Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Here's an interpretation of the 4T (and the next 2T, as well) which the Eric the Green might find interesting:

Originally Posted by Phyllis Light

August 23, 2005

Information about the “intensity” people are experiencing on Planet Earth at this time....

Starting in June 2003, the earth started feeling the effects of passing through a photon belt. This is kind of a cosmic anomaly, but no accident in terms of the transformation that is upon us all...

Many blessings.

Phyllis

The above could be seen as a (New Age) description of a 4T running from 2003 thru 2013, with the next 2T due in the 2050s.

Attention all Earth passengers: Strap on yer photon belts, people, it's gonna be rough ride!

(Reminds me of Wm. Irwin Thompson's The Time Falling Bodies Take To Light.)

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Attention all Earth passengers: Strap on yer photon belts, people, it's gonna be rough ride!

(Reminds me of Wm. Irwin Thompson's The Time Falling Bodies Take To Light.)

:lol:

This is my favorite online piece about the coming age of aquarius.

That Lord Admiral Nelson was a swinger.

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Yeah and I consider the "Age of Aquarius" to be about as real as Battlestar Galactica. Heck, BG is actually more interesting. God, I love that show.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Yeah and I consider the "Age of Aquarius" to be about as real as Battlestar Galactica. Heck, BG is actually more interesting. God, I love that show.

All astrology does is posit cycles that are in some sense discernible, not some sort of physical mechanism between the position of the planets and human affairs. This is in some fundamental way the same thing that Strauss and Howe's theory does. It's all teleological.

The age of aquarius is not supposed to be some sort of golden age of peace, love, and understanding, anymore than the piscean age that is now ending, or ages to follow. Every age has positive and negative qualities, but none is utopian in any meaningful sense.

Originally Posted by Milo

...The age of aquarius is not supposed to be some sort of golden age of peace, love, and understanding, anymore than the piscean age that is now ending, or ages to follow. Every age has positive and negative qualities, but none is utopian in any meaningful sense.

This looks real bad for me, since I'm Piscean twice over.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Yeah and I consider the "Age of Aquarius" to be about as real as Battlestar Galactica. Heck, BG is actually more interesting. God, I love that show.

All astrology does is posit cycles that are in some sense discernible, not some sort of physical mechanism between the position of the planets and human affairs. This is in some fundamental way the same thing that Strauss and Howe's theory does. It's all teleological.

It goes way beyond what Strauss & Howe do, are you kidding? Are there all sorts of cycles out there of various lengths and intensities? Sure. But most astrology-boosters I talk to take the X-year cycle of Y in conjunction with Z very strictly and very seriously.

Take Meece for example. He's hot and horny for this 29-year Saturn Return thing. Could there be some cycle that lasts approximately 29 years in length, say give or take a few years? Maybe. I don't think so, but who knows?

But no, he claims it is 29 years. That means Saturn has something to do with it, whether he makes that connection or not. And there is no way in hell you're convincing me or any rational human being that Saturn plays any significant role in anyone's life. The gravity placed upon me by my car is many times greater than what Saturn exerts on me.

What's more, if your birthdate is in some "house" and you mix your Venus with your Virgo or whatever, that's supposed to mean something very specific. What kind of voodo-like crap is that? That's called magical thinking, and we have been trying to put that bullshit to rest for centuries now.

Hell, at least the post-magical, mythic religions ask you to take incredible things on faith. All of that is, if taken literally, complete bull as well. But at least they recognize the pre-rational needs some kind of rationalization. Astrology doesn't ask for faith. It is claiming to be a "science" of some kind. It doesn't even ask for rationalization, just more magical thinking! Yikes.

Originally Posted by Milo

The age of aquarius is not supposed to be some sort of golden age of peace, love, and understanding, anymore than the piscean age that is now ending, or ages to follow. Every age has positive and negative qualities, but none is utopian in any meaningful sense.

That's fine, because it doesn't mean anything. Besides, according to some interpretation of the Mayan calendar, we're all going to die in 2012 anyway. :wink:

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I just can't believe rational people would buy into such utter nonsense. Archetypes and rough cycles that may accidentally correspond to some celestial cycle are one thing. But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

A friend did my chart in the early 1970's. She sent it to me and I noticed that it warned of problems with my kidneys in my fifth decade. I ended up with kidney stones a few years ago; my urologist said it was odd that I would have such an initial attack so late in life with no family history. I'd forgotten the whole thing until my natal chart turned up when I was sorting through my old papers from long ago (an INTP, "cannot part with things", habit of association).

Perhaps it was co-incidence, perhaps it was a malign planet. :?
I'll be very successful financially in my sixth decade according to the chart; I'll have to see if that comes to be true. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

A friend did my chart in the early 1970's. She sent it to me and I noticed that it warned of problems with my kidneys in my fifth decade. I ended up with kidney stones a few years ago; my urologist said it was odd that I would have such an initial attack so late in life with no family history. I'd forgotten the whole thing until my natal chart turned up when I was sorting through my old papers from long ago (an INTP, "cannot part with things", habit of association).

Perhaps it was co-incidence, perhaps it was a malign planet. :?
I'll be very successful financially in my sixth decade according to the chart; I'll have to see if that comes to be true. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

I can see from your chart that you will pass something in the night. I know this because your Sedna is leaving Uranus and heading toward the constellation Excernescaphius, the Bowl for Excreting. It is a heavy omen.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I just can't believe rational people would buy into such utter nonsense. Archetypes and rough cycles that may accidentally correspond to some celestial cycle are one thing. But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

Oh, your're just in a bad mood, but in any event I'm not a rational person (or haven't you noticed?). If you added up the sum total of all the moronic and irrational things I've done over the years you'd have to conclude that I was an utter and complete idiot.

PS The world doesn't end in 2012; it ends in 2080. Sylvia Browne said so, so it *must* be true.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Yeah and I consider the "Age of Aquarius" to be about as real as Battlestar Galactica. Heck, BG is actually more interesting. God, I love that show.

You won't get any argument from me! 8)

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I just can't believe rational people would buy into such utter nonsense. Archetypes and rough cycles that may accidentally correspond to some celestial cycle are one thing. But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

Oh, your're just in a bad mood,

In retrospect, I was tired and being a little too honest. :shock:

Originally Posted by Milo

. . . but in any event I'm not a rational person (or haven't you noticed?). If you added up the sum total of all the moronic and irrational things I've done over the years you'd have to conclude that I was an utter and complete idiot.

You seem pretty Left for my tastes, but I wouldn't call you irrational. Emotional at times, but that's a critique I can't give without being hypocritical. :wink:

Originally Posted by Milo

PS The world doesn't end in 2012; it ends in 2080. Sylvia Browne said so, so it *must* be true.

Exactly.

And I thought I was a raging Randean who killed and ate small children for breakfast.

Good to know though. I'll make a note.

Originally Posted by Milo

And I thought I was a raging Randean who killed and ate small children for breakfast.

Good to know though. I'll make a note.

Maybe I'm somehow confusing Libertarian Objectivist arguments for Leftist ones? :?

You seem to be much different than the other Libertarians here.

No, as I've said I'm a left-libertarian, like a great many 2nd wave xers. Or rather my idealpolitik is anarchist, and my realpolitik is left-libertarian.

A left-libertarian is simply a leftist who doesn't like to pay taxes.

Our principal values are liberty and humanity, and we tend to believe that the institutions of government are not always the best means of defending and advancing those values in society. We don't much trust the government to be good or nice. It certainly hasn't been for most of our conscious lives, particularly now. We're libertarians for liberal reasons.

We have little use for the police state or the nanny state. We don't much care for the public school system, and bureaucrats and public employee unions (although I'll make an exception for firefighters). We support school vouchers. We support gun rights. Our objections to the war in Iraq, the broader war on terror, and the American empire tend to be more classically conservative, namely that we don't particularly want to pay for them, and that they tend to erode economic liberty and civil liberties at home, although all that bloodletting is kind of offensive too. We're green, but want to see more sustainable economic practices and less regulation. Between government and corporations we will choose the latter any day of the week, although we don't much trust them either (its just that they don't tend to kill, imprison, and torture so many people) and would like to see a nationalization of the fed and the localization of more economic activity and political power. We'd like to see more self-sufficiency. We support markets and free trade rather than business. We support the meritocracy. We're skeptical of social engineering and tend to prefer voluntary associations, but we think that private citizens should be decent and generous with each other. We tend to think that private organizations and institutions are often more humane than government ones. We tend to think that the absence of genuine market forces is the biggest problem with health care in America. We tend to be for drug decriminalization and more faith based funding for social services. We want to automate or eliminate most bureucracy, not privatize it. We support progressive taxation in theory, but are open to a flat tax if our own taxes don't go up. We're liberal on all social issues. We like free speech, not political correctness. We tend to think Hillary Clinton is a middlebrow bitch and George W Bush a monster.

Getting the picture?

Originally Posted by Milo

No, as I've said I'm a left-libertarian, like a great many 2nd wave xers.

It means I'm a leftist who doesn't like to pay taxes.

Our principal values are liberty and humanity, and we tend to believe that the institutions of government are not always the best means of defending and advancing those values in society. We don't much trust the government to be good or nice. It certainly hasn't been for most of our conscious lives, particularly now. We're libertarians for liberal reasons.

We have little use for the police state or the nanny state. We don't much care for the public school system, and bureaucrats and public employee unions (although I'll make an exception for firefighters). We support school vouchers. We support gun rights. Our objections to the war in Iraq, the broader war on terror, and the American empire tend to be more classically conservative, namely that we don't particularly want to pay for them, and that they tend to erode economic liberty and civil liberties at home, although all that bloodletting is kind of offensive too. We're green, but want to see more sustainable economic practices and less regulation. Between government and corporations we will choose the latter any day of the week, although we don't much trust them either (its just that they don't tend to kill, imprison, and torture so many people) and would like to see a nationalization of the fed and the localization of more economic activity and political power. We'd like to see more self-sufficiency. We support markets and free trade rather than business. We support the meritocracy. We're skeptical of social engineering and tend to prefer voluntary associations, but we think that private citizens should be decent and generous with each other. We tend to think that private organizations and institutions are often more humane than government ones. We tend to think that the absence of genuine market forces is the biggest problem with health care in America. We tend to be for drug decriminalization and more faith based funding for social services. We want to automate or eliminate most bureucracy, not privatize it. We support progressive taxation in theory, but are open to a flat tax if our own taxes don't go up. We're liberal on all social issues. We like free speech, not political correctness. We tend to think Hillary Clinton is a middlebrow bitch and George W Bush a monster.

Getting the picture?

Nice summary of late Xers, Milo. I hope S&H catch it. Just curious, though: What woman in politics today would be acceptable enough to late Xers to avoid being called some kind of a bitch?

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Milo

No, as I've said I'm a left-libertarian, like a great many 2nd wave xers.

It means I'm a leftist who doesn't like to pay taxes.

Our principal values are liberty and humanity, and we tend to believe that the institutions of government are not always the best means of defending and advancing those values in society. We don't much trust the government to be good or nice. It certainly hasn't been for most of our conscious lives, particularly now. We're libertarians for liberal reasons.

We have little use for the police state or the nanny state. We don't much care for the public school system, and bureaucrats and public employee unions (although I'll make an exception for firefighters). We support school vouchers. We support gun rights. Our objections to the war in Iraq, the broader war on terror, and the American empire tend to be more classically conservative, namely that we don't particularly want to pay for them, and that they tend to erode economic liberty and civil liberties at home, although all that bloodletting is kind of offensive too. We're green, but want to see more sustainable economic practices and less regulation. Between government and corporations we will choose the latter any day of the week, although we don't much trust them either (its just that they don't tend to kill, imprison, and torture so many people) and would like to see a nationalization of the fed and the localization of more economic activity and political power. We'd like to see more self-sufficiency. We support markets and free trade rather than business. We support the meritocracy. We're skeptical of social engineering and tend to prefer voluntary associations, but we think that private citizens should be decent and generous with each other. We tend to think that private organizations and institutions are often more humane than government ones. We tend to think that the absence of genuine market forces is the biggest problem with health care in America. We tend to be for drug decriminalization and more faith based funding for social services. We want to automate or eliminate most bureucracy, not privatize it. We support progressive taxation in theory, but are open to a flat tax if our own taxes don't go up. We're liberal on all social issues. We like free speech, not political correctness. We tend to think Hillary Clinton is a middlebrow bitch and George W Bush a monster.

Getting the picture?

Nice summary of late Xers, Milo. I hope S&H catch it. Just curious, though: What woman in politics today would be acceptable enough to late Xers to avoid being called some kind of a bitch?

--Croak

Thanks froggy. Wonderwoman, of course.

That's such a bad answer it's actually good.

I liked that Thatcher lady.

Hillary is only a degree or two off that Iron Maiden. Snap, snap!

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Hillary is only a degree or two off that Iron Maiden. Snap, snap!

Yeah, but Mrs. Thatcher had a touch of class, and was the right kind of batty. I always pictured her taking up residence at some motor inn off the A-13 on many nights getting her feet washed by Michael Howard, drinking scotch and sodas, and watching Japanese television until five in the morning.

Hillary is that annoying girl who is perpetually running for class president. She will say and do anything to become president, and as Hunter S Thompson said of Dick Nixon, will shake your hand while stabbing you in the back. I could stand to be on Nixon's enemy's list. Hillary's I'm not so sure.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Hillary is only a degree or two off that Iron Maiden. Snap, snap!

Yeah, but Mrs. Thatcher had a touch of class, and was the right kind of batty. I always pictured her taking up residence at some motor inn off the A-13 on many nights getting her feet washed by Michael Howard, drinking scotch and sodas, and watching Japanese television until five in the morning.

Hillary is that annoying girl who is perpetually running for class president. She will say and do anything to become president, and as Hunter S Thompson said of Dick Nixon, will shake your hand while stabbing you in the back. I could stand to be on Nixon's enemy's list. Hillary's I'm not so sure.

My goodness! I didn't realize Hillary was such a snap dragon. Maybe Pat Robertson should have her "taken out," too, for the good of this Christian country.

Milo, my boy, how can you be so easily persuaded by school-yard peer pressure and preppy popularity contests? School's out. Get over it.

I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together.

--Croak Green

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Eric & Milo,

I'm confused. You're telling me that since we have uncertainties about science we should go to meta-science for our answers. Doesn't the uncertainty factor go up by way of this redirection? I'm concerned about you boys. Your minds are muddy. Both of you eshew testable procedures in favor of raw beliefs. And yet you both are so discriminating on other issues. What are your standards of value, anyway?

If there really is something to astrology can you specify any force fields, zodiac waves, or strange attractors that get me a liitle closer to science without the meta prefix? Do constellations have feather factors that tickle your tummy the moment you are born? What exactly goes on in there to differentiate a double Pisces with a Gemnini rising from a Libra sun, a Scorpio moon, and an ascending Capricorn? And what about the discovery of new planets in our solar system? Were astrological predictions affected by the discovery of Pluto?

Silent frogs need to know. We croak for clarity (I'd be happy for just one gnat of empiricism).

I'm glad that you admit that science is flawed. so you admit the limits of our knowledge. I concur.

I don't know what the big problem is that you and Gibbons/Love have with Pluto and other planets. I don't know why that should invalidate anything. Inquiring Greens want to know. And I'm not well up on predictions made in 1920 so I can't answer your last question. But I do know that Dane Rudhyar predicted social upheavals in America would follow the Uranus-Pluto conjunction in 1966, and that he also predicted the Watergate affair using Pluto at a lecture I attended (I still have the chart he handed out) and in articles. And I predicted the timing of Nixon's ouster using Pluto, and also many wars including 9-11. So I know that using Pluto works. Before Pluto, the pattern of civilization cycles was not known; now it is. Or some people knew it, and now it has an astrological correlation that wasn't known before.

Testable procedures are nice for materials. You can see the causes and effects and measure them in test tubes. But that's the rub, Croakie. People are not materials. Even though materialists claim science can explain human behavior empirically, some of us do not agree. So we rely on methods that give us a lot more insight than merely which cosmic ray did what to whom. The uncertainty factor goes up, yes. But it goes up because of the nature of the subject matter.

But I come down to earth when I can by using stats and patterns.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Good news! Scorpio points the way to Earth! :wink:
(Sean Love knows what I'm referring to.)

Yeah and I consider the "Age of Aquarius" to be about as real as Battlestar Galactica. Heck, BG is actually more interesting. God, I love that show.

All astrology does is posit cycles that are in some sense discernible, not some sort of physical mechanism between the position of the planets and human affairs. This is in some fundamental way the same thing that Strauss and Howe's theory does. It's all teleological.

It goes way beyond what Strauss & Howe do, are you kidding? Are there all sorts of cycles out there of various lengths and intensities? Sure. But most astrology-boosters I talk to take the X-year cycle of Y in conjunction with Z very strictly and very seriously.

Take Meece for example. He's hot and horny for this 29-year Saturn Return thing. Could there be some cycle that lasts approximately 29 years in length, say give or take a few years? Maybe. I don't think so, but who knows?

But no, he claims it is 29 years. That means Saturn has something to do with it, whether he makes that connection or not. And there is no way in hell you're convincing me or any rational human being that Saturn plays any significant role in anyone's life. The gravity placed upon me by my car is many times greater than what Saturn exerts on me.

This is a fundie statement as much as anything you accuse me of, PG. You are Immanuel Kant, or what? Claiming to speak for "any rational being?" Wow, that's heady stuff! :o

Gravity is the only "force" or influential process you can think of? Come on now Sean. I expect more from you.

What's more, if your birthdate is in some "house" and you mix your Venus with your Virgo or whatever, that's supposed to mean something very specific. What kind of voodo-like crap is that? That's called magical thinking, and we have been trying to put that bullshit to rest for centuries now.

And you never will.

And voodoo is here to stay too.

Hell, at least the post-magical, mythic religions ask you to take incredible things on faith. All of that is, if taken literally, complete bull as well. But at least they recognize the pre-rational needs some kind of rationalization. Astrology doesn't ask for faith. It is claiming to be a "science" of some kind. It doesn't even ask for rationalization, just more magical thinking! Yikes.

You know very well that astrologers often look to stats and patterns and gather evidence from cases. Yet you continue to spout off nonsense like this. Croaker makes more sense than you do.

I'm sorry too, but I still have problems understanding your problem with "magical thinking" anyway. what's wrong with it?

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I just can't believe rational people would buy into such utter nonsense. Archetypes and rough cycles that may accidentally correspond to some celestial cycle are one thing. But the whole "chart" thing is ridiculous.

You don't understand it.

A chart helps us to look at ourselves as a whole. You can't leave out the rest of our archetypes and just look at one. It makes no sense then as a picture of our being and personality. Astrology is a look at ourselves in the mirror, because we each are a microcosm of the cosmos. Just using Saturn is not a complete look.