Assistance required understanding sidereal and tropical zodiac

Astrologers' Community

Help Support Astrologers' Community:

They are a section of space with different implications almost everytime maybe except for the Sun (even the Sun being under scrutiny)!

Lost me here too.



A section of space is not a section of space if it moves around or changes through its own "producer".


Sections of space are arbitrarily defined by our minds. Our minds and it's perceptions are the producers of space and it's sections. To me there s more to a sign's origin than space. Space, in our mind, is everything and is everywhere, with multiple divisions. If signs= space, then there would be as many signs as perceived spaces. To me signs have a more esoteric origin : higher minds and its influence on us. Signs and their influence are not fortuitous, in my view. They are perceived by us as happening through specific spaces, but by definition, since there is not space, then signs and their influence are NOT determined by space, they are beyond it. Then, there must be a higher order to the astrological influence phenomenon than spatial location. Space must be but the crotch we use to interpret something we do not yet understand.


The producer of the Tropical Zodiac, whether it is the Sun, or Planet Earth [!], change the nature of the space they produce.


Space is not produced. See above.


The Sun is not the central component in Geocentric astrology, hence giving it the status of spacedefiner is nuts...


The sun, in the context I wrote, is not a spacefider, but an energy moderator.


All tropicalists should just go ahead and jump to heliocentric astrology if they want to follow the logical implications of their system.


That statement right there tells me you did not grasp the context in which I mentioned the sun and its relevance. I think you should go back and carefully read what I wrote again. What I wrote does not contradict a geocentric view, but all the contrary.

The stars tell us the exact pure spaceframe around the earth regardless of its rotation (movement), and hence are worthy of being called the signs!

You mean the arbitrary, imaginary application of the loosely used term constellation that the sidereal astrologers use? One more time: Sidereal astrology is NOT based on the actual physical position of the constellations, which vary in size and number 13, not 12. If you followed your own advice you would advocate for 13, unevenly sized sections of space and would call them the 13 signs of the zodiac. Have a good day.
 
Wow, you wrote an extensive reply.

I am sorry, truth is not for all. Some things are written in stone, but people are too blind to perceive it... Some people are just already psychologically wired to not perceive it. If truth could be accessed by all, this Earth would be a paradise, "too bad" it is not.

Me: Yes, it is true that everything has the capacity to evolve consciousness, hence, we beings supposedly composed purely of matter, which is "mindless" from the point of view of Mainstream Science, having life and consciousness. Everything has mind, but it is totally wrong to assume that everything has consciousness... Not even animals have developed consciousness well yet... Imagine an object.

My reply to your answer to this statement:

You: First, there is nothing "totally wrong" you would have to be "totally right" to claim that. You don't strike me as knowing everything, but I might be wrong.

Me: I do not intend to claim to know everything, and only an irrational person with psychological complexes would attempt that in an astrology forum (since an all knowing person is already a god). Some things are totally right and wrong though... Does something come out of nothing? Absolutely not. If it did, no causation would exist... 1+1=2... Every cause has as much reality as its effect... Leibniz's Principle of Compossibility, etc. Those are all absolute truths. Yet, I do not know all absolute truths, or, in more accurate wording, I do not know all the implications of the principles I know since all "pieces" of truth imply each other. That's a fact.


You: Animals have not developed consciousness well yet? Really? I think you must mean not to our level (as far as we know, not that we would really know), but consciousness it is, nonetheless. I guess you missed the part where I said that everything has SOME DEGREE of consciousness, I never said more or less than. I am sure that there are conscious beings out there to whom we are lesser than ants, yet, you would surely have a problem with them saying you have no consciousness. It is all so relative, my friend. I was talking along the lines of elementals, logoi, etc, NOT purely physical dense matter. That would be too linear on my part.

Me: Well, I see it in a way I find more accurate... The term consciousness means having a language that can provide a consistent narrative in which the relationships between "I", "me", "you", and "that". Yes, consciousness comes from our capacity to use a language that can create a consistent (but not a necessarily true) connection with the world around us (only ontological maths are both consistent and necessarily true/perfect... The content they generate though can be consistent but not true/perfect... Check Godel's incompleteness Theorem; it has logical implications that support free will)... The exertion of our consciousness is called rational intelligence... This is all of course ruled by Mercury, hence the producer of language being the producer of rational intelligence too. Consciousness is reason; reason is the aptitude or act of drawing systematic correlations and relations between things. Our of capacity of rational intelligence is directly proportional to our capacity to understand, correct, and effectively employ language. No s--t sherlock, cuz Mercury is the only planet that only rules human signs... Coincidence? Of course not. Lacking consciousness is called subconsciousness (not enough consciousness), and having too much consciousness is called superconsciousness (above consciousness). Animals are subconscious, objects are unconscious. Losing consciousness is implicitly losing the capacity to reason, gaining consciousness is implicitly enhancing our capacity to reason to new frontiers (one of those new frontiers being intuitition). What is reason? The capacity to understand things through our conscious mind. Of course, as you say, consciousness has levels, hence for more advanced species, consciousness for them is what we would consider super-consciousness. But, because we are humans, and we are still far from being consistently intuitive as a collective, we should use the term consciousness for what we can do, use organize information with a consistent language. Animals don't have consciousness, they have subconsciousness (Dolphins and some species of monkeys (maybe another species should be in this list) more or less being an exception, I wonder why? Because they are more intelligent than other animals)... Even though it sounds ugly, a retarded person is more or less an animal (subconscious) mind in a human body. I don't see the world through materialist lens, in fact, thanks to wonderful knowledge I have found in my eternal quest for truth I can explain rationally that reincarnation is absolutely true and that we have an eternal soul (in fact, souls are the most basic component of existence). Matter depends on mind, and is technically connected to it through Fourier Transforms... Though, why is it objective then? Because an infinite number of minds share a very possibly equal amount of their energy, therefore creating an objective (shared) reality. The section of energy that is not shared is a "singularity"... In other words: Something that is not bound by a set of rules other than the ones it has for itself. This section is our soul and mind, which is the only thing we have forever for ourselves... Who you are, is an illusion created by yourself, that's a fact... What you have done in previous lives is an impersonal legacy you and no one should ever identify (nature really helps in this) with in any material life, since a legacy is the self made collective, your actions independent of your actual sense of being... Your sense of self, is the meaning you yourself arbitrarily, without any actual objective factor, assign to your emotions. Nothing but yourself can define yourself, hence nothing but yourself can change your future... Funny how who you are is not determined upon any knowledge of how you have acted, for you can just destroy your identity by changing the context of your feelings back then with reasons that are equally valid, subjective reasons... You just don't realize it because people have a static sense of who you are, and they keep you thinking you are that by telling you who you are based on actions that were just based on totally and purely subjective reasoning (it can never be objective, how do I see Godel's incompleteness theorem: A format of anything that is only consistent with its own format can have implications, even though it does not relate to the objective format of the universe. That's a fact. That's the truth. You should feel so privileged that someone told you this!!! You are so lucky!!! I am pointing this statement to anyone reading this post as well! Of course, I haven't explained everything I know about this, and this is not the focus either... I am saying this because very likely it is necessary for me to do that, but this is beyond the scope of this reply.

Now, to your "elementals and logoi" stuff, my answer is: There is no personal subjective mind setting any eternal objective order of things (it is a fallacious categorical error: the very same way order cannot produce chaos and viceversa, a subjective entity cannot produce objective entities and viceversa), nature can only allow ordered things to stand the test of time. Why and how? Leibniz said: "We live in the best of all possible universes". We can interpret this statement in many ways of course... But we actually can know what he specifically meant by this if we are aware of his principle of compossibility: All possibilities that "can" happen, won't happen because the capacity of happening of some, if not all possibilities will necessarily imply the incapacity of happening of other possibilities. What will happen then? That only the biggest group of possibilities that can happen together will happen. Only harmony can happen, only mathematical things can happen, mathematics is the language of harmony, hence, the language of existence (the only thing that happens). Harmony = Order, (of all shapes and colors; I say this since you seem to be a little bit obsessed with circular stuff). Of course, this is the principle, which depending on your level of intelligence, you will understand or not. Again, truth is not for everyone. Now let's go with a concrete example, this is of course preferred course for dummies and irrationals that lack any consistent rational framework of existence. Natural Selection... Of course, Leibniz kicks Darwin's *** at explaining the natural world real good, as well as Einstein's *** in explaining reality real good, as well as the Copenhagen school of Quantum Mechanics real good, as well as Newton's *** at understanding and explaining Physics, Metaphysics and Calculus real good, as well as the assess of many other successful intellectual frauds (Most of them, of course, are autistic atheist materialist scientific hyperempiricist dunces, and, irrational religious texts, institutions and authorities). Too bad the truthful are not the successful in this dark world of lies and misconceptions... Natural selection states that the fittest individual species survive while others disappear. Well, that's not exactly it... The most harmonic community of species is the one that survives... What does Leibniz's compossibility say again? I forgot. The point: There is no single personal diety or entity behind this stuff... This is an objective process, period. Objective = relative to objects, Subjective = relative to subjects. Tell me, how do you know the effects of a planet if not through entirely predictable mathematical calculations, whether those are of metaphysical or physical focus. I explained in the previous paragraph how subjective things work, and "work" is not the word since subjects "are"... Remember, you just misinterpreted me in my definition of consciousness and of its absence. The process that things go through to find order is called the Dialectic... Of course, again, I have to explain everything... The whole dang framework. I don't know why people expect so much for others to spoonfeed them in debates.

I will edit this message tomorrow, I have written enough for today. Seems I have to give whole courses on ontology to show people what I am implying.

The best is yet to come. I have read your whole reply. I will clarify everything... It is actually good exercise to have a debate once in a while. Please be patient until tomorrow...


Me: And, no, a planet does not have a consciousness yet...


You: Could you tell me how you possibly know that, please? Are you familiar with the theory of the planetary Logoi? If not, look it up. Now I am not claiming that is the truth, it is just something I believe in based on my experience. But, it is a little pretentious to affirm something with such degree of certainty, when it is OH so above us... amusing even.

I will continue from here tomorrow... To conclude, I will have a little word about this part though.

I might learn something from this, but, I don't need Logoi to analyze this statement. A whole hyperrational framework is enough and the one device to find the truth in any big system and in any small statement... Let's not be hypocritical (consciously or unconsciously) and enter "superhero holier than thou because I seem more neutral than you mode". It is completely irrational to say that you don't claim that a system you believe in is not the truth... Why would you believe in something you don't claim is the truth? Who believes in something they consider false? Nothing is above us, everything is rationally explainable. I will also tackle your statement of Quantum Mechanics I saw - tomorrow... This will sound offensive, but using quantum mechanics is objectively ignorant. It was a very foolish mistake to use Quantum Mechanics in an argument with an hyperrationalist. Einstein was right with hidden variables... Too bad Logoi can't say nothing directly about the validity of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the biggest intellectual prick teaser of all times. You will live to see it's validity die in front of your face. You will live to see an Hyperrationalist defeating the Church of Hyperempiricism.

Yes, I am totally aware of my "black and white statements", and yes I write with inspiration and conviction. First of all, there are absolute truths... Second of all, absolute truths hurt absolutely...Third of all, Agnostic thinking is the most impractical and uninteresting of all, apart from it not even being truly inspired to find the truth... Only ideas and beliefs pursued with absolute conviction can inspire significant action in the world. Having people who don't commit themselves absolutely to a certain angle (whether eclectic or not) in life are what Dante's Inferno called the Ignavi:

"The Ignavi are those who leave no mark on the world. They drift through life: non-committal, half-hearted, bland, dreary and grey. They make no meaningful contribution. There are billions of such people. They have never been truly alive; they have never explored their potential and have no concept of living life to the full. They are the anti-Faustians. Most people in the world of this type - zombie consumerists and office workers whose most difficult task each day is shuffling a piece of paper from the in-tray to the out-tray, or deciding what meaningless trinket they will purchase to make them feel good about themselves. They neither know nor care about great causes, about heroic struggles and campaigns to change the world. They would rather watch American Idol.

The Ignavi are condemned to eternally follow a banner (representing the type of cause they always rejected in life), at a furious pace and which is constantly buffeted by a great wind, causing its direction to change continually (just as the Ignavi could never follow a straight, sure path in a noble cause). The banner has no discernible features and can never take a stand, just as those who follow it never could. It is aimless, directionless, vague, anonymous, unspecified, just as they were. They are those who have made the Great Refusal to be anything and anyone because it would take too much effort. Even the powers of hell are repelled by them and want nothing to do with them.
Hornets and wasps continually sting them (to try to provoke them into action because they could never make up their minds to act one way or the other on earth). Their non-lives are relentlessly parodied by the punishment they receive. This is true justice. It is the law of "contrapasso" - the punishment exactly reflects the crime. These souls, in life, chose no banner to follow and now they must run after one forever, desperate to attach themselves to something meaningful. The banner symbolizes the pointless, aimless existence of those who make no moral judgments in life, those who stand aside from the great issues of their time."

Are you an Ignavi? You don't even have to answer this here, just ask that to yourself.

I will continue tomorrow.

---Continuation point---

Me: Hence, it just spins and moves in a totally predictable direction. The Planet is a thing that is too big and powerful in comparison to us, and at the same time, has no consciousness, hence the deterministic capacity the Planet contains. Malefic planets are not called Malefics out of nowhere, I consider them genuinely malefic...

Woa.. ok, so planets must not have consciousness because they (physically) move in a totally predictable direction, hence having a deterministic quality... I guess any question of consciousness originating in higher planes of existence NOT bound by the physical movement must be out of the question, right? Also, how can you on the same breath mention that something has no consciousness AND call it malefic at the same time? Being malefic is an attribute of consciousness.

I already refuted in this message that it's not possible for a single or a group of personal trascendental entities to produce objective entities (Universal laws of mathematics). Keep assuming transcendental subjective fairies are behind the objective planets... Keep assuming irrational stuff. Again, I have already clarified to you what I meant by them not having consciousness... An animal lacks consciousness, yet it can do immoral things (though from their point of view they are actually amoral since the animal has no sense of right and wrong). A planet is no different.

Again, go ahead, tell a person how a planet affects him/her without using deterministic calculations. Let's follow your argument, let's abandon astrology together since a planet won't do the same thing everytime it is in the same position... I see you are disposed to invalidate the objectivity of Astrology to have an attempt at winning a debate about what Zodiac is the truest... How futile of you, why are you in an astrology forum in the first place? It seems that you think that Astrology doesn't work after all, and that learning it is futile since we cannot use the same principle we learned twice. So much for a Zodiac debate... Go practice Tarot instead, I really recommend that to you. I don't get why you think you have an opportunity to win an argument based on a thing you know you might be misinterpreting of your adversary. Again, I have already clarified what unconscious means. So much for the validity of your statement... So much for a Zodiac debate... I have already told you what I think of mind and life, and it is much more logical, and even better at giving happiness as a belief system than logoi (the name is so ironic...).

Me: Otherwise, Astrology wouldn't be able to account for the harmful people living today...

You: I was not aware astrology had to account for the world population's quality. You know, that thing about stars pointing the way, NOT determining...and all that. Also, that thing about us being responsible for our actions, karma, etc... again, just my belief.

Astrology totally relies on a very simple principle: "As above, so below"

Every astrologer assumes consciously or unconsciously that Astrology is the practice of looking at the physical universe around us to define other things that are not physical. So, of course Astrology is going to "account" for the world populations quality... If you think astrology can say something psychological, you are automatically assuming if you are rational that astrology is connected to the whole edifice of human psychology. Astrology is universal, not particular, hence it will universally reflect psychology. Get it? If it is particular forget about it, because it won't account for universal principles... What is "particular" Astrology? Pure Astronomy. Again, why don't you abandon Astrology and leave the community alone... For some reason this suddenly turned into a debate about the validity of Astrology... Where is the debate about the Zodiacs? Forget about planets, etc. representing universal principles, if you actually believe what you are saying.

The Planet is an entity that is physically massive in relation to us. Hence, it represents objective things bigger than ourselves. The way the subject experiences those objects is called psychology. Want more food for every spooning? Sun is the biggest "planet", and it represents the Soul, Jupiter is the second biggest and it represents impersonal things that transcend and expand beyond the physical world (universal concepts; Philosophy is the attempt to have the right universal concepts), Saturn is the third biggest and represents the constraints of physical reality (Saturn stands for the Gnostic demiurge in an objective way), Moon is the smallest and it represents our personal subjective factors, thus, our ego and psychology (yes the Moon is the ego, but you don't assume that since you probably are not educated in Vedic Astrology). Now, time for your dessert: The planets do not stand by or for transcendental personal fairies or by a single subjective mind... They are the objective, impersonal physical form, of impersonal trascendental aspects of the universe (The Sun and Moon are an exception though as I will explain later)... Be happy, today you will learn the ontological reason behind the massive size planets: The Physical universe reflects the Mental/Transcendental universe (and I have explained how)... Do you see massive living beings of the size of planets? Aliens exist, but not in this way, and we exist but not in this way either. That is because the Physical universe necessarily represents the Mental/Trascendental universe. There is very high probability that lifeforms cannot exceed the scale of the planet they inhabit, and then maybe there is possibly a limit to the size a solid planet can have, hence... The point of the previous statements is that the physical scale of the planets has universal ontological significance... Now it's time to explain it,

When I came back to the computer to continue writing this I noticed I received your second reply... It is simply futile to debate with you... Only 10% of the people of this world are rational... 9% Are Scientific Materialists, which *****. 1% are Mathematical Rationalists... Mathematics doesn't lie. I have to continue testing a new concept I discovered... Taking the Zodiac sign of the Sun from the Tropical Zodiac, of the Moon from the Draconic Zodiac, and of everything else I will use Sidereal. If you are curious ask me.

Now, one of the things you said in the reply hurt me: That I don't use original reasoning. That's an insult to the core of my identity. Not everything I am saying is "regurgitated". I am making references because I can't stop to explain everything, and because I appreciate the thinkers who actually taught me something, and as a Meritocrat I hate to get merit I don't deserve. This debate drains too much of my time. You are just another of the "love and light" brigade, and I can't get more real describing your argument because I try to follow the rules of this forum. The right brain has a lot of significance for me too, but, if your consciousness (which is in your left brain) can't grasp or understand what your intuition tells you, you are doomed because your everyday thinking mode is normal consciousness. Dude, I am 17 years old, I also believed for a while things like you believed (I know it sounds weird since I am stating I haven't lived long)... I really would like to clear things out, but I am here very inclined to think that it is just futile. I am inspired to clear misunderstandings, and if you are still interested in me explaining better how I see existence to you I will. Though I still think that the insulting things I mentioned are accurate descriptions of you. I am just sincere, because I think that is the best way of living. If you notice it I even interrupted my reply just to say this message... Although you are just going to reply due to pride, and in turn deny this like a little child(and if you ask me, I just want a good debate excercise, but it is so boring when you are so closed on irrational viewpoints, and call me a speculator when everything I say is based on sufficient reason and principles that must be, because if they were not, the universe would have collapsed already). I am asking for friendlier terms with you, though this does not mean I will stop speaking out the faults of your argument. Yes, some people tell me that I speak much, and that's true, because I love teaching and voicing my opinion... But I try to make my answers really whole, hence sometimes the "innecessary" information. I don't expect much of you though, adults are just kids who know how to win money and conceal their emotions. You ARE answering me out of psychological complexes, and trying to find every little detail you can to launch an insult. I launch "insults" too, but they always hang on the irrationality of your arguments. Come on, go ahead, answer me like the big kid you are...

Any intelligent person can notice the format of your replies, big kid.

The format of your replies:

You try to offend a person per phrase, then you say your opinion is right, but then your opinion is based on everything being relative... So from your viewpoint we both can be equally from your right, but you still think you have more truth than me. Every time I try to use more precise, but not perfect terms since human language is not perfect (but math is), you just try to criticize them and think you have an argument. Then, with some frequency, you try to state how you feel and look strong. You then try to point out a little detail, as if it can destroy my argument. The statements you cannot criticize, because they are complete, you just say you don't agree arrogantly with creative insults (nice use of your right brain there mate), but then don't explain why. You then frequently state I am arrogant, just because I accept that principles (just check why they are called principles) point at the truth. Etc. You also comment on things before reading the whole thing, because if you read the whole thing you couldn't stand a chance at a good argument.

However, a valid point you raise is that I haven't investigated Logoi well enough... I just made a quick search... If you are talking about logos as impersonal, then I can agree with you with a little bit more feedback on that. But, it seems they are just another creative mix of mythos stuff, if you think they are personal entities you are wrong. Wait, I forgot that if I don't tell you that I already refuted that subjective entities can produce objective entities (rules of existence) in this message, you will meaninglessly criticize this paragraph right here. You are so predictable. Who could have known that having committed the mistake of arguing with little kids isn't actually a mistake, but actually a good experience for when debates with the irrational come to happen?

Who am I lying to? Well, anyways, actually I lost this debate... You are right...I find it hard to say, but I actually have to learn from you...

Can I contact you through PM?
You gave me a good debate mate!


Thanks a lot for helping me see that I was an arrogant person. Maybe I should doubt my knowledge a little bit more.




In all thankfulness,



John.










I forgot to ask you, what is your method of reading the birth chart?







Oops, and before leaving the PC today, I would like to ask for your name.
















I lied...

Now, don't you see your true intentions?. Or, wait, now you don't trust your feelings? I thought you did. Learn to actually rationally discern sometime...

Now, calm down, breathe deeply, don't complain... I gave you what you wanted. You didn't want truth, you wanted this moment. I just did a good deed.

Be thankful. What, you actually replied ahead before reading this? Hahahaha. Take that for being so focused on insulting for every little phrase, for being a bad debater, and for having psychological complexes. Maybe you were so satisfied you didn't even realize this is a joke. You either fell for this, or you proceeded directly to the reply button and found the joke because you don't read and ponder anyone's message, you are just focused on winning the debate, not on truth. You couldn't have done anything to discern this... You are just another member of the "love and light" brigade after all.

Go ahead, lie that you didn't fell for this, then insult me per phrase again. Sir, how shameful of you, you talk about higher degrees of consciousnesssss (I bet Deepak Chopra is your guru), but you allow yourself to act based on low animal impulses, then for the sake of even more shame, you have to wait for your adversary to tell you you are a big kid... Your adversary being younger than you. Your insults are so elevated, so logoi like.

Wait, actually, mine are more logoi like, you see, mine are not insults per phrase, but valid objective insults per valid point.

Bye, I won't even check this email for mistakes. It's not worth it to lose more of my time.
 
Last edited:
Just so you know, this is the second time I answer to your post, point by point which is very exhausting. I had written a lot and then I lost it because I had to log in again. I had some good answers which will be lost, but I will try to convey them again as best I can...I am pretty pissed right now.

Wow, you wrote an extensive reply.

Well, you wrote an extensive previous post.

I am sorry, truth is not for all.

No its not.

Some things are written in stone, but people are too blind to perceive it...

Taking into account you are a person, there is the possibility that you might be too blind to perceive it, yes?


Some people are just already psychologically wired to not perceive it. If truth could be accessed by all, this Earth would be a paradise, "too bad" it is not.

Too bad indeed.




Quote:
Me: Yes, it is true that everything has the capacity to evolve consciousness, hence, we beings supposedly composed purely of matter, which is "mindless" from the point of view of Mainstream Science, having life and consciousness. Everything has mind, but it is totally wrong to assume that everything has consciousness... Not even animals have developed consciousness well yet... Imagine an object.
My reply to your answer to this statement:


Quote:
You: First, there is nothing "totally wrong" you would have to be "totally right" to claim that. You don't strike me as knowing everything, but I might be wrong.
Me: I do not intend to claim to know everything, and only an irrational person with psychological complexes would attempt that in an astrology forum (since an all knowing person is already a god).

At least you recognize that much. But hold on to that thought, it will come back to haunt you.

Some things are totally right and wrong though... Does something come out of nothing? Absolutely not. If it did, no causation would exist... 1+1=2... Every cause has as much reality as its effect...

Some things are totally right and wrong according to our present knowledge and understanding, I would say. IF you are referring to principles, sure there are surely principles in existence, that is obvious. Most people learned to add pretty early in their life, and most people recognize certain principles at work, yet that does not avail your own high handed statement that is it totally wrong to have an opinion about something as subjective as the consciousness or lack thereof of everything in existence. It would be like me saying that I know for sure you are totally wrong in speaking of things you haven't the faintest idea about because I could tell by the way you write, that you do not have the faintest idea about them...


Leibniz's Principle of Compossibility, etc. Those are all absolute truths. Yet, I do not know all absolute truths, or, in more accurate wording, I do not know all the implications of the principles I know since all "pieces" of truth imply each other. That's a fact.

So self-admittedly you have fragmentary, second hand knowledge about truths. Yet, I am supposed to give you the authority to tell me I am totally wrong? Please. Also, like I said many times in my previous post (the lost one), stop quoting and regurgitating authors because that does not impress me at all. Original reasoning does. "Leibniz said so", is not going to cut it. Sorry. That's a fact. I am not questioning the veracity of facts, I am questioning your ability to absolutely know for sure, without a doubt, that there isn't consciousness everywhere and in everything, to one degree or another. I will come back to that later.

Quote:
You: Animals have not developed consciousness well yet? Really? I think you must mean not to our level (as far as we know, not that we would really know), but consciousness it is, nonetheless. I guess you missed the part where I said that everything has SOME DEGREE of consciousness, I never said more or less than. I am sure that there are conscious beings out there to whom we are lesser than ants, yet, you would surely have a problem with them saying you have no consciousness. It is all so relative, my friend. I was talking along the lines of elementals, logoi, etc, NOT purely physical dense matter. That would be too linear on my part.
Me: Well, I see it in a way I find more accurate... The term consciousness means having a language that can provide a consistent narrative in which the relationships between "I", "me", "you", and "that".


That is a limited definition of consciousness in my view. It is certainly rational, left brained, and 3-dimensional. Very human.But in following your own logic, you could not prove that anything beyond you, does NOT posses a sense of I, you, that, etc. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that animals, and plants, possess different degrees of communication, feeling, learning, memory, emotions, etc... NOT human, but at their level.


Yes, consciousness comes from our capacity to use a language that can create a consistent (but not a necessarily true) connection with the world around us (only ontological maths are both consistent and necessarily true/perfect... The content they generate though can be consistent but not true/perfect...

So once again, you admit the content YOU generate might not be true/perfect. So, automatically, there is the possibility that you might be mistaken, wrong, when affirming that there is no other form of consciousness than the one YOU deem so.



Check Godel's incompleteness Theorem; it has logical implications that support free will)...

Gödel..blah blah.....free will, blah blah.... Again, why don't YOU tell me what WILL really is? Why don't you tell me what FREE really is? Is there true freedom in an interconnected and interdependent universe? Maybe yes, Maybe not. Can you, not Gödel, answer than to yourself and to me? with truly thoughtful, clear concise explanations? The only sensible answer to those questions so far have come from esoteric sources and my own experiences, which most people would find inadequate because they would call them beliefs and unscientific, which I disagree with, so its futile to press further.

Then you have the speculators, the philosophers, which seem to be your personal favorites. There are many camps which have many followers that contradict each other in their specualtions. Some speculation may conform to reality, some might not, in the end, just with your rational, left brained mind you will not pass beyond a certain limit. That's a fact. You like facts. Know that one.


The exertion of our consciousness is called rational intelligence...

Rational intelligence is but an aspect of consciousness, I would say.


This is all of course ruled by Mercury, hence the producer of language being the producer of rational intelligence too. Consciousness is reason; reason is the aptitude or act of drawing systematic correlations and relations between things. Our of capacity of rational intelligence is directly proportional to our capacity to understand, correct, and effectively employ language.



No s--t sherlock, cuz Mercury is the only planet that only rules human signs... Coincidence? Of course not.

Uranus also rules only a human sign, Aquarius. It also rules intuition, which is the part of our consciousness that is BEYOND reason, or it is a higher, purer form of reason that is not sequential, but all embracing, instant, requires no though. You just "know".

Lacking consciousness is called subconsciousness (not enough consciousness), and having too much consciousness is called superconsciousness (above consciousness).

Lacking consciousness is called UN consciousness. Subconscious, conscious and super conscious are all relative terms. An animal would be super conscious compared to a rock. We are super conscious compared to animals, allegedly. Point being that it's all relative. Its all in a scale. Where is the boundary between heat/cold, smart/dumb, near/far, conscious/subconscious? There really is none. There cannot be.


Animals are subconscious, objects are unconscious.

You believe in reincarnation you say. Everything reincarnates in order to evolve. Evolve in what? In consciousness. Consciousness is the THE requirement for existence. Subjection is the prerequisite for Objection. According to you, chaos cannot come from order, something cannot come out of nothing. Well, Unconsciousness cannot come out of consciousness and vice versa, I say. At what point did men gain consciousness as separate from animals? You say you are not materialist, but only materialists attribute consciousness to the brain alone and follow a natural selection paradigm. The human brain is the vehicle for consciousness, not its source. So consciousness is there all along, in our essence, our monad, soul, whatever you want to call it. It is the vehicle and responsiveness to IT that evolves and refines in order to little by little realize we ARE it.




Losing consciousness is implicitly losing the capacity to reason, gaining consciousness is implicitly enhancing our capacity to reason to new frontiers (one of those new frontiers being intuitition).

You don't reason your way to intuition. Intuition IS. It is beyond reason, in fact rational thought is a barriers to intuition. But, don't take my word for it.


What is reason? The capacity to understand things through our conscious mind. Of course, as you say, consciousness has levels, hence for more advanced species, consciousness for them is what we would consider super-consciousness. But, because we are humans, and we are still far from being consistently intuitive as a collective, we should use the term consciousness for what we can do, use organize information with a consistent language.


Animals don't have consciousness, they have subconsciousness (Dolphins and some species of monkeys (maybe another species should be in this list) more or less being an exception, I wonder why? Because they are more intelligent than other animals)...

You just made my point. You just contradicted yourself. Monkeys, dolphins, whales, elephants, dogs, etc...have a proven ability to learn, to communicate, to emphasize, to remember, yet you say they have NO consciousness, they are subconscious? Well, my friend, I disagree. Again you run into the problem of taking yourself as the standard. That is patently wrong. You are not the standard nor the center of the Universe, nor the definition of conscious. I say those animals and the rest ARE conscious, at their level. They are not at a human level, but conscious, sentient nonetheless, at their level.

Let alone metaphysical beings, like elementals. They can be classified in different ranges of evolution, from a worm to a chimpanzee (intelligence wise). They are partaking in their own evolution by serving as a mold to physical matter. Incuding your own body and each cell in it. So everything is literally ensouled by these etheric beings. Yet, you do now know that. You look for YOUR known type of consciousness and intelligence in the PHYSICAL objective plane. That is a rookie mistake.


Even though it sounds ugly, a retarded person is more or less an animal (subconscious) mind in a human body. I don't see the world through materialist lens, in fact, thanks to wonderful knowledge I have found in my eternal quest for truth I can explain rationally that reincarnation is absolutely true and that we have an eternal soul (in fact, souls are the most basic component of existence).

Yet you think it possible for unconsciousness to exist somewhere in the universe. The most basic premise of reincarnation is cyclical evolution. Into what? Into higher and higher states on consciousness and UNITY. If there is unity and consciousness everywhere, then no part can be totally unconscious, because that would be a logical impossibility.

Matter depends on mind, and is technically connected to it through Fourier Transforms...

What I said before.


Though, why is it objective then? Because an infinite number of minds share a very possibly equal amount of their energy, therefore creating an objective (shared) reality. The section of energy that is not shared is a "singularity"... In other words: Something that is not bound by a set of rules other than the ones it has for itself. This section is our soul and mind, which is the only thing we have forever for ourselves...


This right here is a gem. Know this: There is no such thing as a singularity anywhere, just the illusion of one. That is the crux of our human evolution. To see beyond our little egos and realize the unity of all in spirit and matter. There are no sections in spirit or mind, or matter for that matter. As long as we continue to see ourselves as self important little know it all gods, then the wards will continue and humanity will not reach that state of grace your mentioned earlier. But it all beings with us. As long as WE feel special, separate, unique and better...then we will be as children pretending to be adults.

Who you are, is an illusion created by yourself, that's a fact...

What I said before.

What you have done in previous lives is an impersonal legacy you and no one should ever identify (nature really helps in this) with in any material life, since a legacy is the self made collective, your actions independent of your actual sense of being... Your sense of self, is the meaning you yourself arbitrarily, without any actual objective factor, assign to your emotions. Nothing but yourself can define yourself, hence nothing but yourself can change your future... Funny how who you are is not determined upon any knowledge of how you have acted, for you can just destroy your identity by changing the context of your feelings back then with reasons that are equally valid, subjective reasons... You just don't realize it because people have a static sense of who you are, and they keep you thinking you are that by telling you who you are based on actions that were just based on totally and purely subjective reasoning (it can never be objective, how do I see Godel's incompleteness theorem: A format of anything that is only consistent with its own format can have implications, even though it does not relate to the objective format of the universe.


Sorry to say but that was a whole lot about nothing. I fail to see how any of that really relates to our discussion, which has in itself become diluted in philosophical speculations. Regurgitating Godel's imcompleteness theorem does not validate your high handed assumptions about my being totally wrong about the sentience of existence and the prevalence of consciousness. All I read is a loose, incoherent mumbling about theorems mixed with personal beliefs and your confusing the two.

That's a fact. That's the truth. You should feel so privileged that someone told you this!!! You are so lucky!!!

I am indeed privileged to see intellectual arrogance at work. I am privileged to try to find it in myself and eradicate it. I hope anyone reading this will do so too. I am indeed a lucky man!!!


I am pointing this statement to anyone reading this post as well! Of course, I haven't explained everything I know about this,


Of course not, I gather you must know legions about "this".

and this is not the focus either...


And it finally dawned on you.

I am saying this because very likely it is necessary for me to do that, but this is beyond the scope of this reply.

No and yes.


Now, to your "elementals and logoi" stuff, my answer is: There is no personal subjective mind setting any eternal objective order of things (it is a fallacious categorical error: the very same way order cannot produce chaos and viceversa, a subjective entity cannot produce objective entities and viceversa), nature can only allow ordered things to stand the test of time.

By your answer I know for a fact you have not the faintest idea of what an elemental or a LOGOS is, and how they fit in the bigger scheme of things, and how they affect us. Your previous statement must be the most incoherent thing you have said yet.

If matter is dependent on mind, like YOU said, then ALL objective existence is the result of MIND. Mind is subjective in reference to physical dense matter. There is no BEING if there is no MIND. In fact, there is one MIND and one BEING...at the core...it can only logically be so. A radical UNITY... all the rest are transient appearances of our ego. And, why is the concept of subjectivity producing objectivity in conflict with order and the test of time? Quite the opposite. The process of subjective to objective happens all the time in an orderly predictable fashion. Can you name ONE thing you do, that does not start in the subjective part of you, as a though, emotion etc? and then AFTER becomes a physical action or object?



Why and how? Leibniz said: "We live in the best of all possible universes". We can interpret this statement in many ways of course... But we actually can know what he specifically meant by this if we are aware of his principle of compossibility: All possibilities that "can" happen, won't happen because the capacity of happening of some, if not all possibilities will necessarily imply the incapacity of happening of other possibilities. What will happen then? That only the biggest group of possibilities that can happen together will happen. Only harmony can happen, only mathematical things can happen, mathematics is the language of harmony, hence, the language of existence (the only thing that happens). Harmony = Order, (of all shapes and colors; I say this since you seem to be a little bit obsessed with circular stuff).

I am not debating Leibniz. I am debating you. Stop regurgitating stuff you read and bring it so crassly into this debate when it doesn't even apply. Please get lost in your mental speculations on your own time. I like to keep things relevant and objective to our conversation. The above is a big case of "blah", and does not impress me. Reading through it I have not found anything of value relevant to the arguments you are trying to make, and they certainly don't disprove anything I have written.

Of course, this is the principle, which depending on your level of intelligence, you will understand or not. Again, truth is not for everyone.

The question is not the principle, its the relevance. I would say there is true intelligence in knowing how much to write, and when, and when to stop in order to communicate effectively, rather than having a literary diarrhea of words mashed together which at the end, do not really convey anything original nor clear nor prove or disprove a point.

Now let's go with a concrete example, this is of course preferred course for dummies and irrationals that lack any consistent rational framework of existence.

You are forgetting those pesky, arrogant, know-it-alls, that dream they grasp the secrets of existence when they are but ignorant children.

Natural Selection... Of course, Leibniz kicks Darwin's *** at explaining the natural world real good, as well as Einstein's *** in explaining reality real good, as well as the Copenhagen school of Quantum Mechanics real good, as well as Newton's *** at understanding and explaining Physics, Metaphysics and Calculus real good, as well as the assess of many other successful intellectual frauds (Most of them, of course, are autistic atheist materialist scientific hyperempiricist dunces, and, irrational religious texts, institutions and authorities).

Yeah, you explained that "real good".


Too bad the truthful are not the successful in this dark world of lies and misconceptions...

Too bad indeed.

Natural selection states that the fittest individual species survive while others disappear. Well, that's not exactly it... The most harmonic community of species is the one that survives... What does Leibniz's compossibility say again? I forgot.

I forgot too. I was busy waiting for you to finish quoting and naming other thinkers and veiled insults in order to advance any meaningful point.


The point: There is no single personal diety or entity behind this stuff... This is an objective process, period. Objective = relative to objects, Subjective = relative to subjects.

Again, you would rather think the universe is an inanimate, unconscious BUT ordered and synchronized thing? I would think it is more sensible to think there is intelligence behind the synchronicity between each part of nature, and planets and humanity, like astrology studies. I would doubt an unintelligent dead physical form (planet) could affect so profoundly the psyche of intelligent sentient beings such as humans. I deem it deeply un-philosophical and illogical and counter-intuitive to make that leap of faith. Yes, I believe it requires faith to believe in such a disconnection and difference between the parts and yet, believe they somehow still work together.

Order is the product of mind. The Solar system, its working and the way it affects us is Ordered, hence astrology. Draw your own conclusions.

Tell me, how do you know the effects of a planet if not through entirely predictable mathematical calculations, whether those are of metaphysical or physical focus.

I don't know, maybe through feeling the effects? through intuiting them? Any of the myriads of possibilities you don't consider? What came first, the math to understand the effects, or the feeling and intuition of an effect that needed math to explain it? You tell me.


I explained in the previous paragraph how subjective things work,

Oh wow, you explained how subjective things work! How lucky for me.


and "work" is not the word since subjects "are"...

Ok here's the thing. You need to make up your mind. Subject, ARE. Fine. So your definition of consciousness is closer to what OBJECTS are then... since it requires the action of discriminating, the me vs you vs that,
and communicating it in a form of language. So If subjects just ARE, then I will call those elementals now and let them know you finally approved of the possibility of their existence since its no longer dependent on their power discrimination and selective reasoning, but on the very premise that consciousness IS, and takes many forms and degrees.

Remember, you just misinterpreted me in my definition of consciousness and of its absence. The process that things go through to find order is called the Dialectic... Of course, again, I have to explain everything... The whole dang framework. I don't know why people expect so much for others to spoonfeed them in debates.

I am laughing right now. Seriously? I guess I do expect too much, don't I?

I will edit this message tomorrow, I have written enough for today. Seems I have to give whole courses on ontology to show people what I am implying.

The best is yet to come. I have read your whole reply. I will clarify everything... It is actually good exercise to have a debate once in a while. Please be patient until tomorrow...


Please, Bring it.




Quote:
Me: And, no, a planet does not have a consciousness yet...


You: Could you tell me how you possibly know that, please? Are you familiar with the theory of the planetary Logoi? If not, look it up. Now I am not claiming that is the truth, it is just something I believe in based on my experience. But, it is a little pretentious to affirm something with such degree of certainty, when it is OH so above us... amusing even.
I will continue from here tomorrow... To conclude, I will have a little word about this part though.

I might learn something from this,



Understatement.

but, I don't need Logoi to analyze this statement. = Total ignorance of what a Logos is. If you do not know what it is, how could you know what you need or not?

A whole hyperrational framework is enough and the one device to find the truth in any big system and in any small statement... Let's not be hypocritical (consciously or unconsciously) and enter "superhero holier than thou because I seem more neutral than you mode".

Let it be noted that you are putting words in my keyboard that I never wrote.

It is completely irrational to say that you don't claim that a system you believe in is not the truth...

It is (completely?) irrational to believe that what you believe is the absolute truth.

Why would you believe in something you don't claim is the truth?

Because I am mature enough to know that what I believe is incomplete, and ever growing, therefore cannot be "the" truth.

Who believes in something they consider false?

No one, I hope.

Nothing is above us, everything is rationally explainable.

The moment you realize that rational thinking will only get you so far, you will become humbler and stop saying those kinds of things (and I am being nice).


I will also tackle your statement of Quantum Mechanics I saw - tomorrow... This will sound offensive, but using quantum mechanics is objectively ignorant.

True, I am ignorant when it comes to quantum physics, but just like you regurgitate endless authors in order to get nowhere, I see fit to briefly reference quantum physics in order to make a point: the proven lack of linearity and predictability at deep levels of matter. The point that everything points at an underlying unity and sharing that wise men have been telling us for millennia.


It was a very foolish mistake to use Quantum Mechanics in an argument with an hyperrationalist.

Oh No! I am shaking in my Irrational Boots! Nooooooooooo!!

Einstein was right with hidden variables... Too bad Logoi can't say nothing directly about the validity of Quantum Mechanics.


Silence is golden when one does not know what one is talking about. When it comes to Logoi...shhhhhhh. Please.


Quantum Mechanics is the biggest intellectual prick teaser of all times. You will live to see it's validity die in front of your face. You will live to see an Hyperrationalist defeating the Church of Hyperempiricism.

(dramatic music playing) We will see my dear soldier of truth!! mwhaahaha


Yes, I am totally aware of my "black and white statements",

Well, admitting something is the first step, as they say.

and yes I write with inspiration and conviction.

Conviction, yes, inspiration definitely know. That would imply an inner guidance that your over-referencing is lacking.

First of all, there are absolute truths...

Sure.

Second of all, absolute truths hurt absolutely...

They do? Sounds like you have been stung by them.

Third of all, Agnostic thinking is the most impractical and uninteresting of all, apart from it not even being truly inspired to find the truth... Only ideas and beliefs pursued with absolute conviction can inspire significant action in the world.

True, but there is a flip side. Fanatical beliefs and absolute conviction in half truths and lack of intellectual humility has been the cause of ALL the problems wars and ills of humanity, and until we learn to travel the middle path, as all wise men have indicated we will not live in that utopia you mentioned.


Having people who don't commit themselves absolutely to a certain angle (whether eclectic or not) in life are what Dante's Inferno called the Ignavi:

"The Ignavi are those who leave no mark on the world. They drift through life: non-committal, half-hearted, bland, dreary and grey. They make no meaningful contribution. There are billions of such people. They have never been truly alive; they have never explored their potential and have no concept of living life to the full. They are the anti-Faustians. Most people in the world of this type - zombie consumerists and office workers whose most difficult task each day is shuffling a piece of paper from the in-tray to the out-tray, or deciding what meaningless trinket they will purchase to make them feel good about themselves. They neither know nor care about great causes, about heroic struggles and campaigns to change the world. They would rather watch American Idol.

The Ignavi are condemned to eternally follow a banner (representing the type of cause they always rejected in life), at a furious pace and which is constantly buffeted by a great wind, causing its direction to change continually (just as the Ignavi could never follow a straight, sure path in a noble cause). The banner has no discernible features and can never take a stand, just as those who follow it never could. It is aimless, directionless, vague, anonymous, unspecified, just as they were. They are those who have made the Great Refusal to be anything and anyone because it would take too much effort. Even the powers of hell are repelled by them and want nothing to do with them.
Hornets and wasps continually sting them (to try to provoke them into action because they could never make up their minds to act one way or the other on earth). Their non-lives are relentlessly parodied by the punishment they receive. This is true justice. It is the law of "contrapasso" - the punishment exactly reflects the crime. These souls, in life, chose no banner to follow and now they must run after one forever, desperate to attach themselves to something meaningful. The banner symbolizes the pointless, aimless existence of those who make no moral judgments in life, those who stand aside from the great issues of their time."

Are you an Ignavi? You don't even have to answer this here, just ask that to yourself.


For all that, and for the record, I have a simple answer: No I am not, are you an ignorant fanatic?


I will continue tomorrow.

I will see you then,

tata.
 
Last edited:
Check my previous reply, this is just in case you are not notified :happy: that I continued my message. Thanks.
 
---Continuation point---

Quote:
Me: Hence, it just spins and moves in a totally predictable direction. The Planet is a thing that is too big and powerful in comparison to us, and at the same time, has no consciousness, hence the deterministic capacity the Planet contains. Malefic planets are not called Malefics out of nowhere, I consider them genuinely malefic...

Woa.. ok, so planets must not have consciousness because they (physically) move in a totally predictable direction, hence having a deterministic quality... I guess any question of consciousness originating in higher planes of existence NOT bound by the physical movement must be out of the question, right? Also, how can you on the same breath mention that something has no consciousness AND call it malefic at the same time? Being malefic is an attribute of consciousness.
I already refuted in this message that it's not possible for a single or a group of personal trascendental entities to produce objective entities (Universal laws of mathematics).

No sir, I mean son, you did not refute anything at all. You just think you did.

Keep assuming transcendental subjective fairies are behind the objective planets... Keep assuming irrational stuff.


Ok, I will. ;)

Again, I have already clarified to you what I meant by them not having consciousness... An animal lacks consciousness, yet it can do immoral things (though from their point of view they are actually amoral since the animal has no sense of right and wrong). A planet is no different.


I still hold to the opinion that you have no clue about what you are talking about. That's just me. If you called it your opinion, it would be more respectable. But the fact that you sit there at 17, and think you know FOR SURE that kind of information is laughable. When you grow up you will see what I mean.

Again, go ahead, tell a person how a planet affects him/her without using deterministic calculations. Let's follow your argument, let's abandon astrology together since a planet won't do the same thing everytime it is in the same position...


Woa calm down, kid. I see you missed my ENTIRE point on this. But, I am not surprised. It's alright. I understand.

I see you are disposed to invalidate the objectivity of Astrology to have an attempt at winning a debate about what Zodiac is the truest... How futile of you, why are you in an astrology forum in the first place? It seems that you think that Astrology doesn't work after all, and that learning it is futile since we cannot use the same principle we learned twice. So much for a Zodiac debate...




No idea what you are going on about there, but alright. I will just ignore it.

Go practice Tarot instead, I really recommend that to you. I don't get why you think you have an opportunity to win an argument based on a thing you know you might be misinterpreting of your adversary.


First, you are no adversary to me. Not at all. Second, I am not trying to win anything. There are no real winners in debates, not unless something useful is learned. Have you learned something? Have I learned something. That will determine who is the winner. He who learned the most.

Again, I have already clarified what unconscious means. So much for the validity of your statement... So much for a Zodiac debate... I have already told you what I think of mind and life, and it is much more logical, and even better at giving happiness as a belief system than logoi (the name is so ironic...).

Son, if YOU believe that, good. I am happy you think so highly of yourself. Logoi is not a belief system, Logoi are part of a cosmology and worldview that is actually quite coherent and quite extensively written about. Honestly, you would benefit from looking into it, if for nothing else than enrich your knowledge, whether your agree with it or not.

Quote:
Me: Otherwise, Astrology wouldn't be able to account for the harmful people living today...

You: I was not aware astrology had to account for the world population's quality. You know, that thing about stars pointing the way, NOT determining...and all that. Also, that thing about us being responsible for our actions, karma, etc... again, just my belief.
Astrology totally relies on a very simple principle: "As above, so below"

Very true. I give you that one.

Every astrologer assumes consciously or unconsciously that Astrology is the practice of looking at the physical universe around us to define other things that are not physical. So, of course Astrology is going to "account" for the world populations quality... If you think astrology can say something psychological, you are automatically assuming if you are rational that astrology is connected to the whole edifice of human psychology. Astrology is universal, not particular, hence it will universally reflect psychology. Get it? If it is particular forget about it, because it won't account for universal principles... What is "particular" Astrology? Pure Astronomy.

This right here, I am intellectually honest to concede that I might have expressed myself wrong. I agree with you here. BUT i do not agree with your idea that a planet can be truly EVIL. I believe the probem of "evil" is a complicated one and is intertwined with karma, learning experiences, etc. But no, at our core, nothing is "evil" evil is another word for not evolved, immature.

Again, why don't you abandon Astrology and leave the community alone...

Because I don't want to?

For some reason this suddenly turned into a debate about the validity of Astrology...


If it ever did, which I musy have missed it, it must be because you must have turned it into one. I have never questioned the validity of astrology.

Where is the debate about the Zodiacs? Forget about planets, etc. representing universal principles, if you actually believe what you are saying.

I dont know, you tell me. I have responded to the stuff you have been spewing here. I would ask you the same question.

The Planet is an entity that is physically massive in relation to us.

Sure..

Hence, it represents objective things bigger than ourselves.

Objective and Subjective... you opposites are always related to each other. As above so below.


The way the subject experiences those objects is called psychology. Want more food for every spooning?


Would it help if I said no? You wrote what you were going to write before I had the chance to answer? Talk about jumping the gun.

Sun is the biggest "planet", and it represents the Soul, Jupiter is the second biggest and it represents impersonal things that transcend and expand beyond the physical world (universal concepts; Philosophy is the attempt to have the right universal concepts), Saturn is the third biggest and represents the constraints of physical reality (Saturn stands for the Gnostic demiurge in an objective way), Moon is the smallest and it represents our personal subjective factors, thus, our ego and psychology (yes the Moon is the ego, but you don't assume that since you probably are not educated in Vedic Astrology).

Basic Astrology.


Now, time for your dessert: The planets do not stand by or for transcendental personal fairies or by a single subjective mind...



Well thanks for the dessert, I do not have much a sweet tooth, though, neither did I claim either of those two things...


They are the objective, impersonal physical form, of impersonal trascendental aspects of the universe


I never said planets were personal, as in making things happen in each person's life like personal demigods. Never. I said that behind the physical appearance of planets there was a source of power, an intelligence much more extensive than your 17 year old mind or my 31 year old mind could rationally grasp, which is the origin of its influence and even channels of other influences that come from beyond the solar system. Impersonal? Sure, as impersonal as a human can be to an ant. Unconscious, or subconscious? Not at all.



Do you see massive living beings of the size of planets?


If by this you mean logoi, then no they are beyond the physical, the physical body would be THE planet. Do I see physical beings as big as planets? I havent seen one yet. Not sure what that really has to do with anything, again.

Aliens exist, but not in this way, and we exist but not in this way either. That is because the Physical universe necessarily represents the Mental/Trascendental universe. There is very high probability that lifeforms cannot exceed the scale of the planet they inhabit, and then maybe there is possibly a limit to the size a solid planet can have, hence... The point of the previous statements is that the physical scale of the planets has universal ontological significance... Now it's time to explain it,


Its very exhausting to follow a disorganized train of thought. I know you must make some kind of sense in your mind, but at times, your train of thought borders on the speculative and I mean this in the best way possible, useless.

When I came back to the computer to continue writing this I noticed I received your second reply... It is simply futile to debate with you...

I am glad you noticed ;)

Only 10% of the people of this world are rational... 9% Are Scientific Materialists, which *****. 1% are Mathematical Rationalists...



I wonder where you are getting those numbers from? Maybe where you get the rest of your things from.... who knows.

Mathematics doesn't lie. I have to continue testing a new concept I discovered... Taking the Zodiac sign of the Sun from the Tropical Zodiac, of the Moon from the Draconic Zodiac, and of everything else I will use Sidereal. If you are curious ask me.


No, I am not curious. Sorry, not at this time.

Now, one of the things you said in the reply hurt me: That I don't use original reasoning. That's an insult to the core of my identity. Not everything I am saying is "regurgitated".


Most of it is. My intention is not to hurt anyone, but you are right i guess, the truth can hurt.

I am making references because I can't stop to explain everything, and because I appreciate the thinkers who actually taught me something, and as a Meritocrat I hate to get merit I don't deserve.


Thats all fine. The problem starts when you begin to delude yourself into thinking that you know more than others or that your opinion is the absolute truth just because you read a couple of authors. I will not be the last person to tell you that, and I suspect I have not been the first one.


This debate drains too much of my time.

Ditto.

You are just another of the "love and light" brigade, and I can't get more real describing your argument because I try to follow the rules of this forum.

Of which you know nothing about apparently. And ditto on the realness.


The right brain has a lot of significance for me too,

I do not see it. But I will take your word for it.

but, if your consciousness (which is in your left brain)

Is it? So its not "in" the right brain? My consciousness is in half of my brain....interesting....

Dude, I am 17 years old, I also believed for a while things like you believed (I know it sounds weird since I am stating I haven't lived long)...



EXACLTY!!! !!!! took it right out of my mouth LOL. I dont mean to diss you, but let's just say mathematics do not lie... I will let anyone reading this make up their own mind.

I really would like to clear things out, but I am here very inclined to think that it is just futile. I am inspired to clear misunderstandings, and if you are still interested in me explaining better how I see existence to you I will.


Dude, I do not mean to offend you, but even though I am interested in all points of view, I have enough things to do in my day to want to know what YOU think about life. Do not give yourself so much credit. I suggest you spend your time more productively and read some more, and especially THINK some more... I will be busy doing the same.

Though I still think that the insulting things I mentioned are accurate descriptions of you.

Well, you are not so sincere because the insulting things you said, came off in an underhanded, non direct way... but hey, you received some of your own medicine, didnt you? Had I known you were underage I wouldnt have wasted my time, even though I KNEW by the way you wrote that you had to be young and immature. Silly me to follow along. ;)


I am just sincere, because I think that is the best way of living. If you notice it I even interrupted my reply just to say this message... Although you are just going to reply due to pride, and in turn deny this like a little child(and if you ask me, I just want a good debate excercise, but it is so boring when you are so closed on irrational viewpoints, and call me a speculator when everything I say is based on sufficient reason and principles that must be, because if they were not, the universe would have collapsed already).

Funny comment, coming from a little child lol.

I am asking for friendlier terms with you, though this does not mean I will stop speaking out the faults of your argument. Yes, some people tell me that I speak much, and that's true, because I love teaching and voicing my opinion...


Voicing your opinion is one thing, deeming your opinion a teaching for others is ego. Oh boy... good luck with all that.


But I try to make my answers really whole, hence sometimes the "innecessary" information. I don't expect much of you though, adults are just kids who know how to win money and conceal their emotions.


I sense some hostility towards adults. Wanna talk about it? No, seriously, I went though the rebellious stage myself. It shall pass.

Any intelligent person can notice the format of your replies, big kid.

Is that so, little kid?

The format of your replies:

You try to offend a person per phrase, then you say your opinion is right, but then your opinion is based on everything being relative... So from your viewpoint we both can be equally from your right, but you still think you have more truth than me. Every time I try to use more precise, but not perfect terms since human language is not perfect (but math is), you just try to criticize them and think you have an argument. Then, with some frequency, you try to state how you feel and look strong. You then try to point out a little detail, as if it can destroy my argument. The statements you cannot criticize, because they are complete, you just say you don't agree arrogantly with creative insults (nice use of your right brain there mate), but then don't explain why. You then frequently state I am arrogant, just because I accept that principles (just check why they are called principles) point at the truth. Etc. You also comment on things before reading the whole thing, because if you read the whole thing you couldn't stand a chance at a good argument.


1) Offend you per phrase? No, I give Caesar it's due. You get cute with me, I will surely get cue back, whether you are 17 or 87, I do not suffer fools lightly.

2) You think very highly of your thoughts and opinions which is normal, I guess, but that does not mean they are right. Neither does that mean people are not going to make that abundantly clear to you, as I have. I think you should be getting used to it, because the way you are thinking right now, you ar going to have many of this debates and people are going to point out your intellectual arrogance and immaturity just like I have, until one ay you grow up and "get it". I am just glad I already went through it. Good luck with all that.


However, a valid point you raise is that I haven't investigated Logoi well enough... I just made a quick search... If you are talking about logos as impersonal, then I can agree with you with a little bit more feedback on that. But, it seems they are just another creative mix of mythos stuff, if you think they are personal entities you are wrong.


Read some more, son.

Wait, I forgot that if I don't tell you that I already refuted that subjective entities can produce objective entities (rules of existence) in this message, you will meaninglessly criticize this paragraph right here. You are so predictable.


...ahhhh sure?

Who could have known that having committed the mistake of arguing with little kids isn't actually a mistake, but actually a good experience for when debates with the irrational come to happen?

I am literally bursting in laughter right now...'little kid' lol ohhh thank you for that. Good one. I can even see you pouting.

Who am I lying to? Well, anyways, actually I lost this debate... You are right...I find it hard to say, but I actually have to learn from you...

Can I contact you through PM?
You gave me a good debate mate!


Thanks a lot for helping me see that I was an arrogant person. Maybe I should doubt my knowledge a little bit more.

In all thankfulness,

John.

I forgot to ask you, what is your method of reading the birth chart?

Oops, and before leaving the PC today, I would like to ask for your name.

I lied...



Hmmm just the kind of silly, infantile, pointless games you would expect from a 17 year old. Son, the when you turn at least 27, lets talk.


Now, don't you see your true intentions?. Or, wait, now you don't trust your feelings? I thought you did. Learn to actually rationally discern sometime...

Makes no sense whatsoever, are you having a sugar rush?

Now, calm down, breathe deeply, don't complain... I gave you what you wanted. You didn't want truth, you wanted this moment. I just did a good deed.

Let me know when you come out of the sugar poisoning. It's affecting your brain (both right and left).


Be thankful. What, you actually replied ahead before reading this? Hahahaha. Take that for being so focused on insulting for every little phrase, for being a bad debater, and for having psychological complexes.


Ouch!! noooo please...no more...i can't take it... lol.

Maybe you were so satisfied you didn't even realize this is a joke.


maybe, who knows....

You either fell for this, or you proceeded directly to the reply button and found the joke because you don't read and ponder anyone's message, you are just focused on winning the debate, not on truth. You couldn't have done anything to discern this... You are just another member of the "love and light" brigade after all.


after all...


Go ahead, lie that you didn't fell for this,


I totally fell, shame on me.

then insult me per phrase again.

Nah I will let your parents give you the spanking you deserve.

Sir, how shameful of you, you talk about higher degrees of consciousnesssss (I bet Deepak Chopra is your guru), but you allow yourself to act based on low animal impulses, then for the sake of even more shame, you have to wait for your adversary to tell you you are a big kid... Your adversary being younger than you. Your insults are so elevated, so logoi like.



Son, the fact that I talk about anything at all does not mean I pretend to be at the same level with it. No, I am not a Logos, and I am not swimming in blissful higher consciousness, unfortunately for you. I can still give you the proverbial written spanking and call a spade a spade. I do not suffer fools lightly, so think about it twice next time you want to jump into a discussion writing as if you are the right hand of god, when you probably barely have grown a beard, please.


Wait, actually, mine are more logoi like, you see, mine are not insults per phrase, but valid objective insults per valid point.

Sure, buddy.

Bye, I won't even check this email for mistakes. It's not worth it to lose more of my time.

Bye now, run along.

tata.
 
I would rather watch a soap opera (woe is me, I've no tv) than read all this blather.
Lowly life-form that I am, still it is an honor to swim amongst such intellectual giants.

Has anyone noticed? All this tripe is completely off-topic.
 

I mean is the sidereal zodiac and the actual zodiacal constellations not one and the same?

No, they are not. The sidereal zodiac keeps in line with the constellations until about the middle of Aries, and then it starts to diverge. This is because the sidereal zodiac also states that the signs of the Zodiac are all an equal 30°, but the constellations are not all equal. Some are very small (Scorpio, Aries), and others are very large (Virgo). You could argue this makes for three zodiacs; tropical, sidereal, constellational.


Then I am struggling to understand how an astrological age is determined with regards to the tropical method if the vernal equinox is always 0 deg Aries. How does one determine which astrological age we are in with this method?
It isn't, because the Vernal Equinox point doesn't move in the tropical zodiac.


Finally am I correct in understanding that with the sidereal method each year the vernal equinox is measured against the actual constellations of the zodiac belt on the celestial sphere ?


Yes.


Any assistance would be greatly appreciated
Kind Regards
Charliestars
computers dont provide all the charts that are used
and they also pidgeon hole the individual into what a program may provide, or does not provide.
Learning how to do things by hand gives you a way to double-check. :)
Software isn't always right
programs are written by humans and humans are fallible.

It's also easy to take technology for granted, because you never know when it won't be there.



.
 
Back
Top