I predict that something very important is going to happen in the next 18 months. It will be something related to military action or economic disturbance. It is most likely in Fall, esp. October, but has a significant chance of happening in winter or spring. Summer is also a possibility.

This is what my chart has told me. Let's see if it comes true. 8)

Very good answers to Croaker and Peter Gibbons, Milo.

And politics came to the astrology thread. Now that's a switch. Most people want me to confine astrology to this thread. Maybe we should ban political discussions from this one. But Peter started it.

But now that it's started.....

Milo, as a Green I see that corporations do most of the polluting, so I have to trust the government to restrain them. And if government is truly run by the people (which depends on the people to keep it so, and often they don't), then it represents us more than private companies who only represent a few rich stockholders. Only then can it actually be trusted; in a sense. The price of liberty truly is eternal vigilance. Government is no panacea; it's a necessary "evil."

Anyway, perhaps something for late Xers to ponder, or maybe I'm a Boomer stuck in the progressive past. What a paradox though. Since Reagan, black is white and white is black; future is past and past is future. No, I'm a Boomer, and yes, I don't buy it, or the Reagan contra-revolution. Libertarianism is 18th century thinking in my book. Not especially visionary, then.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I predict that something very important is going to happen in the next 18 months. It will be something related to military action or economic disturbance. It is most likely in Fall, esp. October, but has a significant chance of happening in winter or spring. Summer is also a possibility.

This is what my chart has told me. Let's see if it comes true. 8)

Is this what an astrologer told you?

You didn't answer my question. I'd like you to lay out your objection to "magical thinking." You throw that term around constantly, and never define it or why it's a problem.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

How would Saturn affect me then? Enlighten me.

Oh, by the way, I have a voodoo doll of you and I'm tickling it's feet. Did you feel it?

Oh, and the moon follows me wherever I go when it's up in the sky. That mean I'm extra special. I used to think that was childish magical thinking, but you've convinced me of the errors of my ways.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I predict that something very important is going to happen in the next 18 months. It will be something related to military action or economic disturbance. It is most likely in Fall, esp. October, but has a significant chance of happening in winter or spring. Summer is also a possibility.

This is what my chart has told me. Let's see if it comes true. 8)

Is this what an astrologer told you?

I have my own chart and that is what I predict. Let's see how I do. :wink:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You didn't answer my question. I'd like you to lay out your objection to "magical thinking." You throw that term around constantly, and never define it or why it's a problem.

The moon follows me. Preoperational thinking.

http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/psyc...erational.html

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,151...html?r=related

And when the last article mentions "magic shows" they should also mention horoscopes.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I predict that something very important is going to happen in the next 18 months. It will be something related to military action or economic disturbance. It is most likely in Fall, esp. October, but has a significant chance of happening in winter or spring. Summer is also a possibility.

This is what my chart has told me. Let's see if it comes true. 8)

Is this what an astrologer told you?

I have my own chart and that is what I predict. Let's see how I do. :wink:

You understand nothing of astrology so your predictions are worthless. Sorry! :-)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You didn't answer my question. I'd like you to lay out your objection to "magical thinking." You throw that term around constantly, and never define it or why it's a problem.

The moon follows me. Preoperational thinking.

http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/psyc...erational.html

There was nothing there of significance so I didn't check the second one.

You give references and links and make sarcastic wisecracks, but you don't explain yourself or your terms. You are using this term, magical thinking. Explain it yourself. Explain its problems.

And this has nothing to do with 2 to 7 year olds. You mentioned it above in connection with the historical or pre-historical past. Explain this. And tell me why astrology is magical thinking. No astrologers say the Moon follows people, so you have said nothing there.

In a funny way, Sean, I can see how astrology and ORP operate on similar principles (As up there, so down here...). You could be in trouble if Eric wants to harp away on that kind of "magical thinking." Maybe Eric should be called upon to differentiate "hard" from "soft" astrology.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

In a funny way, Sean, I can see how astrology and ORP operate on similar principles (As up there, so down here...). You could be in trouble if Eric wants to harp away on that kind of "magical thinking." Maybe Eric should be called upon to differentiate "hard" from "soft" astrology.

--Croak

Mr. E. I'm surprised at you. Soft ORP has nothing to do with some magical connection between microcosm and macrocosm. It has to do with the development of basic structures. I think it is actually extremely obvious that ontogenically basic structures repeat the process of phylogeny. If you go basic enough this is beyond dispute. The question is how basic is basic?

Also, this goes beyond just fetal development. Take Meece's demand that magical thinking be described. The link he refused to read said:

Originally Posted by Dr. Spock

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget used the term "operation" to refer to an act of logic, such as could be translated into a mathematical equation. He thought of preschool-age children as "preoperational" because they do not yet use logic. Instead, they understand the world through magical and egocentric thinking.

Magical thinking
In a young child's view, it is very possible that it rains because the sky is sad. If your baby brother gets sick and goes to the hospital, it could be your fault if you were mad at him the day before. If you want something very, very badly and it happens, then your wanting caused it to happen.

These are examples of magical thinking.

Egocentric thinking
They are also examples of egocentric thinking--not that the young child is selfish. It's just that he cannot take anyone else's perspective, so that everything in the world revolves around him. When he's sad, he cries. So, it must be that the sky does, too.

(An egocentric child, on seeing his father upset, hands him his favorite teddy bear. This act shows that the child is not selfish. He is offering the thing that he finds most comforting. He cannot imagine that his father would not have the same feelings.)

The preoperational child's understanding starts and stops with what he sees. Logical rules (operations) do not yet come into play. Piaget showed this through a famous set of "conservation" experiments.

In one, he poured a tall glass of water into a low, wide dish, then poured it back into the tall, thin glass. He pointed out that no water was lost or added. Regardless, when asked which container had more, the preoperational child always chose the tall glass.

It looked like it had more, so the child was sure that it did have more. Only at the next stage would the child's perception be governed by the logical rule, that the quantity must be the same if nothing is added or taken away.

Little adults? Not at all.

An understanding of preschoolers' thinking leads to an important point: Children are not just little adults.

Rather, they understand the world in a fundamentally different way than do most adults. While this can be exasperating for parents, it is a perfectly normal way for preschool children to view the world.

Interestingly, even though we adults have passed beyond the preoperational stage, we still have a connection with this earlier mode of thinking. I think this is why magic shows are so appealing to adults. They put us in touch with how we saw the world when we were children, when everything was magic.

In my experience, parents sometimes have problems with their children because they don't really appreciate how fundamentally differently they and their children see the world.

Consequently, they think their child is capable of more understanding than he really is. This is why they sometimes offer a long intellectual explanation to a two-year-old of why she should share. Although sharing is not part of any child's way of seeing the world at that stage, that doesn't mean that it won't be later on.

There are actually stages identified within preoperations, but as a level itself it is generally the prime player from ages 2-7. But as the quote and a lot of research has pointed out, this type of thinking does not automatically and completely go away. Many people carry this type of reasoning, at least to a degree, into their adult lives.

Of course, there are people who don't like Piaget. That's fine. But his preoperation stage lines up well with a host of other psychologists and developmental researchers.

Piaget's preoperations roughly aligns with:

Gebser's Magic stage
Loevinger's Impulsive and Self-Protective stages
Erikson's Autonomy vs. Shame & Doubt stage
Fowler's Magical-Protective stage
Kohlberg's Magical Wish and Naive Hedonism stages
Wade's Egocentric stage
Gilligan's Selfish stage, and . . .
Maslow's Safety stage

IOW, around ages 2-7 a fulcrum is passed by various cognitive, moral, emotional, spiritual, and other threads of a person.

What leading sociologists and social theorists, such Jurgen Habermas, Alistair Taylor, and aforementioed Jean Gebser (polymath, that fellow) have stated is that those ontogenic stages above have rough resonances in cultural evolution. In other words, our human ancestors would had to have passed through that stage at one time in order to allow current humans to pass that stage ontogenically now.

Of course, the way this stage would express itself in a modern 5 year old and an adult human ancestor would be vastly different. Just at a minimum, for example, one would hope that a modern 5 year old is not exposed to constant death and to sexual relations. But the basic structures of this level would be the same in both vectors.

To answer Meece as to why astrology is steeped in magical thinking, a child of this stage, as mentioned above, would make connections that would not stand up to logical scrutiny. In his book, Horoscope for a New Millennium, he makes various "predictions", but they are similarly vague to the prediction I made a post or two ago. I can assure you that I can make my prediction fit in the next 18 months. There is no evidence at all that any of that means anything. But people want to believe it so they will make things fit.

One could argue we do the same with saecular theory, and they might have a point. The one difference I could point to though is that there are all sorts of data that demonstrate clear cyclical patterns relating to the saeculum. And the proof will be in the pudding: Their predictions for 1991-today were pretty darn good and their predictions for the 2005-2025 period (or so) are on the table. I see nothing this good out of astrologers.

Furthermore, S&H found simple, scientifically believable (at least in the soft sciences) connections as to what would generate the phenomenon they have identified. It is very, very well documented how upbringing can affect people. :shock: Where is the documentation or data for the Saturn Return cycle or any of the others for that matter???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

I predict that something very important is going to happen in the next 18 months. It will be something related to military action or economic disturbance. It is most likely in Fall, esp. October, but has a significant chance of happening in winter or spring. Summer is also a possibility.

This is what my chart has told me. Let's see if it comes true. 8)

Is this what an astrologer told you?

I have my own chart and that is what I predict. Let's see how I do. :wink:

You understand nothing of astrology so your predictions are worthless. Sorry! :-)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You didn't answer my question. I'd like you to lay out your objection to "magical thinking." You throw that term around constantly, and never define it or why it's a problem.

The moon follows me. Preoperational thinking.

http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/psyc...erational.html

There was nothing there of significance so I didn't check the second one.

You give references and links and make sarcastic wisecracks, but you don't explain yourself or your terms. You are using this term, magical thinking. Explain it yourself. Explain its problems.

And this has nothing to do with 2 to 7 year olds. You mentioned it above in connection with the historical or pre-historical past. Explain this. And tell me why astrology is magical thinking. No astrologers say the Moon follows people, so you have said nothing there.

You still didn't explain how Saturn affects me.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

In a funny way, Sean, I can see how astrology and ORP operate on similar principles (As up there, so down here...). You could be in trouble if Eric wants to harp away on that kind of "magical thinking." Maybe Eric should be called upon to differentiate "hard" from "soft" astrology.

--Croak

Mr. E. I'm surprised at you. Soft ORP has nothing to do with some magical connection between microcosm and macrocosm. It has to do with the development of basic structures. I think it is actually extremely obvious that ontogenically basic structures repeat the process of phylogeny. If you go basic enough this is beyond dispute. The question is how basic is basic?

The key word here is "repeat," and this bothers me about ORP. As Gould asks in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: "Does it matter whether we are actually repeating the adult stage of a fish-like ancestor (as the recapitulationists claimed), or only developing a common embryonic feature that fish, as primitive vertebrates, retain throughout life (as von Baer claimed)? The phyletic infromation is the same -- we lean the same thing about our evolutionary relationship with fish in either case."

I agree with that interpretation of hard ORP. And with that I draw Occam's Razor across its superfluous throat. But I can't resist taking a swipe at its soft sister.

But I'm still interested in magical thinking. Einstein called it fantasy, and he used it all the time.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Croakmore

In a funny way, Sean, I can see how astrology and ORP operate on similar principles (As up there, so down here...). You could be in trouble if Eric wants to harp away on that kind of "magical thinking." Maybe Eric should be called upon to differentiate "hard" from "soft" astrology.

--Croak

Mr. E. I'm surprised at you. Soft ORP has nothing to do with some magical connection between microcosm and macrocosm. It has to do with the development of basic structures. I think it is actually extremely obvious that ontogenically basic structures repeat the process of phylogeny. If you go basic enough this is beyond dispute. The question is how basic is basic?

The key word here is "repeat," and this bothers me about ORP. As Gould asks in Ontogeny and Phylogeny: "Does it matter whether we are actually repeating the adult stage of a fish-like ancestor (as the recapitulationists claimed), or only developing a common embryonic feature that fish, as primitive vertebrates, retain throughout life (as von Baer claimed)? The phyletic infromation is the same -- we lean the same thing about our evolutionary relationship with fish in either case."

I agree with that interpretation of hard ORP. And with that I draw Occam's Razor across its superfluous throat. But I can't resist taking a swipe at its soft sister.

You're conflating basic structures with those that are not.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But I'm still interested in magical thinking. Einstein called it fantasy, and he used it all the time.

Einstein did NOT use "magical thinking" as defined above. He used his imagination utilizing cognitive forms at or even beyond "formal operations". Most of us don't even get that far that comprehensively. Thus he was "Einstein".

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

...

Originally Posted by Croakmore

But I'm still interested in magical thinking. Einstein called it fantasy, and he used it all the time.

Einstein did NOT use "magical thinking" as defined above. He used his imagination utilizing cognitive forms at or even beyond "formal operations". Most of us don't even get that far that comprehensively. Thus he was "Einstein".

"When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge." --A. Einstein (from Einstein: The Life and Times, R. W. Clark, 1971, p. 87).

Sean, I think Einstein had vision-logic. In spades. :wink:

Sean, yes, I see now what you mean in Dr. Spock's definition of "magical thinking." Sorry.

--Croak

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

...Furthermore, S&H found simple, scientifically believable (at least in the soft sciences) connections as to what would generate the phenomenon they have identified. It is very, very well documented how upbringing can affect people. :shock: Where is the documentation or data for the Saturn Return cycle or any of the others for that matter???

How well documented, bro? This takes the side of nurture over nature. I happen to side with the opposite POV: You are pretty much who you are from the day you were born. All you have is a tablet of potentials, encrypted digitally by your genes. Nature rules!

--Croak

[quote="Peter Gibbons"]

Originally Posted by Dr. Spock

Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget used the term "operation" to refer to an act of logic, such as could be translated into a mathematical equation. He thought of preschool-age children as "preoperational" because they do not yet use logic. Instead, they understand the world through magical and egocentric thinking.

What I don't understand, is something you frequently do Sean. If magical thinking is not using logic, why not just say that? Logic is a term everyone understands. If there's more to magical thinking than this, then, well, explain it! You haven't. I'm glad you provided examples though.

Magical thinking
In a young child's view, it is very possible that it rains because the sky is sad. If your baby brother gets sick and goes to the hospital, it could be your fault if you were mad at him the day before. If you want something very, very badly and it happens, then your wanting caused it to happen.

These are examples of magical thinking.

Egocentric thinking
They are also examples of egocentric thinking--not that the young child is selfish. It's just that he cannot take anyone else's perspective, so that everything in the world revolves around him. When he's sad, he cries. So, it must be that the sky does, too.

(An egocentric child, on seeing his father upset, hands him his favorite teddy bear. This act shows that the child is not selfish. He is offering the thing that he finds most comforting. He cannot imagine that his father would not have the same feelings.)

Is egocentric the same as magical? I thought you had something like this in mind. Seeing the world revolving around yourself?

But I don't see the slightest relationship of this to astrology. Astrology is based on a metaphysical principle. It is a different world-view than scientific logic, but that does not make it childish, or historically primitive (as your loose attribution of ORP to history would have it).

People with Venus square Saturn in their charts are supposed to tend toward certain traits, according to astrological theory. That is not saying, "I attribute my bad feelings to Venus square Saturn," as if there were no logic or consistency in the doctrine about Venus square Saturn that applies to more than myself. Whether the doctrine is actually true or not, is another question entirely, and research or experience could answer it. I suppose astrology could be magical thinking if you use it improperly.

The preoperational child's understanding starts and stops with what he sees. Logical rules (operations) do not yet come into play. Piaget showed this through a famous set of "conservation" experiments.

Why not use the term "pre-logical" instead of "pre-operational"? what's the difference?

In one, he poured a tall glass of water into a low, wide dish, then poured it back into the tall, thin glass. He pointed out that no water was lost or added. Regardless, when asked which container had more, the preoperational child always chose the tall glass.

It looked like it had more, so the child was sure that it did have more. Only at the next stage would the child's perception be governed by the logical rule, that the quantity must be the same if nothing is added or taken away.

Of course, empiricists such as David Hume might be accused of not going beyond the visible.

...
To answer Meece as to why astrology is steeped in magical thinking, a child of this stage, as mentioned above, would make connections that would not stand up to logical scrutiny. In his book, Horoscope for THE New Millennium, he makes various "predictions", but they are similarly vague to the prediction I made a post or two ago. I can assure you that I can make my prediction fit in the next 18 months. There is no evidence at all that any of that means anything. But people want to believe it so they will make things fit.

My book title corrected above by me.

Just because you don't think the book's logic is airtight or its predictions vague, does not make it a book of magical thinking, whatever that is. Not all of my predictions are so vague as that anyway.

I guess that is your way of thinking. You don't agree with the logic, or say the case hasn't been made; therefore, it is magical thinking. Not very logical, Sean.

"People want to believe it..." is that part of magical thinking? I don't think you said so.

I don't know if you said that magic involves the idea that wishes can come true, but I thought you did.

It is a part of reality, that our thoughts and wishes can help to create our reality and what happens in the world. To accept this is not wrong or childish; to deny it is incorrect. Children may believe "wishes" to have greater power than adults would; but many adults in fact say that our thoughts and beliefs create reality. We may not entirely agree. But they are not childish; that's just their point of view, based on metaphysical principle and their own experience.

Your definition of magical thinking, and your use of the term, is as vague as any of my predictions.

One could argue we do the same with saecular theory, and they might have a point. The one difference I could point to though is that there are all sorts of data that demonstrate clear cyclical patterns relating to the saeculum. And the proof will be in the pudding: Their predictions for 1991-today were pretty darn good and their predictions for the 2005-2025 period (or so) are on the table. I see nothing this good out of astrologers.

I don't think you read much of my book. But it is true that their prediction of what recent years would be like turned out better than mine.

However, we made essentially the same prediction of a great crisis due in the 2020s, and the historical background of what such a crisis involves is the same. I and other astrologers made this prediction before knowing of S&H or saeculum and generations theory. The nature of this prediction is no more specific in their case than it is in mine; in fact, mine are more specific (and thus probably more liable to error) since I included details of what events might happen around 2010, 2025, etc. I have also predicted that the crisis would be more domestic than foreign, something S&H did not specify.

And did S&H predict a major "holy war" involving the United States starting in late Summer 2001? It's in my book, and the stats made it crystal clear what to expect.

I think S&H's predictions about the 1990s/2000s were put in fairly general terms about a mood in the country, not specific events such as you demand of me and other astrologers.

On my web site I posted a list of correct predictions I have made.
http://www.california.com/~eameece/book.htm
I confess however that I padded the last part of my book with predictions I shouldn't have made. I should have stuck to fewer predictions in which I had more confidence. I wanted to cover every year of the period, like telling a continuous story, whether I had good predictions for those years or not. I thought people in 1997 would just like to read some predictions and this would sell books. My mistake.

Furthermore, S&H found simple, scientifically believable (at least in the soft sciences) connections as to what would generate the phenomenon they have identified. It is very, very well documented how upbringing can affect people. :shock: Where is the documentation or data for the Saturn Return cycle or any of the others for that matter???

I have shown correlations and data, and some of the stats I used are in the back of my book. But it is true that astrologers' knowledge is not documented with stats or case histories as much as it should be. Astrology has not been an empirical fact-oriented subject, mostly because serious people have not researched it.

The idea that something must be found (softly-scientific, at least, and physically-observable) to "generate" the phenomena identified, is a worldview, not a lack of logic.

I don't think astrology has some validity, simply because I wish it to. I entered the field as a skeptic with no particular reason to believe in it. I accept it based on the research I have done. That is not magical thinking.

I will leave the debate about astrology to others, but a friend of mine did a reading for me in college, and determined that my saturn is in the third house (which I guess is the house of siblings). For what it is worth, mine have always been unkind to me.

Hey there. I haven't even had time to lurk for a while, but someone sent me this and this seemed to be the perfect place to post it:

http://north-node.com/articles/grand...5-january-2006

Eric, what do you think? The author seems to think that we're in for an extremely rough couple of months. 4T implications?

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Hey there. I haven't even had time to lurk for a while, but someone sent me this and this seemed to be the perfect place to post it:

http://north-node.com/articles/grand...5-january-2006

Eric, what do you think? The author seems to think that we're in for an extremely rough couple of months. 4T implications?

I haven't been following the correlations of astrology with world events too closely lately; since Bush was re-installed my attitude has been basically: "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." It was the last straw as far as my hope for the indications that were "in the stars" for a renaissance in our time being fulfilled. Neptune in Aquarius has always meant something more than catastrophes, though those have come before too; humanitarian progress, and the most creative periods in history in arts, letters and other related fields have come with Neptune in Aquarius/Pluto in Sagittarius, and THIS time all we get is religious terrorism/fanaticism and cataclysm. This may be partly because people didn't read my book and other more optimistic prophecies and instead routinely concentrate on the negative, but who knows. So my negative prophecies (like the one for religious war involving the USA in late Summer 2001, and its resurgence in early 2003) are tending to come true; at least my major ones; while the reason I studied all this is nowhere to be found.

But I did have this period and the aspects marked off in my book and my ephemeris. In my book (circa 1993-94) I wrote about "economic restructuring" and "quarrels over land and fuel" and "fundamentalists may wage war," and so on, for this period we're in (late 2005). I saw a president with "messianic zeal," and revamping the economic system with a danger of crippling dictatorial controls. Bush's threats of quarantine would seem to fit this.

I didn't mention that Jupiter-Neptune can bring "lots of water;" I have no tight patterns that indicate this, but obviously it seems to fit so far. The comments Molly (the author at the link) made about earth changes seem on the mark too. Mars stationary in earth sign Taurus could be the symbol for this, as it makes these difficult aspects with other planets. I don't think we've seen anything compared to what is on the horizon for around 2010. I have long predicted that climate change would bring on the 4T and this seems to be happening.

I have long looked at the next few months as very dangerous for the outbreak of war and major hostilities, stimulated by religious and economic issues. Mars in Taurus stationary last occured during the oil embargo of 1973. Mars square Saturn is usually a sign of major conflicts. So trade wars could be in the cards, or embargoes, etc.

In my book I said the conflicts would be resolved. We'll see. Jupiter's connection to Mars and Saturn could be a good sign. But outbreaks of civil war and violence seem a very good bet to happen in December and January. Terrorism by religious fanatics seems a pretty good prediction too for this period. The economic effects of the disasters could fuel more trouble too in coming months. Gas prices are a big "fuel" for potential conflicts and regulations.

I agree this is a dangerous time for the world. It has been already, and it might get worse. Molly sees indications that the flu epidemic we fear could happen. I don't know, but the relationship of Saturn to Neptune now, which will recur again and climax early in 2007, has often been a sign of scandal, and so are the other difficult aspects to Neptune happening now. The scandal seems indeed to be unfolding for the Bush crowd, and it is far from over; coming to a climax early in 2007 especially if the Democrats win back the House and/or Senate (House seems more likely) and thus can actually look into what's happening instead of ignoring it as the Republicans do, and would continue to do.

These planets aspecting (especially Mars-Jupiter-Neptune) are also frequently signs of public unrest, massive protests and the like, so we could see that in the next few months. Saturn could put a damper on this, so there could easily be repression that stamps out such movements quickly, perhaps because they soon turn violent.

Good to hear from you Neisha and thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Hey there. I haven't even had time to lurk for a while, but someone sent me this and this seemed to be the perfect place to post it:

http://north-node.com/articles/grand...5-january-2006

Eric, what do you think? The author seems to think that we're in for an extremely rough couple of months. 4T implications?

I haven't been following the correlations of astrology with world events too closely lately; since Bush was re-installed my attitude has been basically: "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." It was the last straw as far as my hope for the indications that were "in the stars" for a renaissance in our time being fulfilled. Neptune in Aquarius has always meant something more than catastrophes, though those have come before too; humanitarian progress, and the most creative periods in history in arts, letters and other related fields have come with Neptune in Aquarius/Pluto in Sagittarius, and THIS time all we get is religious terrorism/fanaticism and cataclysm. This may be partly because people didn't read my book and other more optimistic prophecies and instead routinely concentrate on the negative, but who knows. So my negative prophecies (like the one for religious war involving the USA in late Summer 2001, and its resurgence in early 2003) are tending to come true; at least my major ones; while the reason I studied all this is nowhere to be found.

But I did have this period and the aspects marked off in my book and my ephemeris. In my book (circa 1993-94) I wrote about "economic restructuring" and "quarrels over land and fuel" and "fundamentalists may wage war," and so on, for this period we're in (late 2005). I saw a president with "messianic zeal," and revamping the economic system with a danger of crippling dictatorial controls. Bush's threats of quarantine would seem to fit this.

I didn't mention that Jupiter-Neptune can bring "lots of water;" I have no tight patterns that indicate this, but obviously it seems to fit so far. The comments Molly (the author at the link) made about earth changes seem on the mark too. Mars stationary in earth sign Taurus could be the symbol for this, as it makes these difficult aspects with other planets. I don't think we've seen anything compared to what is on the horizon for around 2010. I have long predicted that climate change would bring on the 4T and this seems to be happening.

I have long looked at the next few months as very dangerous for the outbreak of war and major hostilities, stimulated by religious and economic issues. Mars in Taurus stationary last occured during the oil embargo of 1973. Mars square Saturn is usually a sign of major conflicts. So trade wars could be in the cards, or embargoes, etc.

In my book I said the conflicts would be resolved. We'll see. Jupiter's connection to Mars and Saturn could be a good sign. But outbreaks of civil war and violence seem a very good bet to happen in December and January. Terrorism by religious fanatics seems a pretty good prediction too for this period. The economic effects of the disasters could fuel more trouble too in coming months. Gas prices are a big "fuel" for potential conflicts and regulations.

I agree this is a dangerous time for the world. It has been already, and it might get worse. Molly sees indications that the flu epidemic we fear could happen. I don't know, but the relationship of Saturn to Neptune now, which will recur again and climax early in 2007, has often been a sign of scandal, and so are the other difficult aspects to Neptune happening now. The scandal seems indeed to be unfolding for the Bush crowd, and it is far from over; coming to a climax early in 2007 especially if the Democrats win back the House and/or Senate (House seems more likely) and thus can actually look into what's happening instead of ignoring it as the Republicans do, and would continue to do.

These planets aspecting (especially Mars-Jupiter-Neptune) are also frequently signs of public unrest, massive protests and the like, so we could see that in the next few months. Saturn could put a damper on this, so there could easily be repression that stamps out such movements quickly, perhaps because they soon turn violent.

Good to hear from you Neisha and thanks for your post.

I will admit that you could have knocked me over with a feather when the oil-producing nations failed to respond to Katrina and Rita with an immediate and total oil embargo against the US, when IMO, they should have felt (from their POV) that, to paraphrase Adm. Cartwright in Star Trek Six: The Undiscovered Country', "The opportunity here is to bring them (the US) to their knees. Then we'll (the world community) be in a far better position to dictate terms!"

Thanks Eric!

Looks like were in for both a rough winter and a rough Winter. Yikes!

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

Hey there. I haven't even had time to lurk for a while,

:lol:

I know the feeling.

I hope we'll be seeing more of you now, though!

Higher education positively correlated with a greater belief in paranormal phenomena.

Interesting, unexpected.

Higher education positively correlated with a greater belief in paranormal phenomena.

Interesting, unexpected.

Originally Posted by linus

Higher education positively correlated with a greater belief in paranormal phenomena.

Interesting, unexpected.

I declare Eric Meece the most educated of us all.