Your astrological sign doesn't mean **** personality-wise...

Post Reply New Topic

I believe that astrology can be a useful tool for self-exploration and understanding, but not because there is any causal relationship between stars, planets etc and us. I think it is more that the part is reflected in the whole.

In a huge complex pattern like that provided by astrological concepts it is possible to look at parts of oneself, to consider connections between behaviours, to discover tendencies in one's personality in a way that is free from value judgements, which provides a mirror to see one's "story" in, etc. The process is entirely subjective, but surprisingly powerful.

It is an astonishingly rich, complex system, which enables one to see almost anything in incredible detail. Obviously this can seem like a recipe for delusion, but oddly enough its very complexity, if pursued, and the relative absence of value judgement, encourage quite deep/profound insight into oneself.

I question how objective most of the labels and categories in the psychiatric manuals are. And suggest that the value judgements inherent in most of them are more often a hindrance to self-understanding than a help. And the permutations possible within the system are very limited in number compared to those available in astrology.

.

To a large extent, that is the point. For any method to have predictive value, it should do a good job of excluding things that don't happen in the real world. The problem with astrology, as Orwell said, is that it excludes very little, perhaps nothing. That leaves you no way of distinguishing what is likely to happen from what is unlikely to happen. Part of science is to add to a model or theory only when necessary. That's why physicists don't assume little gnomes push electrons along their paths. That means their models of how electrons behave lose possible permutations, but physicists want to predict only what can happen, not what would be cool if it could happen, but it never does.

Complexity is not a virtue in itself, even if you model a complex system. Congruence between model and reality is a virtue, and if you add complexity just for its own sake, you are likely to reduce congruence because the complex features you add to your model are unlikely to match the complex features of the world.


I agree with the second part, which means that any help with self exploration you would get from astrology would have nothing to do with the specifics of astrology itself. Anything with the same psychological effects on you would do the same job.


That's where you confuse me, because it sounds like yo do claim congruence. How do you think that happens?

My mom had a program which had the ability to figure out your sign, rising sign, which of the 12 houses (?) you were born in, your crossings, all that stuff. The trouble I had with it was this - tropical or sidereal? Then, if that's not enough - which of 60 different types do you wish to choose from? Given the same data plugged in to this program under different charts you could end up with very different results.

Agreed.



Im curious why you think that the permutations generated by the combination of sun sign, moon sign, rising sign, and planetary signs exceed the possible number of personality permutations in humans.....







Orwell, since I DO NOT know you and have never even met you, HOW would I be able to make an accurate guess as to what your sun sign is??? I certainly am Not psychic and hence I really cant make much of an assessment of your personality

I identify well with my aquarius sign. Birth charts are a bit complex. I had mine done a while ago and it accurately described me.

Pythagoras believed in astrology. He said that our souls choose when to arrive because we are spiritual beings that incarnated into matter for a purpose.
I think it is valuable to try to understand ourselves in this way.

Has anyone read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/Many-Lives-Master ... 0671657860

Is there a Bible verse that justifies the use of astrology for Christians?

I've never understood why people who claim to be Christians would ever resort to astrology, numerology, tarot, or other such nonsense.

I have the same birthday as Ronald Reagan, and his wife (who controlled him) really bought into astrology.

I think after saying 'wife' the 'controlled him' part is a little redundant

well, the three wise men from the book of Mathew have been traditionally stated as being astrologists and kings, and it is stated that by astrology they could locate the exact place Jesus was born, although astrology is condemned in the OT, even though Judaism have adopted the numbers 7 (celestial objects) and 12 (zodiac) which are used in the Bible.

Okay ... that answers my question. Now, what were the zodaical signs of Jesus and His apostles?

The point I'm trying to make with this thread is that more than half of the signs "accurately" describe me. Of course I identify with my sign (also Aquarius). But on the other hand, I identify with Virgo and Taurus even more closely than with my own sign... The point I'm trying to make is that astrology is so vague that it can be applied indiscriminately (another poster mentioned the Forer Effect)...

Your chart may have these signs in specific areas of your personality. You have to know the exact time you were born as well as the location to get a good reading.

Astrology doesn't make you who you are. It just describes your afflictions, strengths and weaknesses. We choose who we want to be, unless we are so unaware of this ability. For example, people born during a warfare have similar struggles, yet their family life would play a role in how the environment to which he/she was born affects their life. There are many factors to consider. It's something that is individual and should be examined from that point of view.

Well I must have had a different planet in each constellation except for Scorpio when I was born, judging by how spread out my results were...


Good point. Can you explain that to some of your fellow astrologers for me please? I don't think they're going to listen to a guy who just said their belief system doesn't mean ****, and they're completely within their rights not to... After all, I feel a little put-off every time someone says that Jesus didn't die on a cross and wasn't resurrected, etc....

im tired of that being forced down my throt like its part of my culture

I believe that it gives you an idea/a framework, a bit like Haliphron was saying. But need to ground the theory in direct personal experience.

Interpretations provided in books are guides, some better than others, which serve as a basis for the intuition and/or unconscious to work with, but, for instance, when I see that Pluto is currently entering my second house I look to see what happened when Pluto entered my first house, ( and what happened when another "disruptive" planet entered my second house , etc ) aswell as, or even before, reading what the books say.

I agree that many of the interpretations given in books, especially those by the greatest astrologers, can often seem very vague/ambiguous. I notice that they tend to interpret things in the same ways, ones that make sense to them, to their journey/personality etc. I do the same thing. That is why I think astrology, once have a basic idea of the principles/symbols involved, is best done for oneself, because it is so subjective.

On the other hand, when I find an astrologer, ( in a book; I have never been to see one in the flesh ), who is on the same kind of journey as me I have noticed that their interpretations are frequently spot-on, describing with almost uncanny acccuracy some stage that I have experienced, or am going through. And is probably why people often have a favourite astrologer that they see/use for interpretations.

Some of the best astrologers deliberately, and consciously, provide only the most basic outlines when doing a reading with someone, because they know that the greatest good in it is often the discovery that a person makes themselves about their lives, triggered by a symbol, or by the relationship between symbols in the chart.


I don't think that the complexity is gratuitous ( or incongruent ). Developed over thousands of years by astrologers, based on careful study and reflection, it allows people to make sense of the almost infinite complexity of their individual lives, aswell as the universe, which a simpler system would not do.

You say anything else with the same psychological effects would do, but there are not many such systems of symbols. Hindu polytheism provides something like the same level of complexity, and certain other traditions like the Tarot cards, the i-ching etc. But otherwise the world is poor in complex symbolic systems, ( apart from maths and language, which have other roles, do not connect with psychological processes in the same way ) ; many people end up using TV soaps to satisfy their need for representations of parts of themselves and of life.


I think the reason that astrology does make any sense at all is because it is based on archetypes, and these archetypes come from/are produced by our place in the universe, our relationship with it, our very bodies, ( including our brain structure ).


I don't. I think, as I said, that the permutations far exceed those possible with the labels/categories provided by the psychiatric system of symbols.

.