/day in which you're born? Are those just like pseudo-astrology?

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok, well what else is there to it? Care to explain?

And why do horoscopes only go by the month/day in which you're born? Are those just like pseudo-astrology?

Yeah, those are just pseudo-astrology.

It's actually extremely complex. I recommend checking out Richard Tarnas' stuff.

It's the smartest argument for astrology I've ever seen.

Download the real player audio file in the second link:
Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View - by Richard Tarnas

 

[Ming]

Ok, well what else is there to it? Care to explain?

And why do horoscopes only go by the month/day in which you're born? Are those just like pseudo-astrology?

What do you mean month/day? You mean the ones in newspapers?
If you mean those, it's based on where the Sun was in the 12 signs.

 

[teslashock]

What do you mean month/day? You mean the ones in newspapers?
If you mean those, it's based on where the Sun was in the 12 signs.

Yes, the newspapers.

I have no idea what you're talking about. *shrug*

I'll listen to Z's link in a few weeks when I'm not completely burdened by school work.