On the Humilty of Astrologers

(1/4) > >>

Mefiante (January 22, 2007, 10:15:49 AM):
Before reading the individual astrologers' profiles here, I recommend that all implements that conceivably could be used to inflict physical harm or damage, especially to the self, first be moved beyond easy reach. Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is the single most awesome collection of sheer untainted genius ever assembled. It is plainly obvious that we are not worthy to receive the wisdom such illustrious luminaries are willing to impart - for a small fee, of course.

That is, if the glowing profiles are even vaguely accurate. Or perhaps they're actually a joke that I am too dense to get, like the one found elsewhere at the website, claiming that South Africa has an astronomical observatory at "Southerland."

Petra du Preez has her own website that begins "Good ! It's , ," as if to remind the visitor that this expert on dates knows her oats and is not to be trifled with. However, beware the saccharine tweeness of the site because more than a cursory glance may result in diabetic schlock.

Mefiante (January 23, 2007, 13:47:50 PM):
Holy merde.

Mefiante (January 24, 2007, 11:04:58 AM):
"Muquita," a SA astrologer, has written:
As above, so below
One of the modern fallacies about astrology that abounds is that the moon and other planetary bodies 'influence' or affect us. This ignores astrology's basic tenet: "As above, so below". In other words, what is above reflects or coincides with what is below. Above we have a celestial mirror, a universal clock and a heavenly guide by which to measure our pace, mark seasons and cycles and delineate temperament.

My response? One of the modern fallacies about astrology that abounds is that it actually has something useful to contribute. This ignores one of reality's basic tenets: "Above is usually quite a lot different from below." In other words, what is above reflects or coincides in a literal sense with what is below to a probability closely approaching zero. Above we have an assortment of celestial objects, an erstwhile planetary clock and a yardstick by which to measure our cosmic insignificance, mark seasons and cycles (although, to be truthful, a good caesium clock does a far better job), apply every conceivable figure of speech to in order to extort particles of ostensible truth, and fool gullible twits by pretending that the firmament cares a jot about delineating their temperaments.

Muquita's "Conditions Predicted for South Africa in 2006" is the usual mish-mash of utterly useless could bes, maybes, possiblys, etc. Unsurprisingly, the article lacks any specificity, but it does include the following bit of accidental self-criticism towards the end:
The downside is the potential for waste, overconfidence and empty promises.

Maybe some astrologers do have a rudimentary sense of decency after all. Problem is, they're so adept at hiding it.

bluegray (January 24, 2007, 12:00:25 PM):
There may be a growing need for orphanages. Fear and false or negative beliefs destroy confidence, creativity and stability.
Now that is profound.
I expect predictions for 2007 will be just as vague.
Mefiante (January 24, 2007, 13:49:11 PM):
What about all the recent name- and status changes to the solar system? It could hardly be simpler!
New dimensions of meaning
What is of the utmost importance to modern astrologers will be the names that are finally designated each planet. That may not change your fate, but it will certainly add new dimensions of meaning to the average birth chart reading.

Okay, so henceforth I'll call it "Noom" instead of "Moon." Maybe then I'll stop spending money I don't have.



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page