Exegesis Volume 07 Issue #051 In This Issue: From: L:Smerillo Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #49
Exegesis Digest Fri, 05 Apr 2002

Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:43:28 +0200
From: L:Smerillo
Subject: [e] Re: exegesis Digest V7 #49

Dennis Frank,

Dictionaries vary in their comprehensiveness.

Some can, with sufficient training, pick up allusions and connotation.

I am fully aware that my rather Uranian-cosmobiological and materialistic view of astrology is not common cud of the family of do-gooders and navel pickers. I am fully aware too of some historical facts (such as that Origen was not a gnostic, nor did he view astrology with but the greatest disapproval).

feliciter,

Lorenzo Smerillo

======================= wrote:
 > >No, it isn't false. Here are some links that will help you update your
 > >understanding of particle physics, though it's impossible to present the
 > >complete picture in just four pages:
 > >
 > >http://www.isso.org/inbox/nature.htm "Non-locality, although predicted by etc

Yes, these are interesting theories of consciousness and perception but have nothing to do with the logicality of discourse which is the issue I addressed. So they are rather a red herring, even if they are not accepted dogma in the scientific community. I would think they have still less to do with any speculative underlying principle which would validate astrological thought in the scientific community.

However, here's a clue as to where you are 'coming from' (I do like to see other's subjective views made more intellible):

 > >http://www.sumeria.net/phys/hologram.html This page gives a very good
 > >explanation of non-locality and the quantum hologram in non-scientific
 > >terms.

To quote the site: "A fascinating read on Sumeria is to be found in any of Zecharia Sitchin's books. A lot people think he goes over the top with his ideas about where the Sumerians came from, but since he is one of the few people in the world who can read Sumerian fluently, I think his ideas should not be dismissed lightly."

This is boojum hocus pocus. Do you know what sort of charlatan Sitchin is?

 > >>This is to admit, tacitly that the skeptics are absolutely
 > >>correct about astrology: it is a sham, a pseudo-science, no matter how
 > >>good it is at cross-dressing and drag, putting on all the pretty
 > >>feathers of subjectivity, relativity etc, it still babbles.
 > >
 > >First, it admits no such thing. Second, since I am not seeking approval
 > >or validation from skeptics, it really doesn't matter to me personally
 > >*what* they think about astrology. Their skepticism does not determine
 > >my reality, nor does it affect the way astrology works. If you choose to
 > >care about their opinion, that's your business.

So there the discussion would seem to end in a nice tantrum of subjectivity.

 > >It's really no different today. For example, geologists agree that the
 > >weight of hard evidence points to a Sphinx *at least* three millenia older
 > >than the commonly accepted date of its carving, yet Egyptologists seem to
 > >find it easier to dismiss the science than to consider the possibility that
 > >their comfortable, familiar views concerning the rise of civilization are
 > >in error. The "old guard" will fight tooth and nail to preserve their
 > >mental constructs of "reality"--it has always been so.

This is just another red herring as well as being totally idiotic. Have you swallowed the whole of Robert Bauval's reguritation?

 > >>I often reminded my students: I am
 > >>not in the least interested in what they 'feel' but very interested in
 > >>why they think what they do, and how they can justify such thoughts as
 > >>they might, from time to time, summon the energy to produce!

 > >What relevance does this have to the discussion?

Illustration.

 > >>>This is a human condition, and certainly not limited to any particular
 > >>>paradigm, point-of-view or mode of consciousness. Academia itself--the
 > >>>ultimate in rationality and "objectivity"--is rather notable for such
 > >>>"egoism and turf protection/expansion".
 > >>
 > >>Which is precisely why such subjectivity must be weeded out, recognised
 > >>and neutralised. Bias, bigotry, subjectivism, relativism are all
 > >>distortions. It's no good complaining that your sour grapes are still
 > >>less green than those under the ivy walls. Even if in so doing you raise
 > >>red herrings.
 > >
 > >Subjectivity *cannot* be "weeded out"; it is intrinsic to our humanity.

It must be attempted to be weeded out for rational discussion. No theory can rest on the subjective interference in testing of evidence. That is not rationality, it is dogmatics.

 > >Those who try to "neutralise" it only manage to drive it further from
 > >awareness, so that they become blind to its operation in themselves.
 > >That is one reason why academics are prone to display such "egoism"

More sour grapes are greener in the neighbour's field than in yours.

 > >>Here's a test. Chew through your computor's electrical supply flex, and
 > >>see if it still functions normally.

 > >Your "test" may seem to be extremely clever to you, but it neither proves
 > >nor disproves the point.

Try it repeatedly.

 > >So say you. But this sounds much more like subjective opinion than
 > >objective fact, so perhaps some "weeding" is in order...

Yes. I'll shorten my replies.

 > >>>The answers to this may depend on whether one
 > >>>considers astrology to be merely and purely a human "invention". (I
 > >>
 > >>And what field of human knowledge and study is not a human invention?

 > >On the other hand, myths from around the world explain culture and
 > >civilization as skills that were taught to humanity. Gifts of the "gods".

Oh, yes, that line of speculation. It is interesting isn't it?

 > >That's one reason I think a mirror is a good analog to astrology--it
 > >reflects back to us both what we bring to it and what we expect to find in
 > >it.

The mirror is muddy with subjective projection. It does not communicate.

 > >The world is not so logical as you would like

That is quite clear, but our understanding of it must be logical if we are not to fall into the solipsism of 'alternative realities' which are merely constructs of subjective longings.

 > >You may be referring to idiolects, but if so, you are using the term
 > >incorrectly. First, it would be "idiolectic" and second, it is a term that
 > >refers only to an individual's idiosyncratic use of language.

Obviously you do not see the connexion between idolexic use of language and thought, and I would scarsely be the person to shew it to you.

feliciter, Lorenzo Smerillo

End of exegesis Digest V7 #51

[Exegesis Top][Table of Contents][Prior Issue][Next Issue]