There is no reason to even speculate about other "natural" factors. This isn't a theory of some missing component. Nothing is missing. Consequently the creation / creator anology is flawed because there is no evidence for creation while there is massive amounts of evidence for genetics.
Ohhh there is. Quite a lot.
Twin studies use the assumption that its all genetics. Its pure assumption and there is not even a single point in history of science they have doubted it. That alone makes it non scientific.
This is from an interview with
Richard Tarnas.
Your first book, "The Passion of the Western Mind," published in 1991, is widely taught in universities. You’ve used the word “scandalous" to describe your new book, "Cosmos and Psyche." Why a scandal?
Given current assumptions about the cosmos, it is a scandal for a professor of philosophy to come out with a book that is in any way supportive of astrology. I think it's safe to say that of all perspectives, astrology is the one most subject to automatic rejection and scorn in the modern intellectual world. I myself was skeptical until I conducted my own research. But the evidence is very compelling: There is an astonishingly consistent correlation between planetary alignments and the patterns of human experience. "Cosmos and Psyche" sets out that evidence in a way that readers new to this perspective can examine and assess for themselves. It's a little like Galileo's telescope: Anyone could look through it to see the new universe it revealed, but it was a scandal at the time.
How would you describe the astrological perspective?
Most cultures, including our own prior to the modern era, had some kind of astrology as part of their world view, for they understood the cycles of the moon, sun, and planets as deeply meaningful. The astrological perspective sees the universe as both meaningful and unified. Instead of the modern division between the purposeful, meaning-seeking human consciousness and a random, meaningless universe, astrology points to a universe that is integrated at all levels: outer and inner, macrocosm and microcosm, celestial and terrestrial. As was said by the ancients, "As above, so below."
What would be the advantage of a world view that includes astrology?
The existence of correlations between the planetary cycles and human life makes it possible for both individuals and societies to understand better what archetypal energies are at work and at what time. This can help us be more skillful and aware as we engage in the activities of life. It's like knowing the weather report before going out into the ocean to sail or surf. It helps to know where the winds and waves will be coming from.
But there is also a deeper advantage: Modern civilization pays a high price for living in a universe that it believes is random and spiritually meaningless. Nature is not honored but is instead exploited for short-term benefit. And a purposeless universe creates a sense of deep spiritual emptiness inside, which people try to fill with endless consumer products, so that the industrial technology producing those products is cannibalizing the planet. But as we know, you can never get enough of what you don't really need. A new vision of nature and the universe as ensouled, as spiritually significant, would give a better ground for both moral responsibility and a sense of spiritual belonging.
You can google for more.
Um, nobody said we could. Psychology is great for categorizing human behavior and to some degree altering it. If you want to learn why we behave the way we do and how our brains operate then we want to turn to neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and physics.
Sorry. I have to say its a joke. We are more or less socially conditioned to think like psychology says about everything. It only talks about the psychology of a social being. Not a human being. In another thread someone brought up the subject of feral children. That would give you the contrast between a social being and a human being. And that different is psychology.
Neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, genetics and physics do deal with all the physical components. Nothing more. And if you firmly believe that its all physical matter in this universe, I dont think I have anything more to say about it.
It's a shame. Biology and neuroscience are a great place to learn about human psychology in a univesity. Additionally, the magazine issue in question isn't speculatory. It's based on solid evidence. Your bias for astrology appears to be one that limits yoo.
Me biased? Might appear so. But not at all. That's the difference of knowing a field which everyone rejects without even cross examining and looking at them with shock.
If multiple cultures are observed, you begin seeing behavioral patterns common to all humans. You even see near-identical patterns in other primates. It doesn't really matter that we don't have the means to figure out the brain in explicit detail right now. What does matter is we don't try to rationalize ignorance with claims that humans can be observed "naturally".
Sure it doesn't. But can you imagine the magnitude of mistakes one might face when details of our own brain is completely unknown to us? Or misrepresented for all along? We would believe them to be true due to social conditioning and will keep living in deep ignorance. The only choice we have is to cross check the claims with a certain amount of obsession. I can tell you 1000 reasons why one should reject astrology. I myself have rejected the concept for years with a smile on my face. So I would never be surprised by how anyone of you think or believe. I have been there. Done all these chats and arguments with many people and defended science, psychology, neuroscience and chemistry. But I can't do it anymore. Knowledge changes it. Information won't. It would only make you a believer.
Of course. But if you are familiar with it then you already know it contradicts your ideas. The reason I asked you to do it is because you strike me as the kind of guy whom would rationalize a dismissal the stanford prison experiment results.
hmmm... How does it contradict my ideas??? Do you mind explaining? I guess I got a bit confused there.
Do you have a complete list of people and their birthday's who submitted themselves for the experiment?
When it comes to any psychological experiment, there are few common factors.
1. Not all zodiacs volunteer themselves for such experiments. Only a particular few consider volunteering for psychological experiments. That alone poses a big threat and an error which no one notices.
2. Each zodiac has a very specific role and quality in his/her natural domain and its altered by the existence of members from certain other zodiac within a group. They act accordingly within the confined zone. Remember its more or less an Operating System. It can function under any circumstances by adapting on to existing set of parameters around.
3. The resulting study always uses statistics in any psychological experiment. If only a particular group of zodiacs volunteer for such studies, then the result is obviously skewed. But no one notices them and believes them to be true for all cases.
