Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Star signs have changed...

One thing I've always wondered, if Pluto is considered to be a planet according to astrologers, then what about similar bodies that have since been discovered? Are bodies like Eris and Makemake considered relevant? Why or why not? What are the criteria for a body to be considered astrologically impactful?



No. Are you aware that science is not just a body of knowledge, but is also a self-correcting process of acquiring empirical knowledge about nature, that has only existed for a few centuries out of the hundreds that constitute human history?
science! its new! only existed since the western european bourgeoisie invented it! lol.
 
science! its new! only existed since the western european bourgeoisie invented it! lol.

Why the fuck does it matter that "western European bourgeoisie" invented it? It could have been invented by Chinese peasants and it would still work, and that's what really matters. It wasn't theologians who discovered microscopic pathogens and invented ways of combating them, thus saving millions of lives and preventing misery for billions. It wasn't astrologers who discovered how stars fuse atoms to create the solar energy we all depend on to live.

The mystics have been bullshitting us for literal millennia, and we suffered through all that time, having been fooled into thinking disease was divine judgement. Yet science has allowed for the utter transformation of the world itself, not just our understanding of it, in the scant few centuries that it has been around.

Your scoffing and sneering is absolutely without basis.
 
Why the fuck does it matter that "western European bourgeoisie" invented it? It could have been invented by Chinese peasants and it would still work, and that's what really matters. It wasn't theologians who discovered microscopic pathogens and invented ways of combating them, thus saving millions of lives and preventing misery for billions. It wasn't astrologers who discovered how stars fuse atoms to create the solar energy we all depend on to live.

The mystics have been bullshitting us for literal millennia, and we suffered through all that time, having been fooled into thinking disease was divine judgement. Yet science has allowed for the utter transformation of the world itself, not just our understanding of it, in the scant few centuries that it has been around.

Your scoffing and sneering is absolutely without basis.
bourgeois tit.
 
One thing I've always wondered, if Pluto is considered to be a planet according to astrologers, then what about similar bodies that have since been discovered? Are bodies like Eris and Makemake considered relevant? Why or why not? What are the criteria for a body to be considered astrologically impactful?

:D

It's never a problem for astrology, most deep astrologers use Vulcan in their charts which astronomers haven't found (although of course they can't prove it doesn't exist, so "haven't found yet" is the smug astrologers response).


No. Are you aware that science is not just a body of knowledge, but is also a self-correcting process of acquiring empirical knowledge about nature, that has only existed for a few centuries out of the hundreds that constitute human history?

Thing is, this is a big subject and drifts over into philosophy but the idea of some "pure" science is pretty dodgy too. I mentioned above that I spent a year writing up astrological combinations and I'm basically a skeptical sciencey type but things like astrology do challenge a little. I used to wonder, are there perhaps forms of knowledge or insight that only exist when you are in love - the reason for this thought was that all sorts of people suddenly start reading star signs when they are - even though they also believe it's all rubbish. I don't want to go full hippy on yo ass here but the idea of "pure" science as exemplified by the ruthless separation of the observer from the observed, the destruction of sympathy between the "knower" and what is "known" is at the root of a lot of very nasty destructive ideologies and politics - not least the destruction of the planet's ability to deliver life to our entire species. It's hard not to see this as some form of evil enchantment sometimes, it's so crazy.

"Conscience" - with science - is at root a moral impetus, not an amoral one. A revolutionary science would have to embody this truth somehow.
 
bourgeois tit.

Fool.

Thing is, this is a big subject and drifts over into philosophy but the idea of some "pure" science is pretty dodgy too.

I never once mentioned purity. Of course the scientific process has evolved, and will continue to do so. It's patently obvious that science is directed in certain ways by the ruling classes, which is why weapons research gets billions while tropical diseases get neglected. But it gets pushed in specific directions because it works. They don't really bother doing that with the likes of astrology.

I mentioned above that I spent a year writing up astrological combinations and I'm basically a skeptical sciencey type but things like astrology do challenge a little. I used to wonder, are there perhaps forms of knowledge or insight that only exist when you are in love - the reason for this thought was that all sorts of people suddenly start reading star signs when they are - even though they also believe it's all rubbish. I don't want to go full hippy on yo ass here but the idea of "pure" science as exemplified by the ruthless separation of the observer from the observed, the destruction of sympathy between the "knower" and what is "known" is at the root of a lot of very nasty destructive ideologies and politics - not least the destruction of the planet's ability to deliver life to our entire species. It's hard not to see this as some form of evil enchantment sometimes, it's so crazy.

"Conscience" - with science - is at root a moral impetus, not an amoral one. A revolutionary science would have to embody this truth somehow.

There are those who try to scientifically justify their sociopathic ideologies, but I think you and I both know as a matter of conscience that such justifications are naught but excuses. The science is pretty clear on the consequences of continuing carbon emissions, soil erosion, ocean acidification, and more. Which is why the cheerleaders for capitalism have gone to great lengths to conceal such truths, to misdirect and obfuscate. Because they know that most people have an inherent moral revulsion to the idea of trashing the planet for the profit of a tiny group of overgrown robber-barons.
 
For some this has quite upsetting consequences

Lest we forget
 
Back
Top Bottom