Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gray Champion Predictions
(08-22-2020, 07:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote:
(08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.

Seriously.  "The Stars?"  2024, 2028 and the 2030's?

I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear.  John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.

ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....

Check it out already!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Horoscope scores rock!

You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip Wink
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
Yup..  We've "done this" before.  Objective reality is challenging.  My 20+ year study of epistemology has taught me that, if nothing else.  I try to remain open-minded, but not open at both ends.  

I suppose the closest I can come to the sort of woo-woo- you espouse is in my readings of Jung.  The notion of the conscious, the personal sub-consciousness and the lower level of universal consciousness is interesting.  The way I interpret that model is that I'm aware of my own conscious.  I'm also convinced through experience that there's plenty in my subconscious that bubbles up and influences behavior and modes of thought.

The universal consciousness?  My interpretation is that that's the genetic component.  Our genetic background, genetic "memory," genetic influence on behavior, thought, etc. seems very reasonable as a partial explanation.  See for example, different breeds of dogs.  Each has a "job" built into its genetic memory.  My son's Brittany for example has as her highest interest, anything that flys.  She is totally enthralled by birds.  Heck, she'll even point a housefly.  Given that, and a hundred other easily accessible examples, it hard not to think that we too have genetic memories that we probably all share with one another.

One example that I think is probable is xenophobia.  Given our history as a species, why wouldn't we fear/dislike anyone outside our clan?  They represent a threat to our hunting/gathering way of life, which represents the vast, vast majority of the years of genetic background that we have.  That, in itself, may partly explain the difficulty we have with racism when we live together in large groups.

So ... there's plenty of uncertainty in observing, interpreting and coming up with a workable view of objective reality without introducing non-reproducible woo-woo and pseudo-scientific quantifications of unrelated phenomena.
[fon‌t=Arial Black]... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.[/font]
Reply
(08-23-2020, 01:20 PM)TnT Wrote:
(08-22-2020, 07:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(08-21-2020, 06:38 PM)TnT Wrote:
(08-18-2020, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My indicators clearly show that neither AOC (score 13-19) nor Yang (score 8-15) will ever be president. But that does not mean they are not important opinion shapers in future years. If the AOC faction grows, she could end up as Speaker.

Seriously.  "The Stars?"  2024, 2028 and the 2030's?

I just tossed my chicken bones, and it's clear.  John Bolton will successfully serve two terms starting in 2004.

ha ha. I haven't even looked at John Bolton's "stars." Nick Bolton's either, ha ha. Seriously, you are surprised about my use of cosmic indicators? How long have you been coming here, off and on? Come on....

Check it out already!

http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

Horoscope scores rock!

You missed Woodstock; that must be why you're not hip Wink
This is the Age of Aquarius, baby!
Yup..  We've "done this" before.  Objective reality is challenging.  My 20+ year study of epistemology has taught me that, if nothing else.  I try to remain open-minded, but not open at both ends.  

I suppose the closest I can come to the sort of woo-woo- you espouse is in my readings of Jung.  The notion of the conscious, the personal sub-consciousness and the lower level of universal consciousness is interesting.  The way I interpret that model is that I'm aware of my own conscious.  I'm also convinced through experience that there's plenty in my subconscious that bubbles up and influences behavior and modes of thought.

The universal consciousness?  My interpretation is that that's the genetic component.  Our genetic background, genetic "memory," genetic influence on behavior, thought, etc. seems very reasonable as a partial explanation.  See for example, different breeds of dogs.  Each has a "job" built into its genetic memory.  My son's Brittany for example has as her highest interest, anything that flys.  She is totally enthralled by birds.  Heck, she'll even point a housefly.  Given that, and a hundred other easily accessible examples, it hard not to think that we too have genetic memories that we probably all share with one another.

One example that I think is probable is xenophobia.  Given our history as a species, why wouldn't we fear/dislike anyone outside our clan?  They represent a threat to our hunting/gathering way of life, which represents the vast, vast majority of the years of genetic background that we have.  That, in itself, may partly explain the difficulty we have with racism when we live together in large groups.

So ... there's plenty of uncertainty in observing, interpreting and coming up with a workable view of objective reality without introducing non-reproducible woo-woo and pseudo-scientific quantifications of unrelated phenomena.

I don't doubt that most people here are still adherents of the old paradigm. And it has much to recommend it, especially a willingness to respect and pay attention to evidence. Objectivity is the aim and method of scientific investigation. 

I am aware, though, that my consciousness is a primary aspect of my being. The first modern scientists like Descartes and Newton recognized this. Newton was an astrologer and an alchemist, and Descartes based his knowledge on the primary fact of his conscious existence. 

I don't adhere to genes as the prime explanation for our being. Universal consciousness is implied in our very awareness of reality. Everything I experience is inside my head. And as Bob Dylan said, there's no fences facing us in the sky. Where's the limit? It's ALL within, and we are everywhere. As Led Zeppelin said in their famous song that's often listed as #1 classic rock piece of all time, "all is one and one in all." As Wordsworth wrote, "Nature is all in all."

Those are just words to represent what we all know for sure, if we observe. But it harmonizes with astrology. Skeptics wonder how can Neptune and Pluto influence us? They are so far away! But if you look into an atom, you find that its elementary components are as far away from each other relative to their supposed size as are the planets in our solar system. It's plausible therefore that the solar system is our larger Self.

I think woo-woo can be tested too, and we can learn much from doing this; and since all phenomena ARE in fact all related, as quantum theory proves, and as eastern and esoteric western philosophy has affirmed for millennia, connections can be made. I use astrology because I experienced it, and I use as much empirical verification as I can too, especially about cycles and events. Because I predicted everything in my own chart before looking it up, and predicted before looking it up the exact day of the planetary conjunction of the sixties which I had experienced 2 years before without knowing about it, no-one can tell me that astrology isn't real. I experienced that strange vibration all across the nation, and so did millions of others, of all ages too, and at the same time.

Many astrologers do not do this empirical research that I do, and I don't posit that astrology is an exact science. Not only because it is based on general archetypes (like those Jung, an astrologer and alchemist himself, or even S&H, studied), but because it concerns human behavior and character, about which no exact science can exist. But it IS the first and primary psychological typing system, and all others are derived from it.

But you are welcome to your views. Just don't be surprised if some of us disagree, and swear by some of this woo-woo. Worldviews differ. What, "stars"??
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Don’t feed the Malthusians y’all .
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Neither of the current major party candidates is the "Grey Champion". Einzige 50 23,802 11-21-2016, 09:32 AM
Last Post: 2Legit2Quit

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)