maxwell wrote:
If you must facetiously slam my whole post, at least know what you're talking about!
And don't presume to know the limits of my (esoteric) knowledge. I'm actually widely read.Slam? Facetious?
I took issue with your point of view.
It's nice that you are widely read, but it was your own post that suggested to me
that your knowledge of astrology might be limited. I said nothing of your knowledge
in esoterica in general.
"...at least know what you're talking about!"OK, let's start here:
The verse in Isaiah 47 to which you refer is number 13, not 15. So yes, you were wrong,
but to err is human. Here is the verse in question:
13 Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels.
Let now the astrologers, the stargazers,
the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee
from these things that shall come upon thee.And here is the verse that follows:
14 Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them;
they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame:
there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.By themselves, these two verses might be seen to suggest that God has it in for astrologers,
but Isaiah chapter 47 is a denunciation of Babylon's arrogance, conceit and criminality.
For this, God tells them this:
11 Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth:
and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off:
and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.
12 Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries,
wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit,
if so be thou mayest prevail.And then comes the verse you cite about the astrologers.
The condemnation is to the evil empire, and the challenge issued is:
Let your advisors, monthly prognosticators, etc. try to get you out of this curse.
Then God says they won't be able to, and that "the fire shall burn them".
But as verse 15 says,
15 Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured,
even thy merchants, from thy youth:
they shall wander every one to his quarter;
none shall save thee.The message isn't against merchants in general, or astrologers in general.
It is a message to Babylon that none shall save it.
And while Babylon
is condemned for "enchantments, and... the multitude of thy sorceries",
these (enchantments and sorceries) are not synonymous with "astrology".
Enchanters and sorcerers may make use of astrology, if they are so inclined,
but it is not in and of itself, sorcery and enchantment.
In fact, it is neither.
maxwell wrote:
What evidence do you have that astrology concerns planetary energies rather than divination?That is like asking, "What evidence do you have that auto mechanics involves engines
and gasoline, rather than brakes?"
Astrology is all about planetary energies, and it is used for divination!
Just as a weatherman or woman uses wind charts and knowledge of high and low
pressure systems, clouds, and so on to predict the weather.
But the planetary energies are not limited to physical forces, as they are accompanied
by a style of consciousness, and that is sometimes personified, anthropromorphised,
and given names like "Saturn" etc.
And so one reads statements along the lines of: "Saturn is a strict disciplinarian".
It enables an astrologer to reference the particular energy and its characteristics,
and the consciousness that accompanies that energy.
But that doesn't make Saturn "the ultimate God", or a challenger to the title of God.
It could be said that the energy referenced is a part of God, or the energy of God,
because ultimately, it is.
In the sense that consciousness is an aspect of God, as God is "all knowing",
so "Saturn's consciousness" is part of "all consciousness".
An analogy: When you are refering to your brother, you wouldn't say,
"The consciousness that likes Lady Gaga and going to the seashore says it's time for dinner!"
It's much easier to say, "Billy says it's time for dinner", and there is no problem
that he represents a certain (admittedly puzzling) form of consciousness.
No one would feel that God Almighty was threatened by his existence, but if someone says
"Saturn motivates scholarly activity", this is seen as blasphemy by some.
It's just a way of expressing the fact that the energy that motivates
people to be scholarly is in the category of that which is known as Saturn.
And yes, in as much as that energy interacts with people and their own consciousness,
it is, by definition, a consciousness, and - it becomes evident - living.
"You'll have to explain to me how astronomy is the bastard child of astrology.
Before someone can interpret the planets don't they need to study them first?"Yes, one has to study them first, but the motive for studying the planets in antiquity
was not merely to know their positions in the sky. Even if the physical aspects of stars
weren't well understood in antiquity, the influence of the planets on the earth,
comparable to recent discussions of "the electric universe", was part of why people
studied the stars. This influence is expressed in what we know today as astrology,
and this was the case even into the middle ages, and in the times of John Lilly.
Today Kepler is taught about in schools as a student of astronomy, but as noted in Wikipedia:
"(Johannes)
Kepler lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between
astronomy and astrology, but there was a strong division between astronomy
(a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of natural philosophy).
Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated
by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according
to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.
Kepler described his new astronomy as "celestial physics", as "an excursion
into Aristotle's Metaphysics", and as "a supplement to Aristotle's On the Heavens",
transforming the ancient tradition of physical cosmology by treating astronomy
as part of a universal mathematical physics."
"...motivated
by the religious conviction and belief that God had created the world according
to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason".In other words, "Saturn advised him".
;D
maxwell wrote:
Either Lilly was recognizably Lennon - as opposed to you, me or anyone else - or he wasn't.
Yes, our minds are largely one and the same in function - it is our unique associations that define us.
For Lennon to be Lilly in any meaningful way they must have shared the same mind, i.e. synaptic pathways. Which I doubted.
And no one, in the whole of world history understands what consciousness is, aside from the crudest of definitions, as - a form of energy.It all depends on how you look at it, and that, in turn, will be in some measure
based on what you believe.
I would say:
Yes: For Lennon to be Lilly in any meaningful way they must have shared the same mind...
Not necessarily: For Lennon to be Lilly in any meaningful way they must have shared the same mind, i.e. synaptic pathways.
The question comes down to "What is 'mind' ? "
Is not "mind" consciousness? And if so, where does one draw the line?
We all have individual conscious awareness, but there is also what we term the "subconscious",
which may be aware of things we don't suspect it would be. Usually it is discussed
in terms of 'what we're aware of, but not consciously aware of, in our immediate environment'.
And some speak of a "super conscious" - an awareness of things that are beyond our
immediate surroundings.
So you, reading this, may have access to knowing what I am wearing as I type this,
and what's happening on Mars, and everything that John Lennon ever knew.
It's sort of "the internet of awareness".
And we could conceivabley download data from this 'universal awareness' for whatever
purpose we need it.
Being able to do so wouldn't make us 'omniscient', as that would suggest we were
consciously aware of everything, but it could mean that we have access to the mind of God.
It doesn't mean we are capable of having the degree of conscious awareness that
God has, but in as much as we share this accessability, we are all one "in consciousness".
"
Better get to know your brother is everyone you meet!"
But Lennon suggested more than that.
"I know you; you know me!
One thing I can tell you is you've got to be free!"
You, reading this. He knows you.
And even more, you know him!
Maybe you're just not consciously aware of it.
We can all play mind games forever.
My guess, maxwell, is that you don't believe in reincarnation. I base that on what
you wrote about John Lennon and John Lilly having to have synaptic pathways
that are the same (which you doubt). Of course, if they shared the same spirit,
their synaptic pathways might have been identical, but we'll most likely never know.
And if John Lilly managed to stay physically alive for centuries, and passed himself off
as John Lennon, that could be another way for them to both have had the same synaptic pathways.
Still... that seems highly unlikely. He'd have to have had a hell of a good set of genes.
So I'm not going to spend a lot of time and energy on this.
A time traveler in a physical body might be able to move through the centuries with impunity.
Also a spirit, who is a time traveler, with the ability to manifest a physical body
when necessary, would have no problem with 'immortality'.
Paul McCartney & Wings - Spirits Of Ancient Egypt [Seattle]www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjCt0sI-cFASpirits Of Ancient Egypt
Echoes Of Sunken Spain
Spirits Of Ancient Egypt
Hung On The 'Phone
A-Hung On The 'Phone
A-Hung On The 'Phone againJust remember that Alf drove the bus.
