Validity of Astrology *split from INFJs and western astrology*

[Duty]

Duty I appreciate your new post and I hope I didn't come across as ad hominem-ish when I responded earlier. I do see where you're coming from.

I think the first quarrel I have with your arguments is your apparent distinction between "objective" reality and "subjective" reality. To me, this is more of a spectrum and not a logical "or". Indeed, Eastern philosophers really think that Western philosophers' studies on this point are little more than a mind-game that detracts all of us from understanding what's really REAL.

I don't think it's possible to differentiate the observer from the observed. They are conjoined twins, forever united, and oftentimes quibbling with each other.

One of the reasons I like physics so much is because in physics you begin to see the breakdown of logic and the fact that so much of what we call existence lies in a gray area. Newton had some pretty solid laws that seemed reasonable enough; then along came Einstein, and what do you know! Newton's laws don't work at the quantum level, and new theories were needed.

And Einstein's theories themselves dont' work together. You have the general theory of relativity an the special theory of relativity, and they are distinct theories that can't be meshed (as far as I know, I studied this a long long time ago so Im' operating from memory here). Einstein spent most of his life seeking a unified field theory and failed.

From your posts, it seems apparent that you are obviously a very talented logician. Logic, as far as I know, seeks categories. Something is, or it isn't. However, this in my opinion, is only one approach towards looking at life, at reality, at Truth. Consider the Gestalt notion that the whole is different than the sum of its parts. Logic studies the parts, but can't describe the whole.

When it comes to things like astrology, I think the value that comes from studying astrology involves a creative element (which comes from interpreting the data of a star chart for example). But that creative process is, in itself, seeking out truth. I know to a logician the idea that something could be true based on the exercise of something as messy and subjective as creativity is a repulsive thought, because it avoids being classified. But, in my opinion, this thought excercise is as valuable as logic in seeking out what is REAL and what is not real as well. It's just a different pathway that those with strong intuition can use to describe their realities and their existences. It is valuable to them, and cannot really be described. But (as someone with a pretty good intuition) I can tell you that the truest things I know in my life are things I have felt and not things I have reasoned.

One of the real insights from modern physics is the idea of relativity. That is, our point of view really influences the world around us. Time is just another axis of our dimensional reality. It can be slow, or it can be fast. Physics says all of this, but this is not really logical. I truly believe there is a creative element of physics that has yet to be fully explored, and I think one of the reasons Einstein failed to find his grand theory is because he became too boxed in with his previous discoveries.

So, I would challenge you to think about whether or not there are alternative approaches to Truth that may not be logical. Life defies logic at times. There is an attraction to logic (and Mathematics, a cousin of logic) because they seem universal. As you pointed out, 1+1 always has to equal 2. That's just the way it is. And indeed, we would be shoddy engineers if we didn't respect math, and shoddy inventors if we disregarded logic. But reality encompasses much more than the logical. THat is my belief, at least.

Cheers!

KOS

Well, I certainly do not believe that logic is all there is to reality, because...

Logic studies the parts, but can't describe the whole.

I'd say logic is the study of how the whole and the parts are connected, as well as how the different parts are connected. Logic has limitations in that it can only describe relationships, but can't determine an actual premise to be true or false. "It is true that my shirt is red" can't be determined by logic, but instead has to be verified through perception or the use of certain instruments.

So no, logic isn't all there is to life, but it has a striking authority and usefulness in describing the relationships between facts about the world. One can not hold "A and not A" and be correct, just as they could not hold 1+1=/ 2 and be correct.

What does provide the objects to be connected is science and perception. What governs the methods and determines what is considered a justified way to arrive at a fact is philosophy. Logic's role is to connect those facts, and correct inconsistency in them.

 

[Black Swan]

Well said KOS. :clap2:

I'm still surprised at how long this thread has gone on. It doesn't seem anyone has changed their minds, and I still believe anything is possible.

Oh, and I still think divinity in general is beyond our logic, and I believe it's suppose to be. If we could figure everything out and put a pretty little label on it, what would be the point in looking above and beyond or even living for that matter...

 

[alcyone]

Discussions like this shouldn't have to result in someone changing their mind about anything (In order for it to conclude). Unless of course both sides move themselves a bit towards the middle by having the proponents re-examine the certainity of their beliefs and learning something more about their subject (as any debater should do when trying to uphold their position....LEARN about their subject more)....and the opponents accepting the information offered, taking it into consideration, and possibly learning something from the other side.

No one should ever have to change themselves just because someone else has a better 'case', only that all parties walk away with more information than they went into the discussion with.

Oft times we can learn something about how the other person thinks and draws their conclusions. There by facilitating communication in the future.

 

[Soulful]

Oh, and I still think divinity in general is beyond our logic, and I believe it's suppose to be. If we could figure everything out and put a pretty little label on it, what would be the point in looking above and beyond or even living for that matter...

I concur.

A little (lot) mystery in life is what makes life, life. And for some of us, some things (thankfully) are beyond logic. If they weren't, I think the magic in life would be snuffed out greatly. The magic is worthwhile.

 

[Black Swan]

A little (lot) mystery in life is what makes life, life. And for some of us, some things (thankfully) are beyond logic. If they weren't, I think the magic in life would be snuffed out greatly. The magic is worthwhile.

:nod:

Actually Alcyone, I never said anyone had to change their views. I was just behind on the thread and was wondering if anyone had changed their minds on any of it since we couldn't even agree on how to measure validity and truth. :doh:

And since this arguement isn't new to most of us that even utter the word "astrology", it just seemed really funny to spend this much time on a subject many of us have already been over... and over, and over...and over again when your friend calls you hours after the debate ended to start it up again. The heart of the debate never seems to change, and to see it again just makes me laugh because I still seem to get sucked in again. :blabla:

Oft times we can learn something about how the other person thinks and draws their conclusions. There by facilitating communication in the future.

I totally agree and even if I've had a debate over and over, this is a lesson to be learned with each new person we interact with.

 

[Duty]

Oh, and I still think divinity in general is beyond our logic

See, I've never understood what people mean by "beyond our logic." Is this just a misnomer and people mean to say, "this is beyond our perceptions, ability to measure, or ability to reason about?" If that's the case, then isn't it that we can not ever know such a thing to be true or not (and so one would have to be agnostic)?

I'm just curious, because "beyond our logic" doesn't seem to exactly fit, and I'm wondering what people mean by the term.

 

[IndigoSensor]

See, I've never understood what people mean by "beyond our logic." Is this just a misnomer and people mean to say, "this is beyond our perceptions, ability to measure, or ability to reason about?" If that's the case, then isn't it that we can not ever know such a thing to be true or not (and so one would have to be agnostic)?

I'm just curious, because "beyond our logic" doesn't seem to exactly fit, and I'm wondering what people mean by the term.

It means exactly what it says, it is beyond our logic. We don't have the capacity to fully understand it. For example, can you imagine what it is like for all of time to exsist in one moment? Acording to some spiritual belifs, this is the closest description to the concept of time in the after-life. I know I can't picture what it is like, and I doubt anyone truly can. It is beyond our logic. Again you are looking at this in too much of a black-white mannor. You don't have to be agnostic. I believe that this is one of many contidions that exsist in the after like, and trust me, I am NOT agnostic.

 

[Duty]

It means exactly what it says, it is beyond our logic.

Beyond our logic how? Logic just describes the relations between different propositions.

"Beyond" is a vague term here, and as I explained earlier, vagueness is one of the largest hindrances to a consensual agreement in discussion, because both parties could take the word to mean very different things.

We don't have the capacity to fully understand it. For example, can you imagine what it is like for all of time to exsist in one moment? Acording to some spiritual belifs, this is the closest description to the concept of time in the after-life. I know I can't picture what it is like, and I doubt anyone truly can. It is beyond our logic.

This seems beyond our imaginations, not logic. "Beyond our imagination" here would mean something like: the capability of our ability to imagine images is limited in such a way that when we try to use it to evoke an image of "existing for all time in one moment," we can not possibly do such.

But see, using logic (which this situation doesn't seem "beyond," just that it leads to show us that we don't know the answer), this still leads to agnosticism (about an afterlife) in my opinion...If we know the proper faculty to use here would be imagination, and yet imagination is not capable of envisioning such a thing, doesn't that suggest that people are incapable of knowing such a thing? And if one can not know something, one must suspend judgment, saying, "I don't know if this is true," which is a position of agnosticism.

Again you are looking at this in too much of a black-white mannor. You don't have to be agnostic. I believe that this is one of many contidions that exsist in the after like, and trust me, I am NOT agnostic.

Well, I'd say it would be dishonest of me to say I know something to be true when I don't. If I don't know something, I say I'm agnostic and suspend judgment about it. So, if I have a duty to truth, I would say that I do have to be agnostic in such a case, until conclusive evidence is presented that shows me one side or the other to be true.

 

[Black Swan]

See, I've never understood what people mean by "beyond our logic." Is this just a misnomer and people mean to say, "this is beyond our perceptions, ability to measure, or ability to reason about?" If that's the case, then isn't it that we can not ever know such a thing to be true or not (and so one would have to be agnostic)?

Duty, it doesn't matter. I don't know if you're spiritual at all, from the sounds of it you're not... But for many of us, if logic can't be applied, if a matter can't be explained, we don't just give up, we have other tools. We use our intuition and inner feelings, even more, to guide us through the situation. I can't prove to you that anything is true regarding the spiritual world, but I feel it is true, my experiences tell me it is true. If you're not a spiritual person, you're not going to understand at all, so... again, it doesn't matter. It's like saying: "Nope, this lamp isn't working". Well...you kinda got to plug it in first.

 

[Duty]

Duty, it doesn't matter. I don't know if you're spiritual at all, from the sounds of it you're not... But for many of us, if logic can't be applied, if a matter can't be explained, we don't just give up, we have other tools. We use our intuition and inner feelings, even more, to guide us through the situation. I can't prove to you that anything is true regarding the spiritual world, but I feel it is true, my experiences tell me it is true. If you're not a spiritual person, you're not going to understand at all, so... again, it doesn't matter. It's like saying: "Nope, this lamp isn't working". Well...you kinda got to plug it in first.

So, basically...

No evidence, no way to justify it, no objectiveness to it...just..."I know it because I feel like it is true."

I think we've reached an impasse, because truth in my opinion can not be justified by feelings alone (and all major philosophers, except perhaps Hume, agree). That's for a reason too...because if truth was justified by feelings, then you could tell the judge that you don't FEEL like a murderer. You can tell the public that you don't FEEL like you set off nuclear bombs. I mean, where would this end? If both sense perception and feelings justify beliefs, which one is superior, and for what reason? What if you logically deduced something, but you felt the opposite to be true?

 

[KingOfSpades]

So, basically...

No evidence, no way to justify it, no objectiveness to it...just..."I know it because I feel like it is true."

I think we've reached an impasse, because truth in my opinion can not be justified by feelings alone (and all major philosophers, except perhaps Hume, agree). That's for a reason too...because if truth was justified by feelings, then you could tell the judge that you don't FEEL like a murderer. You can tell the public that you don't FEEL like you set off nuclear bombs. I mean, where would this end? If both sense perception and feelings justify beliefs, which one is superior, and for what reason? What if you logically deduced something, but you felt the opposite to be true?

Hi Duty,

I'd encourage you to look into the scientific research on lateralization of brain function. Here is a short primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

I liked the analogy that Black Swan used earlier. If you never plug in a lamp, you'll never know how bright it can get. Similarly, if you never use your intuition, you'll never see what it's capable of.

The notion that our brains have an intuitive function is a matter of scientific fact, as far as I know. This is the same function people use when they engage in creative pursuits. I would imagine astrology is a facet of this function.

I'm not sure what concessions you're trying to get at, or what points you're trying to make. You stated earlier (and I quote) "Well, I certainly do not believe that logic is all there is to reality." So, you agree that reality can be interpreted in ways that don't conform to logic. And, the science of the brain indicates that our brains are hardwired to function in ways that don't necessarily conform to logic. You may not like that, but until I see a scientific study saying otherwise, that's a cold hard fact that is a product of science.

You seem unsettled by the logical conclusions of that, and I agree that those are some unsettling conclusions. But, reality, too, is sometimes unsettling

You ask, "If both sense perception and feelings justify beliefs, which one is superior, and for what reason?" I think that's an excellent question. Personally, I think that's a question we all have to answer ourselves. I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. In Eastern thought, what's real is beyond our ability to perceive with our senses. The world is Maya, an illusion, and what is real requires us to liberate our minds from our perceptions.

I think one possible idea is to use the right-and-left brain functions together. Logic and Feeling can be used in tandem to come to a better understanding of the world. No need for them to be enemies

cheers,

KOS

 

[IndigoSensor]

So, basically...

No evidence, no way to justify it, no objectiveness to it...just..."I know it because I feel like it is true."

That is what the majority of us have been saying since the very beginning! We are INFJ's after all, that statement applies to ALOT of things.

I think we've reached an impasse, because truth in my opinion can not be justified by feelings alone (and all major philosophers, except perhaps Hume, agree). That's for a reason too...because if truth was justified by feelings, then you could tell the judge that you don't FEEL like a murderer. You can tell the public that you don't FEEL like you set off nuclear bombs. I mean, where would this end? If both sense perception and feelings justify beliefs, which one is superior, and for what reason? What if you logically deduced something, but you felt the opposite to be true?

This is different, it causes no harm, as we have said many times before.

I use feelings and logic in concunction with one another. Depends on the situation, one will take precedence over the other.

 

[Duty]

You stated earlier (and I quote) "Well, I certainly do not believe that logic is all there is to reality." So, you agree that reality can be interpreted in ways that don't conform to logic.

No, read what I said after that. Logic can't explain many things because we don't have the raw material to understand it yet. Logic can only connect the pieces together, but if the puzzle is missing pieces, we can't put it all together. If we can't put it all together, then we say, "I don't know," and not, "I feel like the missing piece is this." Reality can't be explained only by logic, because logic is limited in its function. Namely sense perception has to come into play at some point.

And, the science of the brain indicates that our brains our hardwired to function in ways that don't necessarily conform to logic. You may not like that, but until I see a scientific study saying otherwise, that's a cold hard fact that is a product of science.

Hold on, you haven't seen a study, but you say it's a cold hard fact of science?

Maybe you refer to the article you linked. I'll read it in a bit, after I shower.

You seem unsettled by the logical conclusions of that, and I agree that those are some unsettling conclusions. But, reality, too, is sometimes unsettling

I haven't read it yet, as I've said, but I will find no conclusions unsettling for the sole reason they don't conform to my current view.

This is different, it causes no harm, as we have said many times before.

See, this doesn't matter. Truth is worth it for its own sake, not because the consequences of participating in a truth or lie are good or bad.

 

[Soulful]

So, basically...

No evidence, no way to justify it, no objectiveness to it...just..."I know it because I feel like it is true."

I think we've reached an impasse, because truth in my opinion can not be justified by feelings alone (and all major philosophers, except perhaps Hume, agree). That's for a reason too...because if truth was justified by feelings, then you could tell the judge that you don't FEEL like a murderer. You can tell the public that you don't FEEL like you set off nuclear bombs. I mean, where would this end? If both sense perception and feelings justify beliefs, which one is superior, and for what reason? What if you logically deduced something, but you felt the opposite to be true?

What Indigo said just above my post here.

I also want to add that using feelings isn't using as an excuse. Aside from someone who perhaps is mentally ill, saying "oh I killed someone but I don't feel like a murderer" - that sort of thing doesn't fly. If you killed someone, yes, you are in fact a murderer. You may feel justified in your killing and not feel like you did it with the same sense of cruelty and violence that a murderer may (ie. feel justified in it), but unless you are somehow mentally/cognitively impaired, you'll know that. You'll also know how people will respond to you.

Subjective truth (I don't want to argue the validity of that - I know that is an invalid statement to some people, but not to all) - subjective truth does not mean throwing away any form of objectivity, rationality, or being out of line with the world you live in.

I'm having a hard time explaining it and not doing a very good job of it. But bottom line - using feelings as a guide for things in life doesn't mean using them as an excuse to deny action, an inability to see how your actions will be viewed by persons around you, nor are feelings a justification for being selfish, inconsiderate, and acting out one's whims like a one-year old.

How do feelings exist beyond logic?
Have you ever loved someone?

 

[KingOfSpades]

No, read what I said after that. Logic can't explain many things because we don't have the raw material to understand it yet. Logic can only connect the pieces together, but if the puzzle is missing pieces, we can't put it all together. If we can't put it all together, then we say, "I don't know," and not, "I feel like the missing piece is this." Reality can't be explained only by logic, because logic is limited in its function. Namely sense perception has to come into play at some point.

What's important is you conceded (and continue to concede) that logic can't explain everything. And unless you have perfect information about the brain and reality, there remain a lot of unknowns about what consists of truth and reality.

Hold on, you haven't seen a study, but you say it's a cold hard fact of science?

Maybe you refer to the article you linked. I'll read it in a bit, after I shower.

If you want citations, I would start with the Nobel Prize winner Roger Wolcott Sperry and smoe of his work on lateralization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Wolcott_Sperry

Cheers,

KOS

 

[the]

When truth is being so disrespected, I care.

Truth can take care of itself.

 

[the]

I imagine such a test has been done, and astrology was found to be inconsistent, or vague at best, yet you take personal anecdotal evidence over an empirical test. I'm just curious as to why.

You imagine a test has been done? Well then, case solved!

 

[IndigoSensor]

Oh no, not this thread again.

I will summarize: INFJ's view (for those who believe) can not be completely comprehended by INTP's (who do not believe). Nor can INFJ's comprehend an INTP's breakdown of how they see astrology.

 

[Norton]

Science transcends personality type. So does logic. Science is predictive and its predictions withstand scrutiny. Astrology is supposed to be predictive but isn't. Regardless of whether one believes in it or not, it fails the test. Science elucidates mechanisms that connect a result with a cause. Astrology says that the positions of the planets determine human events without articulating any causal mechanism. This is one definition of magic. One can "believe" in astrology all one wants, but this is delusional because it doesn't do what it is claimed to do. And, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.

My wife is an INFJ medical scientist/physician, well known in her field and widely published. She does science just as well, if not better, than her INTJ and INTP colleagues. Indeed, being an INFJ gives her a definite advantage, clinically. To assume that INFJ's and INTP's can't understand each other, particularly regarding the truth of a subject like astrology, is to have a cynical and pessimistic, not to mention one dimensional, view of people.

 

[arbygil]

I think it's difficult because a lot of what INFJs go on can be internal, without any external proofs. If we say God exists, it's because we *know* God exists, and no matter the evidence no one can persuade us of the contrary.

Does that mean we're right? No. But it will be a heck of a lot harder to sway an INFJs opinion once they've decided something. It's the judging factor. We've decided, that settles it.

A perceiver, on the other hand, will say there are no absolutes, and they will continually ask questions. But it doesn't have to be astronomy; it could be anything. For that matter, an INTP could believe in astronomy and the INTJ/INFJ could believe in cold, hard factual evidence because they feel it's true. It's really all about how they go about processing the data and how they consider what is/isn't.

The problem is when there isn't enough data to prove the point. Then both the INTP and the INF/TJ will use different methods to obtain the end result that satisfies them.