posted December 28, 2008 07:45 AM         

After reading threads about free will and fate, and just learning more about astrology in general, I am beginning to feel that astrology maybe doesn't necessarily tell us anything more than what we already know, thought perhaps it gives us clues to who we really are.

For instance: I read about aspects and transits, etc, and I think astrology reflects who we are - not the other way around. Does that make sense? I see a transit in my chart and read about it, and to me it's starting to feel like it's defining a pinpoint of what I am already going through...or what I am about to go through. That's why I don't really get the whole 'free will' thing. I mean, I'm going through it, and it's part of who I am - I just don't see a difference between the road I am on, who I am as a person, and, say, a transit. It's all part of a lesson anyway. So where does feeling powerless in astrology figure in? Astrology doesn't tell us what works and what doesn't...I feel it instead just reflects back a situation, a feeling, a potential, a problem, etc...

Maybe I'm just integrating astrology into my life and this is how it makes sense to me, a method which is practical and telling of how I am, and what I am going through. And to me something like a synastry chart talks about how I interact with someone, and how they make me feel, and how I perhaps make them feel. But it's nothing more than a peek into things, and the rest must be experienced.

Does this make sense or does it seem overly simplistic? And am I over-complicating something simple?

posted December 28, 2008 07:51 AM           

its one of the things that ties me between religion and science, fact and theory.

but astrology "seems" to be accurate, so its hard me to discredit it.

who knows, it can't hurt to use astrology, but what i would try and avoid doing is let it minipulate your mind into seeing problems that might not actually be there and vice versa.

posted December 28, 2008 07:55 AM         

So, when you read up on astrology, does the stuff you learn about yourself resonate and feel right?

posted December 28, 2008 08:04 AM           

the positions of the planetS "tells us" what we already are, but they were in those positions.

posted December 28, 2008 08:14 AM         

The planet's positions aren't telling us anything we don't already know somehow - we're telling ourselves : I am X, Y, and Z, and here is the placement to prove it, that's all.

posted December 28, 2008 08:16 AM           

not 20 years later when you checked.

posted December 28, 2008 08:22 AM           

that wouldn't make sense, because then people charts wouldn't correspond to dates.

also, consider the fact that its like saying we define where the planets sit?

that wouldn't be possible.

posted December 28, 2008 08:45 AM           

it seems to me that you don't want "astrology to define us".

but it has to, to make sense, because we read into it, and the descriptions make sense based on the planetary positions, and since they are accurate, that should mean they define us? saying were in sync with it , or agreeing with the planets interpretations, just proves it defines us?

posted December 28, 2008 09:02 AM         

I was saying there is no difference between us and astrology. Saying we're in sync means we're synchronized, which really means that the whole thing is a catch-22. It neither defines us nor do we define it. The whole thing is simply there as a reference for us to check in. The planets, aspects, stars, etc...there isn't any difference really between who we are and how we are 'defined' by astrology. There is no definition, there's only recognition. Like for me, there's no difference between what I want to do with my life and what I do with it. The two go hand in hand : fate and freewill co-exist. No difference between one and the other, not to me at least, on the large level.

My ass is getting too existential. Perhaps my thoughts are too prematurely formed to be understood. Or perhaps I have my head up my butt...perfectly possible
Good night, Libralove, my dear

posted December 28, 2008 09:16 AM           

either way, i think i understand what your saying, but then the hand in hand thing would make astrology seem like its all a "coincidence"

i find it hard to believe they go hand in hand without defining us

oh yes, and good night, love you xxx

posted December 28, 2008 09:20 PM         

But to keep it short I just don't think we are simply following a script set in stone (or should I say stars).I think it is probably closer to accurate to say it presents us with options, according to our nature.

posted December 28, 2008 10:21 PM           

don't let you aries moon lose its patience with my brain : ( lol

i just trying to understand it logical, thats how i look at all things in life, im not sure i understand it.

to me it sounds like astrology is like a clock, it tells us the time, that we live by and already know of? the clock doesnt define the time, the time defines the clock?

is this making any corresponding sense to what your saying?

im gathering this all downs to believing in:

fate or free will,

religion or science.

posted December 28, 2008 10:27 PM         

It's the whole chicken and egg question, I guess. Fate vs Free Will, religion vs. science...technically one is meant to support the other, not be the opposite of it.
Let's just forget that we're talking about astrology for a second:

posted December 28, 2008 10:35 PM         

quote:

---

They're really two sides to the same coin, you dig?

---

posted December 28, 2008 10:39 PM           

at my current age i believe fate exists to quite an extent, and life is written. i think this very reason scares people who wan't control.

do i think astrology does the writing of life? no, i think astrology is just like a weather forecast of fate, in terms of transits n stuff. but currently im still not 100% sure i believe astrology is real, but because i can not dispute the evidence, im forced to believe it is really there.

i feel the same way about religion and science, i prefer to believe in science, but when science can't explain things or dispute them, its just like astrology, i have to have faith in what can't be explained to some extent. (like ghosts for example, not that iv seen one though)

im really not sure about the 2 sides to the coin idea, because i feel something like religion vs science, or fate vs free will, is one or the other, i feel if they both exists, they are both pointless existing, they naturally conflict the idea.

the reason i have trouble with your theory is because i feel like, how can we say astrology doesn't define us, when the planets location on this "magic wheel" of signs gets quite accurate about how we are, and astrology depends on two things: time, and planets, those two things is something man kind can't control, and astrology depends and defines us from those two sources, so for one to say we define astrology, or its just "showing us" what we already know, just doesn't add up to me, because the planets positions seemed to have defined our personalities, or atleast to some extent, because peoples personalities do seem to follow descriptions allmost like a book, based on again, time and planets.

i think i understand your theory to some extent, but i can't see where you have attempted to logically explain what you believe is possible. how would it work?

the "what came first the chicken or the egg" is a perfect question for some one whos basically choosing science, or religion, for me: the egg is the science, the chicken is the religion.

posted December 28, 2008 11:11 PM         

Libralove, I said don't pick it apart, and what did you go and do? LOL

"im really not sure about the 2 sides to the coin idea, because i feel something like religion vs science, or fate vs free will, is one or the other, i feel if they both exists, they are both pointless existing, they naturally conflict the idea. "

And yet you also say:

"the "what came first the chicken or the egg" is a perfect question for some one whos basically choosing science, or religion, for me: the egg is the science, the chicken is the religion."

You just answered yourself. But there is no 'choice' between the two, we're not saying choose the chicken or the egg, we're saying one can't really exist without the other. It must be wholistically approached in order for it to be integrated. It's good to study science AND religion. Not choose - why choose?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way

Let's just leave it be for now.