posted October 29, 2008 06:21 PM         

quote:

---

Disagree. Red is red.

---

Red varies in different wavelengths. Scientifically it is defined but even this definition might vary.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red

There are different types of reds, depending on who you talk to, each person will tell you of a different type of red they think of and some people for example, might classify "your" red as "purple" or "orange". Just like there's different types of 'whites'.

posted October 29, 2008 06:27 PM         

liz greene may be verbose, but she makes things very understandable. she also predicted (in that book), the breakup of the soviet union. i do not agree with everything she says either, but i have found her to be astute and accurate.

in that same book she talks about chiron, which (in 1982) was a pretty new, unknown entity in astrology. she talks about possibilities and watching it in her work..

posted October 29, 2008 10:12 PM         

quote:

---

There are different types of reds, depending on who you talk to, each person will tell you of a different type of red they think of and some people for example, might classify "your" red as "purple" or "orange". Just like there's different types of 'whites'.

---

posted October 29, 2008 11:16 PM         

I don't quote Wiki as the bible but for my plebian mind, the article defines red as:

quote:

---

in the wavelength range of roughly 625–740 nm.

---

...then it is defined later on in the article as:

quote:

---

wavelength range of roughly 630–700 nm

---

posted October 30, 2008 02:56 PM         

why don't we make a new topic about this color interpretation business?

the original topic was about what all those asteroids do, or what effect they have on you.

posted October 30, 2008 04:23 PM         

quote:

---

the original topic was about what all those asteroids do, or what effect they have on you.

---

Sorry. I feel Chiron is unnecessary, and Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta have been far too over-simplified and usually borrowed things from the Inner planets to make their significations that makes it difficult to differentiate between say, the Lunar/Vensian nature and Ceres herself who is a mix of these two natures.

The Part of Fortune is used mostly in prediction purposes, like figuring out if you'll be rich and where you'll get money from, which can be helpful in deciding what career you'd ultimately like to follow.

posted October 30, 2008 06:50 PM         

quote:

---

Regardless of the various scientific complications of color (which are off topic), the fact of the matter is the color red was assigned strikingly similar characteristics around the world. Regardless of time, place, and culture, so red has always been red in that red has always meant the same thing

---

Sei - that is entirely untrue. It is actually completely ON topic.. I've been patient but I am beginning to tire of your narrow minded comments.
If you don't understand how it is on topic, let me break it down for you:

1. You are saying the planets have a specific influence. You are saying the planets have always had this influence - that they have this influence at present.. and WILL always have the *same* influence. Objectively!

2. You are saying humans (the homo sapien race on this planet) have simply PICKED UP on something that was already objectively *there* in the universe.
So - they spotted Mars. Mars has a particular colour and particular attributes (objectively, according to you!). You believe Mars has always had a certain astrological *impact* on planet Earth and the BEINGS inhabiting planet Earth. Correct?

It just so happened that humans discovered it - observed it - realized what "vibe" it has.. and named it "Mars".

3. Further you are saying that any human (any homo sapien) in any culture on earth.. observing the exact SAME planet - would come to the exact same conclusions.. and *name* the planet an equivalent of their "god of war" - or something similar.

What I am trying to spell out for you, is that even IF you are correct and all cultures of the world have the exact same interpretations of colour and the exact same types of gods.. and even if they would have, in fact named the planets those exact names..

THE POINT remains that all of these individuals in all of these cultures *are* human. I do not believe that the HUMAN point of view is the last authority on the nature of the universe. I am sorry.

Something like colour, as I explained to you is entirely subjective. Another animal (a snake for example) has DIFFERENT colour perception. A butterfly has highly different colour perception.

The way YOU as a *human* interpret the "outward" look of a planet.. is not SET IN STONE. A fellow human with colour blindness could see the planet as GREY.

A being of a completely different species could see it as GREEN.

The colour of Mars is not some *objective* universal FACT. It's subjective to the homo sapien point of VIEW.

So for that reason, I still believe it is unlikely (although certainly possible, anything is possible) that "Mars" would have been what it is today.. unless the homo sapien race were here on EARTH to name it!.. and observe it as "RED" and "war-like" - ALL of which are human concepts and human WORDS.

You seem to think the human race is at the centre of the universe, and the way we perceive colour and the "gods" in every culture.. and the concept of "war" - are universal objective things that just *exist*.

That ^ is a perspective.. But mine is *another*. Hopefully it's all clearer now. I am not going through this again.

posted October 30, 2008 07:12 PM         

quote:

---

Sei - that is entirely untrue. It is actually completely ON topic.. I've been patient but I am beginning to tire of your narrow minded comments.

---

Yes, because the science of the color red and its measurement on the light spectrum has everything to do with the characteristics that have been assigned to it? Negative. It's place on the light spectrum explains why we see it the way we do, not why we have pinned these characteristics and expectancies on it. I've been patient with your birdwalking myself...so I guess we're about even.

quote:

---

You are saying the planets have a specific influence. You are saying the planets have always had this influence - that they have this influence at present.. and WILL always have the *same* influence.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

You are saying humans (the homo sapien race on this planet) have simply PICKED UP on something that was already objectively *there* in the universe.
So - they spotted Mars. Mars has a particular colour and particular attributes (objectively, according to you!). You believe Mars has always had a certain astrological *impact* on planet Earth and the BEINGS inhabiting planet Earth. Correct?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Further you are saying that any human (any homo sapien) in any culture on earth.. observing the exact SAME planet - would come to the exact same conclusions.. and *name* the planet an equivalent of their "god of war" - or something similar.

---

Yes, because they did! I find it very weird for you to be asserting that we made up these significations based on the name given to it when, in fact, several different cultures who are mostly separate from one another would come up with the same thing for the same planet. The Mesopotamians named it after their god of war and disease Nergal. The Romans named it after their god of war and destruction Mars. China and Japan named this the Fire Star and gave it destructive qualities. Even Polynesians thought some sort of red, angry pig lived on the star. Is this all merely "coincidence"? I find it very difficult to believe it was all just happenstance.

quote:

---

THE POINT remains that all of these individuals in all of these cultures *are* human. I do not believe that the HUMAN point of view is the last authority on the nature of the universe. I am sorry.

Something like colour, as I explained to you is entirely subjective. Another animal (a snake for example) has DIFFERENT colour perception. A butterfly has highly different colour perception.

---

I really don't think it matters as to the color perception of different animals who had no care as to the space surrounding them, and is an apples to oranges comparison. The fact of the matter is that people were interested in the stars and came equipped with the ability to see these planets and experience them in the way they did and so measured, weighed, and named them. The fact that people from different lands, societies, religions, philsophies, different everything came up with similar descriptions for these bodies should be something, but you dismiss it by saying they were "all still human" because we all know people perceive and respond to things that exact same way...?

quote:

---

A being of a completely different species could see it as GREEN.

---

Perhaps, perhaps, but color was is not the only thing conclusions were drawn off of. It is possible that it would still have retained the properties if it figured prominently in times of war and conflict, regardless of color. Though, then we may have a completely different concept of the color green. The point I'm trying to make here is that the planets are the planets and do what the planets do, regardless of the way we may physically perceive them. Jon Stewart is still reporting the news (albeit humorously ) regardless if I see him in color or black and white.

Besides, even if we were equipped with the ability to see what we see today as red, but we see it as green, then so to would fire and heated iron be green, so the terrestrial similarities would be the same regardless.

quote:

---

You seem to think the human race is at the centre of the universe, and the way we perceive colour and the "gods" in every culture.. and the concept of "war" - are universal objective things that just *exist*.

---

It's not so much that, but the fact that butterflies and the like have no concern with astrology or other planets, so using them or any other species of animal as a subject is just ridiculous. Also, I find concepts like "war" and "conflict" to be quite universal, as everything fights and struggles against something else. You seem to be under the impression that astrology only affects people, whether that's true or not, who knows, but I find it difficult to believe when there's "astrometerology", if that's what you want to call it. So, regardless of whether a sentient being is in existence to weigh and measure a planet, or even to see it in the sky, the planet is still there and would, presumably, still be emitting an influence that would be felt in some way.

quote:

---

But there are different perspectives on things, and you seem to completely lack the ability to take up a POV other than your own.

---

I completely lack the ability to take up points of view that are ridiculous, contrived, and just false. Yes, yes I do.

posted November 01, 2008 02:50 PM         

quote:

---

sei no, astrology needed humans to be INVENTED, let alone work! it is a human construct set to EXPLAIN the workings of energy bodies on each other.

---

I disagree, humans just discovered it, they didn't invent it.

The body was working long before physicians were experimenting with cadavers to figure out how it worked. Genetics were in play long before geneticists were looking into the matter. Time passed before people came up with a way to measure it. I see no difference in accepting all that as factual and assuming astrology also worked before people came to understand it.

posted November 01, 2008 03:08 PM         

quote:

---

disagree, humans just discovered it, they didn't invent it.

The body was working long before physicians were experimenting with cadavers to figure out how it worked. Genetics were in play long before geneticists were looking into the matter. Time passed before people came up with a way to measure it. I see no difference in accepting all that as factual and assuming astrology also worked before people came to understand it.

---

The planets move, which is real or mundane, and we make an interpretation of them. That interpretation is an abstraction. Abstractions are not mundane or physical but are constructs of the human mind. We invented astrology and therefore we "invented" it. Who is to say that astrology is really anyway? I question it myself.

Cadavers are real or mundane. A body is physically before you and you can sense it and feel it (just like you can see the Sun in the sky). The Science of Genetics is an abstraction like astrology, created in our mind to understand a phenomenon. DNA itself, which is what you assumed to mean is real however even though it is microscopic. The manifestation of its combination and recombination is real, its manifestation is seen by the differences from one person to another. However the process of these manifestations, ie the study of Genetics is abstract and we "invented" that. Again, who knows what the real "truth" is, Genetics is just a plausible system that we "invented" that "works".

As for "red", there is no worldwide definition of "red", there is not one particular "red" even though there might be worldwide acceptance of some "colours" as reds.