From: s0jrej@exnet.co.uk (James Ellis-Jones)
Subject: Re: May you live in interesting times.....
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 14:20:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.105516.2939@uumeme.chi.il.us> sfoley@uumeme.chi.il.us (Sean M. Foley) writes:
>    What reasons do you have to believe that planets are the sole influence of
>everything that be? What is the purpose of life if its ALL predestined and 
>predicitable?

I don't think many astrologers actually think either of these things. 
As far as I am concerned it seems obvious that the positions of the
planets simply don't contain enough information to specify everything
that is going on on earth at the time.

However, I think a lot of astrologers tend to think 'it works but I
don't really know why' while holding a lot of half-formed opinions about
Jungian synchronicity, reincarnation, fate etc.  It is difficult to have
a sensible position on it all, as once you start thinking astrology
works, the good old scientific realism most people wander round with in
their heads (without really questioning why it's huge usefulness makes
it a *complete* description of the way things are) falls apart.

I think a problem the scientific world view brings people is that the
goal of objectivity is so strong in it that people forget that since
they view the world from where they are, their point of view is actually
more important to them than anyone else's.  I am sometimes tempted to
think that the world is simply what people want it to be, and so if you
and your friends all believe in astrology, those parts of the world that
are experienced by you (and not many non-believers) will tend to conform
to those beliefs.  However, the need for logical consistency will
restrain this from happening to a large extent.

Astrology shows a weakening in predictive power the larger the group it
is applied to; the more the law of averages can get at it; and the more
the effects of its use would be contrary to the beliefs of the masses. 
Of course I will be told this is to say that astrology is not
objectively true - but so what, if it is subjectively true from my point
of viewing the world, it makes no difference to me!  Well perhaps it
limits my ability to take advantage of astrology to do things that a lot
of people would hear about, like making a fortune on the stock exchange
:-(.

>    An interesting question is however, why has the earth itself never been
>a part of the astrological equation? I mean, if we're talking about influence
>most certainly the earth is going to have the most impact(being the closest).

The earth IS part of the equation.  Interestingly enough, in taking an
objective approach, you've assumed that the earth should be dealt with
like any other planet.  However, astrology is subjective and so
geocentric.

The earth is included in the chart in terms of what you can see of it
when you look around you - the horizon, i.e. the ascendant/descendant.
This just adds to the argument that looking at astrology as being
effective through gravitational force is silly.  It works symbolically,
and on the basis that what is symbolised by the pattern of planets you
can see from where you stand will describe what is happening to you.

James
From: andre@krypta.in-berlin.de (Andre Eichner)
Sender: uucp@krypta.in-berlin.de