Ok... this post was made a long time ago, but since you feel so strongly about it, I will answer, hummm...
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.
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.
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.
And, no, a planet does not have a consciousness yet...
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.
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.
Otherwise, Astrology wouldn't be able to account for the harmful people living today...
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.
If you have the right aspect system, an look at the Moon placement of criminals, it ALWAYS is fault of the Malefics (in Astrological context, I still hold some belief in free will, and I can explain that, although it seems illogical at first since a thing logically is purely determined, or purelly indetermined). The Malefics are not just Cruel, they are downright Malefic... The Sun is the only truly cruel (not malefic) planet. Yet, are those Malefics (standing for our lower nature) really divine? I don't think so.
You are right, I think half of what you wrote here is illogical. I won't comment on the other half.
I am sorry if it sounds rash, but you don't even understand what a Sign truly is. You stand for Tropical signs yet the Tropical signs are more or less of an identical nature to the Sidereal signs in regards to how they are taken to work.
I am not sorry to sound rash, but I do not think ANYONE truly understands what a sign really is, and by the way you write, especially not you. If you disagree, fine. If you think you truly know what a sign is, fine. But, as far as I am concerned, I think we barely know anything about the powers that affect us, physical and beyond. I think we still have plenty of work ahead of us, evidence being the state of humanity today, with all its wars and strife. We are very immature, like it or not. It is, AGAIN, very pretentious to assume you know what a sign is and someone else does not. I think a lesson in humility would suit you well, unless, of course, one of those pesky malefics are making you a bit pretentious.
Why don't we go ahead an apply the logic of your statement to the Tropical signs:
"In following [Tropical] astrology logic, it is assumed that the fact that the [Planet] in this or the other sign from [The tropical Sun], must somehow mean that the influence of that sign is actually being somehow channeled into earth by the [Planet]. I think this is a flaw. It's very lineal thinking in my view. The universe, human consciousness, and its connection, I would like to think, has more dimensions to it, it's not only lineal"
Putting words in my keyboard.. is a nono, but I will play along.
The influence of the Tropical Sun is totally valid, but of other planets in the Tropical Zodaic I don't expect anything. They simply are almost always in a different position, different everything, even if the Tropical Zodiac says that those are in the same exact degree.
I find that sentence very confusing. Not sure what to make of it. Care to rephrase?
Both the Sidereal and Tropical Zodiac are based on alignments
Yes and no. I believe the Sidereal Zodiac is supposed to be based on alignment with the constellations, but we both know that is not the case at all. There is no such alignment, in fact. The tropical Zodiac is based, as far as I know, on the factual flow of the seasons based on the earth-sun relationship. So, if you want to speak of alignment, I would say the tropical Zodiac is more "scientific" in it's approach and conforms more to physical reality.
whether those alignments produce constantly the same result and spatial exactitude such as with the Sidereal Zodiac, or whether those alignments only are exact and constant with the Sun and ultra inconstant with the other planets (Tropical Zodiac) <- Even having constancy with the Sun is doubtful with Tropical as JUPITERASC has shown with his video (which I have to study carefully).
I have to study that video myself again, I forgot it by now. lol. Again, I am not sure how exact can an alignment be when is it not aligned to begin with (sidereal zodiac)? But I am kind of tired now and I don't feel like getting too much into this...right this minute.
Yes, the universe is not totally linear, but it does have linear stuff. In fact, due to the very fact that planets are round objects, we have to think in terms of alignments to constellations.
Heck, I am no scientist, but if I am not mistaken, quantum physics points to a universe in which NOTHING is linear, and everything has it's base in an abstract, multidimensional, mysterious base. Linear, mechanistic physics belongs to immature science, to early science. As humanity evolves, it seems to move more and more away from linear thinking. But I do not want to waste time philosophizing. The point i was trying to make is that the logic followed in assuming that "what we see is what we get" (sidereal) is sort of basic, and immature, in my view. I suspect there is more to the workings of Astrology than that simple view, which as a matter of fact, turns out to be incorrect, since sidereal astrology does not take the actual constellations into account, but an idealization of their position. By the way, spherical spinning objects do NOT suggest lines to me, it suggests movement, change, complexity, waves, not lines, abstract relationships, not concrete ones.
Physically, the planet will throw energy to ALL directions possible, which energies the Earth is going to end up catching? The ones that are aligned with her.
Correct me if I am wrong. But aligned with which part of her? Planets are spherical and spinning around the sun all the time. They are always aligned to each other from the right point of view (as I mentioned above). If a planet "throws" energy in all directions then it affects every other planet around it and vice-verse, by your own definition. That is the antithesis of linearity, at least two-dimensional linearity.
Noumenally, only flowing and dynamic stuff is round and hence less predictable. What is astrology about? It is about predictions, it is about paralyzing time and hence looking at stuff as a constant.
You lost me a bit here, sorry. Maybe I am too tired... but that statement is a bit confusing.
So, lets be a bit playful: only dynamic and flowing stuff is round, hence less predictable... so, since astrology is about predictions and "paralyzing" time...then it must not be round, nor flowing, not dynamic?
Your birth chart is a way of representing a timeframe gone constant and static. Hence, it is naturally about LINEAR alignments. Things you are ALIGNed with for the course of your life.
Well, there's a good way to play with words and twist the context of my original statement.
1) sidereal astrology does not observe true visual, factual alignment when claiming that the sun or any planet is in such or other constellation. So, from your own statement sidereal astrology is not in the right track itself, is it?
2) When speaking of alignment, I was talking about constellations, not planets. But it is valid that you bring up the concept of alignment as a principle to which I will respond: It is undeniable that planets have a specific physical location in the solar system at any given time, and thus in a way "aligned" or positioned in a specific spatial relationship to earth, yes. BUT, what colors that planet's characteristics, are the signs, and that's what the debate is really about.
A planet's position in the solar system is a matter of science, which any astronomer could tell you. The implications of the planets being in a position (due to the sign it is in) will be studied by astrology. Now, the trick is that siderealists and tropicalists disagree in this respect and will place the planets in different signs, according to different methods of defining the signs, and, hence, interpret differently the implications of a planets position on the same part of space. In my view, siderealists follow a very linear logic in defining signs by trying to put the planets against a (fictitious) visual background which are the constellations, instead of taking other factors into account, such as energy being channeled by the sun before arriving to earth, etc.
So yes, even though we can see planets are aligned according to our vision, it does not mean that the energetic implications/flow will follow that perceived alignment. Visual linearity does not necessarily equal functional, causal relationship. Example: the fact that you are standing in front of me, does not mean I will be thinking or connected to you. I could be concentrated in someone behind you...hence "jumping" you and connecting to that other person attention-wise. So my energetic relationship will be to that other person, not you, even though to the casual observer you are more "aligned" with me than the person behind you.
One of the laws of physics states that something will go forever in a straight line unless there is intervention. The Natal chart is a universe without intervention of any force, hence a static an unchanging universe.
Contradiction: If things will go on forever without intervention, and the chart is a universe without intervention then the chart cannot be static (by your definition) since without intervention it will go on forever. I am sure it's just a typo on your part.
The only thing that makes the natal chart significant is that one thing remains, the implications of the ORDER it contains...
Order is implied, since everything follows a law, an order. But I follow you point...
In a paralyzed universe, only order remains. In astrology, and in everything, order is geometrical and mathematical.
Paralyzed solar system, you mean, I am sure. Energy and movement are constant. Order is implied, whether in a "moving" universe (solar system), or "paralyzed", becase if you "paralyze" the universe as a snapshot and you find order, then there was order all along to begin with. But I am just being picky... I think I know what you are trying to get at.
Because Astrology is a physical way of looking at something that is not actually physical, but mental, we have to relate the physical concepts to mental concepts (this is the process we call "interpretation of a chart"). What is the physical way order is manifest? Through lines and alignments, and those compose the geometrical (physical mathematics) relationships between the significant existents.
All nice and dandy, except you are talking about elementary geometry and mathematics, again, echoes of the mechanistic physical universe of the middle ages. Those "lines" that you are talking about, break down at some point, hence are not really real, if you will. Aligned is a limited perception from a particular point of view, dependent on space and time. According to those crazy physicists, all matter is entangled, ONE, and thus apparent relationships and energetic relationships are weirder and more complex than the naked eye would suggest.
I hope I wasn't too abstract... I actually have a clear definition of everything I have stated.
I hope I wasn't too abstract either.
Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.
Nice little phrase.
Your claim can be reduced to saying that just because you do not know the mechanism behind the alignments between the Planets and the Stars, the mechanism doesn't actually exist.
Actually, I think you can "reduce" anyone's statement to anything you want it to be in order to serve your argument. I wholeheartedly disagree with your "reduction". I think you overestimate your power of synthesis a bit there. For what it's worth: No, that is not what I am saying at all.
Do you know the mechanism behind the alignments of planets with the Tropical Zodiac (out of which only those of the Sun might fall inside of the definition of alignment)? Then, following your logic, because you don't know the mechanism behind them, those alignments don't work either...
What is really a sign in technical terms? A sign is a section of space that holds specific implications.
I admit I do not really KNOW what a sign is, or where it derives its qualities and powers from, in fact, I am quite baffled by the whole thing. You, on the other hand seem to have it written in stone. Good for you?
If a "sign" doesn't even fall into the definition of what space is, then it is not a sign.
Chinese signs are not relative to space but to time. I would love to see you convince them they are wrong. Just playing the devil's advocate. I would suggest to you that unless you back up your claims with hard evidence, then stay away from conclusive, authoritative statements, it's presumptuous.
Sidereal signs completely fall inside the definition of space. Tropical signs do not!
Lets see: Sidereal signs do NOT conform to actual physical spatial constellations. Tropical signs DO perfectly conform to spatial relationship to the sun and therefore the seasons... draw your own conclusions.
