EHWollmann PMAFA wrote:
>On Aug 23, 2:28 pm, CFA AKA Ken Kizer who is fearful of archiving his
>less than thought out assertions wrote:
You can get over this any time you want to. Every time you or Kettler
replies, my words are archived. Who cares anyway? It's usenet.
>> E H Wollmann wrote:
>> >On Aug 22, 9:30 pm, CFA wrote:
>> >> E. H. Wollmann - The One Who Rules wrote:
And what would possess one to write the above- and not be joking?
>> >> >On Aug 19, 3:13 pm, CFA wrote:
>> >> >> JB wrote:
>> >> >> > <sigh> You DO realise, of course, that any "Readings" you give
have a
>> >> >> >2.000 year distention, right? If they have ANY benifit at ALL -
they'd
>> >> >> >be accurate 2.000 years ago, not now. Precession and all that.
All, I
>> >> >> >mean ALL of your meanderings are predicated on falsehoods. Choke
on it.
>
>> >> >> Precession isn't the problem with astrology.
>
>> >> >but astrologers who lack critical thinking skills...
>
>> >> As if you had the slightest clue what I meant.
>
>> >Alright, explain then. I thought Ptolemy explained it very well. Most
>> >non-astrologers come up with these infantile arguments that evidence
>> >only their lack of astrological understanding, not any real criticism
>> >of astrology--or astrologers.
>
>> The problem with astrology, as with any other model of existence, is
>> the limitation of human understanding. A model isn't existence. In
>> addition, our ability to interpret such dense models as astrology is
>> severely hampered by subjectivity and lack of experience.
>
>> >> >Who believe in fairy tales
>
>> >> Such as?
>
>> >That people have "massive aspect networks" etc. as you have described
>> >that "make them" act in such and such a way or that "brings things
>> >upon them" in a karmic way, or other such limited mindless judgmental
>> >thinking patterns.
>
>> If you don't take massive aspect complexes into account, what's the
>> point in delineating them?
>
>To determine the extent to which the owner has developed them,
>surpassed them or has under-recognized them as an unconscious pattern?
Right. Basic stuff.
>One cannot delineate that without their own resolutions and awareness
>being clear and firm.
>
>> However, I've never said those aspects make people act a certain way.
>> I will say chart signatures describe the line of least resistance, but
>> people are free to behave however they choose.
>
>Chart signatures "outline" the probable development--and conflicts
>possible on the way to that knowingness--as an archetypal dimension or
>"path-set" chosen on some level by the owner in question. Resistance
>to anything regarding that development brings pain and difficulty in
>the experiences of that outline.
That's how it looks to me.
>This is the key point, posters,
>astrologers and psychologists who debate me fail to recognize in our
>interactions and then perceive all sorts of things having nothing to
>do with me.
If you assert that's how it works for others, then that's how it works
for you. And those exchanges in which you refuse to accept your part
are still projections of your mind, too.
>> And if you'd read very many of my posts to others, you might have
>> actually noticed how much flack I get for talking about personal
>> responsibility/no victims. I'm at least as radical about that as you.
>
>> What's mildly interesting is how you then deny it when I apply it to
>> you- when I say that your experiences here- and responses to your
>> posts- are a projection of your inner landscape.
>
>> Is that enough personal power for you?
>
>> >> > and that they are not destined by their own choices.
>
>> >> Put down the mirror.
>
>> >> Ken
>
>> >Gee, I wrote a whole book other astrologers are afraid to acknowledge
>> >that PROVES we create our reality, why would a mirror be needed for
>> >me?
>
>> I'm not sure I'd call it 'afraid to acknowledge'. I'd say it's not
>> particularly interesting to me for various reasons... I've long ago
>> adopted the most im****tant parts of your philosophies, so it would be
>> more like a review.
>
>Long ago. I see, arrogance. The problem with you and the other
>"enlightened ones" who come here over the years is how diligently you
>seek to attach me to the infantile behavior of some bored usenet geeks
It couldn't just be that I know something about the material.
>and their obsessive behavior as having something to do with my
>consciousness
If you engage it- and you do- it's in your world. If it's in your
world, it's part of your belief system, whether you think you want it
there or not.
You've always had the choice to simply not respond. I've noticed
you've been unable to do so.
>(and you joining in with them to be socially accepted),
Some old whine, same old bull****.
Do you sup****t everything Exxon does? Do you use their gas?
>at the same time acting as if my perceived "arrogance" and
>****headedness has 0 to do with your consciousness.
When did I say that?
>Fortunately I am far more diligent and aware
lol.
>and remain as YOUR
>stubborn mirror in the hopes that one or two of you will actually get
>it over time.
I typically don't argue with you about philosophies. It's usually
about style. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.
>It is the exact same lack of awareness and judgmentalism numbness the
>US right wing has with its christian zealots as being the co-creators
>of the "muslim extremists" and acting as if they have no clue where it
>is coming from, and make up all sorts of silly notions such as "they
>hate our freedom" and garbage like that as the reason for the
>conflicts and attacks.
You nailed the christian right, but you still don't know my purpose
here.
>The insults about my writing--which has nothing to do with whether
>someone could be served or not by it--have been snipped and ignored.
It's universal feedback from your environment- even the book review
that so annoyed you said the same thing.
It's arrogance to think a comment about improving your book could only
be an insult.
Ken
--
cfa at alt dot net
|
