|
|
 | | From: | AArctophilax at yahoo.com | | Subject: | Re: Pluto Represents | | Date: | 11 Jan 2005 20:00:02 -0800 |
|
|
 | http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A26273A
(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
He said to His disciples,
"These infants being suckled
are like those who enter the Kingdom."
They said to Him,
"Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?"
Jesus said to them,
"When you make the two one,
and when you make the inside like the outside
and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below,
and when you make the male and the female one and the same,
so that the male not be male nor the female female;
and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot,
and a likeness in place of a likeness;
then will you enter [the Kingdom]."
- The [Coptic] Gospel of Thomas, v.22
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
=A9 2005 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
AOL http://hometown.aol.com/ehwollmann/myhomepage/business.html
Eric Greene wrote:
> Ed writes:
>
> "Pluto represents the transformed ego."
>
> Perhaps you are correct and I have no chance of really understanding
> this until I've spent comparable periods studying astrology. So,
let's
> simplify matters a bit and change that to "Pluto represents
something."
> We don't even need to get into the "transformed ego" part yet.
>
> We both agree that Pluto was not discovered until 1930 - about 75
years
> ago. It should be obvious that, until that discovery, astrology
could
> not talk about Pluto representing anything. Do you agree?
>
> This brings up a couple questions:
>
> 1. Who decided that Pluto could represent the "something" whose name
we
> are not speaking? Did some astrologer jump up at the instant the
> discovery of Pluto was announced and say: "AHA! Pluto represents
> something!" Or did it take years of study to determine what that
> something was? We can probably assume that the representation of
> something was a historical concept going back to the idea that the
> other, known planets also represented something. It only makes sense
> that if Mars represents whatever (we're leaving specifics out of this
> for the time being) and Jupiter represents something else, that Pluto
> should represent something.
>
> 2. If it took years of study to determine what that something was,
who
> finally determined this and when? Where was it announced? How far
back
> must we go before we find an astrologer saying "Pluto represents
> something" and have that something equate to the something you used
in
> your message?
>
> 3. If Pluto represents something, we pretty much have to accept that
> something was never represented before the discovery of Pluto. I
mean,
> you just can't assign something to another body and then rip it away
> when a new planet is discovered, can you? There seems to exist some
> concept that the somethings represented by these planets have some
> significance as a mirror to our psyche (or you have said words to
this
> effect). SO.... If you've been casting horoscopes for years with
> something assigned to, oh, let's say Pallas and now you suddenly
assign
> that same something to Pluto, surely the old horoscopes have to be
> wrong. Isn't it possible that old horoscopes were so wrong as to
have
> absolutely no meaning at all or does the lack of accurate
> representations of somethings make no difference?
>
> 4. One way out of this dilemma would be to let new objects represent
> new somethings. Until the discovery of Pluto, the something it
> represents was never before represented by any astrological object.
> This seems to lead to a problem that if Pluto's something is
important
> to the formulation of an accurate (and what that signifies we won't
go
> into right now) horoscope, we can only conclude that older horoscopes
> are less accurate that the more recent ones. The Babylonians had no
> knowledge of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, so their astrological work
must
> have been much less accurate. The problem here is that should this
be a
> continuing tread of new planetary discoveries in the future, we are
left
> with the conclusion that today's horoscopes may similarly be
inaccurate
> because of incomplete knowledge. Do you think this may be a
problem?
>
> I'm sure these questions are very basic to a person of your learning
and
> I look forward to seeing how you resolve the apparent problems I was
so
> ungracious to point out. Once we get these small issues worked out,
we
> might be able to move to larger one.
|
|
| | From: | Bob Officer | | Subject: | Re: Pluto Represents | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:16:00 -0800 |
|
|
| On 11 Jan 2005 20:00:02 -0800, in alt.astrology, AArctophilax@yahoo.com
wrote:
Eddy has taken to top posting, I have corrected that problem for him
>Eric Greene wrote:
>> Ed writes:
>>
>> "Pluto represents the transformed ego."
>>
>> Perhaps you are correct and I have no chance of really understanding
>> this until I've spent comparable periods studying astrology. So,
>let's
>> simplify matters a bit and change that to "Pluto represents
>something."
>> We don't even need to get into the "transformed ego" part yet.
>>
>> We both agree that Pluto was not discovered until 1930 - about 75
>years
>> ago. It should be obvious that, until that discovery, astrology
>could
>> not talk about Pluto representing anything. Do you agree?
>>
>> This brings up a couple questions:
>>
>> 1. Who decided that Pluto could represent the "something" whose name
>we
>> are not speaking? Did some astrologer jump up at the instant the
>> discovery of Pluto was announced and say: "AHA! Pluto represents
>> something!" Or did it take years of study to determine what that
>> something was? We can probably assume that the representation of
>> something was a historical concept going back to the idea that the
>> other, known planets also represented something. It only makes sense
>> that if Mars represents whatever (we're leaving specifics out of this
>> for the time being) and Jupiter represents something else, that Pluto
>> should represent something.
>>
>> 2. If it took years of study to determine what that something was,
>who
>> finally determined this and when? Where was it announced? How far
>back
>> must we go before we find an astrologer saying "Pluto represents
>> something" and have that something equate to the something you used
>in
>> your message?
>>
>> 3. If Pluto represents something, we pretty much have to accept that
>> something was never represented before the discovery of Pluto. I
>mean,
>> you just can't assign something to another body and then rip it away
>> when a new planet is discovered, can you? There seems to exist some
>> concept that the somethings represented by these planets have some
>> significance as a mirror to our psyche (or you have said words to
>this
>> effect). SO.... If you've been casting horoscopes for years with
>> something assigned to, oh, let's say Pallas and now you suddenly
>assign
>> that same something to Pluto, surely the old horoscopes have to be
>> wrong. Isn't it possible that old horoscopes were so wrong as to
>have
>> absolutely no meaning at all or does the lack of accurate
>> representations of somethings make no difference?
>>
>> 4. One way out of this dilemma would be to let new objects represent
>> new somethings. Until the discovery of Pluto, the something it
>> represents was never before represented by any astrological object.
>> This seems to lead to a problem that if Pluto's something is
>important
>> to the formulation of an accurate (and what that signifies we won't
>go
>> into right now) horoscope, we can only conclude that older horoscopes
>> are less accurate that the more recent ones. The Babylonians had no
>> knowledge of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, so their astrological work
>must
>> have been much less accurate. The problem here is that should this
>be a
>> continuing tread of new planetary discoveries in the future, we are
>left
>> with the conclusion that today's horoscopes may similarly be
>inaccurate
>> because of incomplete knowledge. Do you think this may be a
>problem?
>>
>> I'm sure these questions are very basic to a person of your learning
>and
>> I look forward to seeing how you resolve the apparent problems I was
>so
>> ungracious to point out. Once we get these small issues worked out,
>we
>> might be able to move to larger one.
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A26273A
refers to an article by Edmond posted in what Edmond thought was going to
be a private Playground...
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.astrology.moderated.metapsych/msg/88d056f31aa63146
and doesn't address any of the questions or comments in this thread.
>(22) Jesus saw infants being suckled.
>He said to His disciples,
>"These infants being suckled
>are like those who enter the Kingdom."
>
>
>They said to Him,
>"Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?"
>Jesus said to them,
>
>
>"When you make the two one,
>and when you make the inside like the outside
>and the outside like the inside,
>and the above like the below,
>and when you make the male and the female one and the same,
>so that the male not be male nor the female female;
>and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
>and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot,
>and a likeness in place of a likeness;
>then will you enter [the Kingdom]."
>
>
>- The [Coptic] Gospel of Thomas, v.22
>
>
>Edmo
Note: Eddy complete avoided answering Eric.
Nothing Eddy wrote had a thing to do with the subject being discussed
--
Ak'toh'di
|
|
| | From: | | | Subject: | Wollmannizer nocem 03264 @@NCM | | Date: | 11 Jan 2005 20:00:02 -0300 |
|
|
| http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://www.nocem.org/
http://www.rahul.net/falk/quickrefs.html#W
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.9
Issuer: wollmannizer@spam.free
Type: spew
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: Wollmannizer03264
@BEGIN NCM BODY
<1105502402.232605.179450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> alt.astrology
alt.astrology.metapsych alt.divination alt.paranormal alt.philosophy
@END NCM BODY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBQeSzDFIcW5ONdL49EQJFeACgygOHvmlemjcqPlxMRBoYo/qmlsMAoP0u
9gv3OUwqtlXxVpw8bKYJ+5zE
=VSxz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
| | From: | The only TRUE Aarctophilax | | Subject: | Re: Pluto Represents | | Date: | Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:54:34 -0800 |
|
|
| AArctophilax@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> (22) Jesus
What does Jesus have to do with you evading the man's very reasonable
Astrological questions?
> Eric Greene wrote:
>
>>Ed writes:
>>
>>"Pluto represents the transformed ego."
>>
>>Perhaps you are correct and I have no chance of really understanding
>>this until I've spent comparable periods studying astrology. So,
>
> let's
>
>>simplify matters a bit and change that to "Pluto represents
>
> something."
>
>>We don't even need to get into the "transformed ego" part yet.
>>
>>We both agree that Pluto was not discovered until 1930 - about 75
>
> years
>
>>ago. It should be obvious that, until that discovery, astrology
>
> could
>
>>not talk about Pluto representing anything. Do you agree?
>>
>>This brings up a couple questions:
>>
>>1. Who decided that Pluto could represent the "something" whose name
>
> we
>
>>are not speaking? Did some astrologer jump up at the instant the
>>discovery of Pluto was announced and say: "AHA! Pluto represents
>>something!" Or did it take years of study to determine what that
>>something was? We can probably assume that the representation of
>>something was a historical concept going back to the idea that the
>>other, known planets also represented something. It only makes sense
>>that if Mars represents whatever (we're leaving specifics out of this
>>for the time being) and Jupiter represents something else, that Pluto
>>should represent something.
>>
>>2. If it took years of study to determine what that something was,
>
> who
>
>>finally determined this and when? Where was it announced? How far
>
> back
>
>>must we go before we find an astrologer saying "Pluto represents
>>something" and have that something equate to the something you used
>
> in
>
>>your message?
>>
>>3. If Pluto represents something, we pretty much have to accept that
>>something was never represented before the discovery of Pluto. I
>
> mean,
>
>>you just can't assign something to another body and then rip it away
>>when a new planet is discovered, can you? There seems to exist some
>>concept that the somethings represented by these planets have some
>>significance as a mirror to our psyche (or you have said words to
>
> this
>
>>effect). SO.... If you've been casting horoscopes for years with
>>something assigned to, oh, let's say Pallas and now you suddenly
>
> assign
>
>>that same something to Pluto, surely the old horoscopes have to be
>>wrong. Isn't it possible that old horoscopes were so wrong as to
>
> have
>
>>absolutely no meaning at all or does the lack of accurate
>>representations of somethings make no difference?
>>
>>4. One way out of this dilemma would be to let new objects represent
>>new somethings. Until the discovery of Pluto, the something it
>>represents was never before represented by any astrological object.
>>This seems to lead to a problem that if Pluto's something is
>
> important
>
>>to the formulation of an accurate (and what that signifies we won't
>
> go
>
>>into right now) horoscope, we can only conclude that older horoscopes
>>are less accurate that the more recent ones. The Babylonians had no
>>knowledge of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, so their astrological work
>
> must
>
>>have been much less accurate. The problem here is that should this
>
> be a
>
>>continuing tread of new planetary discoveries in the future, we are
>
> left
>
>>with the conclusion that today's horoscopes may similarly be
>
> inaccurate
>
>>because of incomplete knowledge. Do you think this may be a
>
> problem?
>
>>I'm sure these questions are very basic to a person of your learning
>
> and
>
>>I look forward to seeing how you resolve the apparent problems I was
>
> so
>
>>ungracious to point out. Once we get these small issues worked out,
>
> we
>
>>might be able to move to larger one.
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Dan Baldwin | | Subject: | Re: Pluto Represents | | Date: | Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:45:45 -0800 |
|
|
| AArctophilax@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Eric Greene wrote:
> > Ed writes:
> >
> > "Pluto represents the transformed ego."
> >
> > Perhaps you are correct and I have no chance of really understanding
> > this until I've spent comparable periods studying astrology. So, let's
> > simplify matters a bit and change that to "Pluto represents something."
> > We don't even need to get into the "transformed ego" part yet.
> >
> > We both agree that Pluto was not discovered until 1930 - about 75 years
> > ago. It should be obvious that, until that discovery, astrology could
> > not talk about Pluto representing anything. Do you agree?
> >
> > This brings up a couple questions:
> >
> > 1. Who decided that Pluto could represent the "something" whose name we
> > are not speaking? Did some astrologer jump up at the instant the
> > discovery of Pluto was announced and say: "AHA! Pluto represents
> > something!" Or did it take years of study to determine what that
> > something was? We can probably assume that the representation of
> > something was a historical concept going back to the idea that the
> > other, known planets also represented something. It only makes sense
> > that if Mars represents whatever (we're leaving specifics out of this
> > for the time being) and Jupiter represents something else, that Pluto
> > should represent something.
> >
> > 2. If it took years of study to determine what that something was, who
> > finally determined this and when? Where was it announced? How far back
> > must we go before we find an astrologer saying "Pluto represents
> > something" and have that something equate to the something you used in
> > your message?
> >
> > 3. If Pluto represents something, we pretty much have to accept that
> > something was never represented before the discovery of Pluto. I mean,
> > you just can't assign something to another body and then rip it away
> > when a new planet is discovered, can you? There seems to exist some
> > concept that the somethings represented by these planets have some
> > significance as a mirror to our psyche (or you have said words to this
> > effect). SO.... If you've been casting horoscopes for years with
> > something assigned to, oh, let's say Pallas and now you suddenly assign
> > that same something to Pluto, surely the old horoscopes have to be
> > wrong. Isn't it possible that old horoscopes were so wrong as to have
> > absolutely no meaning at all or does the lack of accurate
> > representations of somethings make no difference?
> >
> > 4. One way out of this dilemma would be to let new objects represent
> > new somethings. Until the discovery of Pluto, the something it
> > represents was never before represented by any astrological object.
> > This seems to lead to a problem that if Pluto's something is important
> > to the formulation of an accurate (and what that signifies we won't go
> > into right now) horoscope, we can only conclude that older horoscopes
> > are less accurate that the more recent ones. The Babylonians had no
> > knowledge of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto, so their astrological work must
> > have been much less accurate. The problem here is that should this be a
> > continuing tread of new planetary discoveries in the future, we are left
> > with the conclusion that today's horoscopes may similarly be inaccurate
> > because of incomplete knowledge. Do you think this may be a problem?
> >
> > I'm sure these questions are very basic to a person of your learning and
> > I look forward to seeing how you resolve the apparent problems I was so
> > ungracious to point out. Once we get these small issues worked out, we
> > might be able to move to larger one.
Edmo, why not have just come right out and say "I have no clue what I
mean most of the time."? It would have taken you a little less time, and
been rather a good deal more honest.
--
Dan Baldwin, unethical *by design*
I am a minion of Satan, but my powers are mainly administrative.
Hail the un-alive
|
|
|
