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.