From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: same old same old
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:18:42 GMT

mrcarl@carson.u.washington.edu (Mark Carlson) writes:
> ...
>I stated:
>
>>>However, as I have stated before, this is an *astrology discussion*
>>>newsgroup, i.e. those who find astrology interesting, fun, intriguing,
>>>useful, etc.  
>
>Dave says:
>>Clearly it is an astrology newsgroup.  You seem to think that includes only
>>those who are advocates of astrology. 
>
>No.  But we already know that you think astrology is bologna and couldn't
>possibly work.  So then I say, without a certain degree of open-mindedness
>on your part, what could you possibly contribute in a positive manner
>towards the discussion of astrological issues given your personal feelings
>about it?  Are you trying to save others from developing a belief in
>astrology by continually attacking us and pointing out how *wrong* we all
>are? In your mind, do you ever believe there can be more than one *right*
>answer? If you think there is only one right answer for every question,
>then astrology is definitely not your thing.  I recently asked people to
>post what house systems they used and why, and almost everyone responded
>with a different answer.  That might be hard for you to relate to because
>to all those people who responded, the system(s) they use are *right* for
>them based on their own experiences.  There is no right or wrong answer. 
>It's not a multiple choice question.  I don't ever recall reading anything
>positive from you -- maybe I've just formed an unfair judgment of you
>based on my overall impression of the tone of your postings. So what
>astrological topic would you like to make a positive contribution to? 

Gotta tease you, Mark: bologna's what you eat. Baloney is what you don't
believe.

I use the word 'occult' to label what I'll call right-brain or subconscious
logic. Dave doesn't understand that astrology is an 'occult' science, and he
doesn't understand that people are 'occult' themselves. White-Western culture
tried to suppress the 'occult' == all right-brain produce, shoving it on
women where it needed love and affection. Result: sick, sociopathic society.

The notion that two people can use two different methods and arrive at useful
results anyway, is an 'occult' fact. Dave's going through "hella dissonance",
about this issue, I think. His religious mother was the paragon of the "what
we don't like does not exist and if it does it's bad" mindset that kills much
that makes humans warm and soft. It takes a lot of guts to walk away from
a connection that says it loves you, when by its logic the rest of the world
is frightening and hostile and bad and sinful and, and, and. But if that
connection has made you half a person you have to try to do something else,
somewhere else, despite yourself - life does exist, I know, where can I look?
Then you look across at groups of many other people and realize what a nice
fleshpile humanity really is - lots of places to go where nobody knows in
advance why they should perpetuate your defective images of love - and even
confused why you have them - sort of innocent before being proven guilty.
And you look at them and wonder "why they don't love you like mother did."
But you don't *want* them to love you like mother did, because mother's love
was a killing thing - it takes so long to erase the pattern of interaction
with a parent like that, I know. I have my own rebellious, contentious streak
which still thinks it can only keep its freedom by keeping other people apart
from me, while other parts are desperately lonely.

Dave:
>>On diversity, yes.  I am part of it.  So are you.  You seem to be saying
>>"diversity is great because it allows everyone to participate in sheltered
>>groups of others who agree with them".

The general model of progress is that a group X jointly builds a thing T.
Your function here is to sap energy from group X, without reference to
thing T. You are not trying to clarify the image of T; you are not contributing
to the making of a better thing T. You are arguing that T should probably
not exist, and demanding that everyone in group X arrest creation of T until
they have satisfied *you* that T exists. Yet you are not even a craftsman
as regards thing T!

Imagine the Manhattan Project, Dave. For good or ill, we got the bomb in
short order because everyone cooperated to create it. Had you been on the
project, the image would be "we cannot proceed until you have satisfied me
that this thing should exist." Stop work on it? To cater to you? Why?

Even easier - if you know why astrology *does not work*, then publish your
results - yes? Do you have any?

Any response to the LONG posting about RESEARCHED correlations between
astronomical phenomena and human types, by L. McPherson? Did you read it?
Over in rec.org.mensa, it's still there - for the *mere reading* of it.

Your arguments begin to ring exceedingly hollow when there are now reams
of challenges to you on many fronts, which you ignore - in full light of
the rest of us watching you do so - while still pumping your points.
Your interaction here is for what you say - then you'll be doing your
homework. It begins to be blatantly clear your presence here is a
dysfunctional behavior under 'cover' of standing in opposition to astrology.
No problem. But how naked do you have to be before even you feel the breeze
blowing through your crotch?

>>Dave: I would like to determine for myself whether astrology does X.
>
>MARK:  You can determine for yourself whether astrology does X.  Here are
>some good recommendations for books.  Let me know if I can be of
>any further assistance

Watters, and maybe March/McEvers, going out to Dave *argh* soon.

Mark - and everyone else - this is a recurrent phenomenon, tangling with a
person who behaves this way - e.g. "Scott Tai" in rec.org.mensa. Data in,
Garbage out. Some people feed the black hole high-octane, other people feed
it coffee-grounds. Either way, the same munge returns. I say feed the black
hole *nothing*, and *nothing can* return.

You recall my nasty "Mr. CERN" post from a while ago? I guess it was severe
enough, without much knowledge of him, that he felt safe to reply then, to
me in private mail - and I was nice to him, and I think it touched him.
But now he's back in the same cycle.

I feel for you Dave, because I imagine you're hurting a lot. Being mean to
you is *not* fun if I imagine you in the room with me - words are cheap on
the net. We're real people, you're real too. I forgive you infinitely -
I have that compassion. Yet I have it with clear sight. You're the only one
who can digest your pain for you and "make it alright". Your reactive patterns
are not winning for you. You need "human food" and what you're doing is not
going to get you much that you need. Go take a walk alone on a hillside there
on a sunny day and sit down and be quiet and clear your mind - look around you.
Life goes on. No one minds. Everything you feel is a current from your own
past. You create the moment in the moment - what will you pay attention to?
Go watch some children play. Watch them for a long time - 10, 15 minutes.
Listen to your feelings surge at you when they laugh, or cry, or fight.
Feel the malevolence of being cut off from their directness and their
innocence - would they understand you? How would they feel to share your
feelings? Is life as black as you feel so often? Go watch a comedy - maybe
you can catch A Fish Called Wanda somewhere - the 90, 120 minutes of that,
just be in the movie and laugh. You can pick up your entire psychoemotional
context and suspend it at will for great periods of time - and if you can't,
that should tell you the unfinished business must get finished, and your
first task is to see what that unfinished business is. While you still hang
around here doing what you're doing, you're staying in your own stuck-place
out of your own free will. Is that how you feel about yourself, and do you
deserve to be treated that way?

I personally say you're already shown up in the way you fear. (1) If my or
Stacey's readings hit marks, don't acknowledge them. (2) If researchers have
put things out for you to digest and consider, ignore that. (3) If people
make valid social/political points about your behavior, overlook them.
(4) If your own behavior considered objectively would make you angry to
receive, then deny your own behavior. (5) If the real world is unpalatable,
treat it exactly the way your mother did. Call us assholes and reason
irrationally, and sit smug and self-righteous in your comfy chair, ruler of
the world. And be desperately, desperately unhappy.

If you can't win any way you go, just give up the game - you don't have to
play a game that doesn't suit you. I think your business here is done.
You can walk away from here with what I hope you've learned, and work on it
on your own. But we don't need for you to leave, that's not the point at all.

-ecsd