Astrology & Tarot
Dawn Falbe
People used to believe the world was flat.... but we learn new things about
life everyday. Personally I don't need to prove it to anyone. I wonder
where that idea came from that something is only "real" if you can prove
it... Probably scientists.... As I said before... "Science is nothing more
than a modern superstition".... That works for me and Science cannot prove
it is anything more than a modern superstition... So I guess that's Check
Mate.... (LOL) <g>
Dawn
exists? You yourself admitted that all those events you predicted could
have been coincidence. You may not think they were coincidence, but you
can't prove they weren't. And it's no good saying that I can't prove
that they *were* coincidence either. If you want to establish something
as a fact, the burden of proof lies on showing that the extraordinary
*does* exist and *not* on proving that it can't exist.
--
Kathy Orlinsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
life everyday. Personally I don't need to prove it to anyone. I wonder
where that idea came from that something is only "real" if you can prove
it... Probably scientists.... As I said before... "Science is nothing more
than a modern superstition".... That works for me and Science cannot prove
it is anything more than a modern superstition... So I guess that's Check
Mate.... (LOL) <g>
Dawn
> As for evidence it's only the scientific community that doesn't recognizeNo, it's more about evidence. What evidence is there that the 6th sense
> the 6th sense as scientific. I think it's more about fear.
exists? You yourself admitted that all those events you predicted could
have been coincidence. You may not think they were coincidence, but you
can't prove they weren't. And it's no good saying that I can't prove
that they *were* coincidence either. If you want to establish something
as a fact, the burden of proof lies on showing that the extraordinary
*does* exist and *not* on proving that it can't exist.
--
Kathy Orlinsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/14/02 7:40:58 PM, dawn@... writes:
<< As I said before... "Science is nothing more
than a modern superstition".... That works for me and Science cannot prove
it is anything more than a modern superstition... >>
I don't really care about how far away stars are or all that, but there are
simpler things people can discover on their own without trusting a book to
teach them. And something lots of people can discover independently has more
validity to me than things one person says and lots of other glom onto out of
faith or trust when they can't actually reproduce the result in their own
lives, or when their own lives actually seem to negate it, but the ignore
their own senses in favor of what someone else says which seems alluring
because that "truth" is more attractive than their own truth.
And we're taught here NOT to trust our non-existent instincts, too.
I do believe that some people's premonitions are superior to some other
people's direct perceptions. I think there are things that can be
communicated across miles which few to none can control, like people
"knowing" (fearing, and the fear becoming true) that a parent, child, or
close someone has died. That doesn't mean I believe in seances with
knocking and table-lifting. Some people can't tell the baby from the
bathwater, and they either accept ALL reports of sixth sense no matter how
bogus, or they reject every bit of it because in the Wizard of Oz the fortune
teller/wizard peeked in Dorothy's basket.
Some people are VERY good at reading other people's subtle clues. Some have
not one jot of that ability and so don't think anyone else does either.
They'll sit there emanating all KINDS of messages in direct conflict with
their words and then demand that others believe what they're saying.
I think the idea that we choose our birth-body/family is wrong and dangerous.
That doesn't have to mean I negate the possibility of reincarnation.
Sandra
<< As I said before... "Science is nothing more
than a modern superstition".... That works for me and Science cannot prove
it is anything more than a modern superstition... >>
I don't really care about how far away stars are or all that, but there are
simpler things people can discover on their own without trusting a book to
teach them. And something lots of people can discover independently has more
validity to me than things one person says and lots of other glom onto out of
faith or trust when they can't actually reproduce the result in their own
lives, or when their own lives actually seem to negate it, but the ignore
their own senses in favor of what someone else says which seems alluring
because that "truth" is more attractive than their own truth.
And we're taught here NOT to trust our non-existent instincts, too.
I do believe that some people's premonitions are superior to some other
people's direct perceptions. I think there are things that can be
communicated across miles which few to none can control, like people
"knowing" (fearing, and the fear becoming true) that a parent, child, or
close someone has died. That doesn't mean I believe in seances with
knocking and table-lifting. Some people can't tell the baby from the
bathwater, and they either accept ALL reports of sixth sense no matter how
bogus, or they reject every bit of it because in the Wizard of Oz the fortune
teller/wizard peeked in Dorothy's basket.
Some people are VERY good at reading other people's subtle clues. Some have
not one jot of that ability and so don't think anyone else does either.
They'll sit there emanating all KINDS of messages in direct conflict with
their words and then demand that others believe what they're saying.
I think the idea that we choose our birth-body/family is wrong and dangerous.
That doesn't have to mean I negate the possibility of reincarnation.
Sandra
Kathryn Orlinsky
> I wonderAbsolutely. And good for us.
> where that idea came from that something is only "real" if you can prove
> it... Probably scientists....
--
Kathy Orlinsky
mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
Earth Witch
Well, not really. Scientist believe in the existence
of things that they cannot prove....like black holes
for instance. Different branches of science also
disagree on whether some things are real or not and on
whether the evidence is factual proof. Theories,
which make up much of what science is, are not proven.
If they were, they would not be theories. I find it
quite unfortunate and misleading that so many theories
are taught as fact.
Science is just as much a 'religion' based on
unprovable beliefs as other religions. How science
got to be the decider of what is 'real' is beyond me.
Reality is quite subjective depending upon one's
beliefs and we cannot prove OR disprove the
reliability of things such as astrology, gods, the
size of the universe, how it began, etc. Which means,
simply, that we do not know.
Kitrina
--- Kathryn Orlinsky <kathyorlinsky@...>
wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
of things that they cannot prove....like black holes
for instance. Different branches of science also
disagree on whether some things are real or not and on
whether the evidence is factual proof. Theories,
which make up much of what science is, are not proven.
If they were, they would not be theories. I find it
quite unfortunate and misleading that so many theories
are taught as fact.
Science is just as much a 'religion' based on
unprovable beliefs as other religions. How science
got to be the decider of what is 'real' is beyond me.
Reality is quite subjective depending upon one's
beliefs and we cannot prove OR disprove the
reliability of things such as astrology, gods, the
size of the universe, how it began, etc. Which means,
simply, that we do not know.
Kitrina
--- Kathryn Orlinsky <kathyorlinsky@...>
wrote:
> > I wonder__________________________________________________
> > where that idea came from that something is only
> "real" if you can prove
> > it... Probably scientists....
>
> Absolutely. And good for us.
>
> --
> Kathy Orlinsky
> mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
Kathryn Orlinsky
> Theories,I think you are getting into a common misconception. What in the past
> which make up much of what science is, are not proven.
> If they were, they would not be theories. I find it
> quite unfortunate and misleading that so many theories
> are taught as fact.
was called a 'law' is in more recent times referred to as a 'theory'.
Thus, we have the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics, but
the theories of evolution and of relativity. This is simply a
convention, and an unfortunate one in my opinion. It should not be
mistaken to mean that scientists hold relativity on any shakier ground
than gravity.
> Science is just as much a 'religion' based onIf a belief isn't provable, then it isn't science.
> unprovable beliefs as other religions.
> How scienceI'm not sure what you mean by 'decider'. Science itself does not
> got to be the decider of what is 'real' is beyond me.
'decide' anything. People are free to decide if they agree with a
scientific conclusion, as you yourself demonstrate.
> Reality is quite subjective depending upon one'sI agree. We don't know the absolute truth about any of those things.
> beliefs and we cannot prove OR disprove the
> reliability of things such as astrology, gods, the
> size of the universe, how it began, etc. Which means,
> simply, that we do not know.
However, you seem to have picked a pretty narrow pool of items that
science can't answer.
--
Kathy Orlinsky
mailto:kathyorlinsky@...
Fetteroll
on 1/15/02 9:43 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
know why something feels right. It just does. But I think there are subtle
physical clues they drew from.
Which I think accounts for "women's intuition". Women tend to be more
subconsciously aware of body language, inflection, word choice and all the
ways people communicate which gives some women a feel for things that aren't
being expressed directly. (Not all women have it of course. And it doesn't
exclude all men either.)
many feelings throughout our lives that something has happened and then
nothing happens so we we pass it off as normal worry. It's those rare
occasions when the feeling something has happened and something actually
happening purely by happenstance that we remember that we felt a
"premonition" and feel there must be a connection.
I hope I'm wrong because that's not nearly as interesting ;-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I do believe that some people's premonitions are superior to some otherI think some people can notice patterns on a subconscious level. They don't
> people's direct perceptions.
know why something feels right. It just does. But I think there are subtle
physical clues they drew from.
Which I think accounts for "women's intuition". Women tend to be more
subconsciously aware of body language, inflection, word choice and all the
ways people communicate which gives some women a feel for things that aren't
being expressed directly. (Not all women have it of course. And it doesn't
exclude all men either.)
> I think there are things that can beI think this is a really cool idea. But unfortunately I think most of us get
> communicated across miles which few to none can control, like people
> "knowing" (fearing, and the fear becoming true) that a parent, child, or
> close someone has died.
many feelings throughout our lives that something has happened and then
nothing happens so we we pass it off as normal worry. It's those rare
occasions when the feeling something has happened and something actually
happening purely by happenstance that we remember that we felt a
"premonition" and feel there must be a connection.
I hope I'm wrong because that's not nearly as interesting ;-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/19/02 9:52:46 PM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< Which I think accounts for "women's intuition". Women tend to be more
subconsciously aware of body language, inflection, word choice and all the
ways people communicate which gives some women a feel for things that aren't
being expressed directly. (Not all women have it of course. And it doesn't
exclude all men either.) >>
What I've read (and seen, yay Discovery channel) suggests women's intuition
is the result of additional pathways between the two brain hemispheres --
that women have more processing power for picking up cues. Testosterone
dissolves a noticeable percentage of those pathways as the fetus obtains its
gender.
Sharon
<< Which I think accounts for "women's intuition". Women tend to be more
subconsciously aware of body language, inflection, word choice and all the
ways people communicate which gives some women a feel for things that aren't
being expressed directly. (Not all women have it of course. And it doesn't
exclude all men either.) >>
What I've read (and seen, yay Discovery channel) suggests women's intuition
is the result of additional pathways between the two brain hemispheres --
that women have more processing power for picking up cues. Testosterone
dissolves a noticeable percentage of those pathways as the fetus obtains its
gender.
Sharon
[email protected]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:58:10 -0500 Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
writes:
<G>
Deb L
writes:
> I hope I'm wrong because that's not nearly as interesting ;-)Ah, Joyce, it isn't very interesting is it? But I think you're right.
<G>
Deb L
Fetteroll
on 1/19/02 10:33 PM, sharonve@... at sharonve@... wrote:
to deliberately cripple something, I'm sure! ;-) There needs to be some
benefit to the change. There must be something the brain can do better
without the intuitive ability, a trade off, giving up something to get
something else. Or something extra males have that the intuitive ability
interfered with.
Maybe the intuitive ability enhances the nurturing and the need to be with
the group. And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond the
group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and creating.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> TestosteroneNow, why, I wonder, would nature remove a feature that's in place? Not just
> dissolves a noticeable percentage of those pathways as the fetus obtains its
> gender.
to deliberately cripple something, I'm sure! ;-) There needs to be some
benefit to the change. There must be something the brain can do better
without the intuitive ability, a trade off, giving up something to get
something else. Or something extra males have that the intuitive ability
interfered with.
Maybe the intuitive ability enhances the nurturing and the need to be with
the group. And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond the
group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and creating.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 1/15/02 3:59 PM, Earth Witch at the_earth_witch@... wrote:
school as a bunch of truths to be memorized. Perhaps it's also a consequence
of Western culture and religion where we are conditioned to believe there is
one right answer to each question. We aren't comfortable with shades of gray
and fuzziness. (Seems to me the Japanese were a lot more comfortable
embracing and exploring chaos theory when it was first described.)
Science isn't about declaring something a truth. (Though I think what makes
scientists jump out of bed in the morning is the quest for ultimate truth!)
It's about identifying things that posess certain qualities. It's about
investigating things that behave in ways that can be predicted. (Atoms
behave in predictable ways. Light behaves in predictable ways. Anything that
we can say "When we do this, then this (almost always!) happens.) And then
seeking to explain (theorize) why they behave that way. And then testing
those theories. And using those as building block to create more generalized
theories.
If something can't be controlled or repeated then it isn't something that
can be scientifically investigated. To choose something more tangible than
the existence of souls or the sixth sense: we probably don't know nearly as
much about love as we do about the workings of quarks even though love is
pretty much universally accepted as existing and lots have people haven't
even heard of quarks. ;-) We can't reproduce love or scientifically control
it -- though undoubtedly some scientists have tried! -- so science can't
really say that much scientific about why we fall in love with who we do
other than it's chemistry!
enough and we don't know because we can't investigate it. Scientists can
investigate the size of the universe, the weight of the atom, the chemistry
of the sun. A scientific theory must fit into the larger jigsaw puzzle of
what we understand. It can't just fit the part the scientist is
investigating (the size of the universe for example) and not fit in with
other theories and other data. For example, the explanation for the size of
the universe or existence of black holes can't violate the speed of light or
the weight of an electron or other things that are well known. If it does,
then the theory needs to expand to explain how those theories are
inadequate.
Scientists can't investigate the sixth sense or gods or souls because they
can't be tested in the lab. That doesn't immediately make them untrue. But
it puts them in the category of belief rather than science. It doesn't make
the ideas inferior (except as parts of explainable, reproducible reality!).
It just makes them a different species of ideas.
Joyce, Defender of Truth, Justice and the Scientific Method ;-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I find itWhich I think is an unfortunate consequence of how science is taught in
> quite unfortunate and misleading that so many theories
> are taught as fact.
school as a bunch of truths to be memorized. Perhaps it's also a consequence
of Western culture and religion where we are conditioned to believe there is
one right answer to each question. We aren't comfortable with shades of gray
and fuzziness. (Seems to me the Japanese were a lot more comfortable
embracing and exploring chaos theory when it was first described.)
Science isn't about declaring something a truth. (Though I think what makes
scientists jump out of bed in the morning is the quest for ultimate truth!)
It's about identifying things that posess certain qualities. It's about
investigating things that behave in ways that can be predicted. (Atoms
behave in predictable ways. Light behaves in predictable ways. Anything that
we can say "When we do this, then this (almost always!) happens.) And then
seeking to explain (theorize) why they behave that way. And then testing
those theories. And using those as building block to create more generalized
theories.
If something can't be controlled or repeated then it isn't something that
can be scientifically investigated. To choose something more tangible than
the existence of souls or the sixth sense: we probably don't know nearly as
much about love as we do about the workings of quarks even though love is
pretty much universally accepted as existing and lots have people haven't
even heard of quarks. ;-) We can't reproduce love or scientifically control
it -- though undoubtedly some scientists have tried! -- so science can't
really say that much scientific about why we fall in love with who we do
other than it's chemistry!
> we cannot prove OR disprove theThere's a big difference between we don't know because we don't yet know
> reliability of things such as astrology, gods, the
> size of the universe, how it began, etc. Which means,
> simply, that we do not know.
enough and we don't know because we can't investigate it. Scientists can
investigate the size of the universe, the weight of the atom, the chemistry
of the sun. A scientific theory must fit into the larger jigsaw puzzle of
what we understand. It can't just fit the part the scientist is
investigating (the size of the universe for example) and not fit in with
other theories and other data. For example, the explanation for the size of
the universe or existence of black holes can't violate the speed of light or
the weight of an electron or other things that are well known. If it does,
then the theory needs to expand to explain how those theories are
inadequate.
Scientists can't investigate the sixth sense or gods or souls because they
can't be tested in the lab. That doesn't immediately make them untrue. But
it puts them in the category of belief rather than science. It doesn't make
the ideas inferior (except as parts of explainable, reproducible reality!).
It just makes them a different species of ideas.
> That works for me and Science cannot proveNot even close! <g>
> it is anything more than a modern superstition... So I guess that's Check
> Mate.... (LOL) <g>
Joyce, Defender of Truth, Justice and the Scientific Method ;-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 07:18:11 -0500 Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
writes:
...
itself. The big muscles to pack the dead thing home. Snoring, farting,
scratching..... so many benefits...<g>
Deb L
writes:
...
> There needs to beYes, staying away from family for long periods, hunting. The killing
> some
> benefit to the change.
> ...
> Maybe the intuitive ability enhances the nurturing and the need to
> be with
> the group. And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond
> the
> group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and
> creating.
itself. The big muscles to pack the dead thing home. Snoring, farting,
scratching..... so many benefits...<g>
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/20/02 5:11:52 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< There needs to be some
benefit to the change. There must be something the brain can do better
without the intuitive ability, a trade off, giving up something to get
something else. >>
They can kill without remorse.
"Sensitive men" are fun to talk to and hang out with, but they might not make
the best hunters and soldiers and cut-throat salesmen.
<<And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond the
group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and creating.>>
Maybe building bridges uses some of the same energy, I don't know. Building
bridges on the sites of natural beauty or the hundred year old farms of kind,
poor families might come under that.
Sandra
<< There needs to be some
benefit to the change. There must be something the brain can do better
without the intuitive ability, a trade off, giving up something to get
something else. >>
They can kill without remorse.
"Sensitive men" are fun to talk to and hang out with, but they might not make
the best hunters and soldiers and cut-throat salesmen.
<<And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond the
group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and creating.>>
Maybe building bridges uses some of the same energy, I don't know. Building
bridges on the sites of natural beauty or the hundred year old farms of kind,
poor families might come under that.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/20/02 9:47:09 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< Scientists can't investigate the sixth sense or gods or souls because they
can't be tested in the lab. >>
In the soviet union there was lots of social-sience research which people
here don't do (and I don't know if it's still being done there) about ESP and
spirits.
Sandra
<< Scientists can't investigate the sixth sense or gods or souls because they
can't be tested in the lab. >>
In the soviet union there was lots of social-sience research which people
here don't do (and I don't know if it's still being done there) about ESP and
spirits.
Sandra
Nancy Wooton
on 1/20/02 11:25 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
The one physical distinction of Albert Einstein's much-studied brain was his
larger-than-normal corpus callosum, the area that sends messages to either
the left or right hemisphere, and
Women use all of their brains when listening, while men use only an auditory
processing area.
For what it's worth,
Nancy
>A couple of relevant factoids, picked up god-knows-where...
> In a message dated 1/20/02 5:11:52 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
>
> << There needs to be some
> benefit to the change. There must be something the brain can do better
> without the intuitive ability, a trade off, giving up something to get
> something else. >>
>
> They can kill without remorse.
>
> "Sensitive men" are fun to talk to and hang out with, but they might not make
> the best hunters and soldiers and cut-throat salesmen.
>
> <<And by removing it, it allowed men to need to roam beyond the
> group and do things that weren't people oriented like building and creating.>>
>
> Maybe building bridges uses some of the same energy, I don't know. Building
> bridges on the sites of natural beauty or the hundred year old farms of kind,
> poor families might come under that.
>
The one physical distinction of Albert Einstein's much-studied brain was his
larger-than-normal corpus callosum, the area that sends messages to either
the left or right hemisphere, and
Women use all of their brains when listening, while men use only an auditory
processing area.
For what it's worth,
Nancy
Tia Leschke
>You mean to tell us that *you* don't snore, fart, or scratch?
>Yes, staying away from family for long periods, hunting. The killing
>itself. The big muscles to pack the dead thing home. Snoring, farting,
>scratching..... so many benefits...<g>
<g>
Tia
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/21/02 6:31:26 PM Mountain Standard Time,
leschke@... writes:
Sandra, the ultra-feminine
<<SNORT>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
leschke@... writes:
> You mean to tell us that *you* don't snore, fart, or scratch?I do, but only with the UTMOST awareness of the social ramifications thereof!
>
Sandra, the ultra-feminine
<<SNORT>>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:37:01 -0800 Tia Leschke <leschke@...>
writes:
Deb L, the bearded lady
writes:
> You mean to tell us that *you* don't snore, fart, or scratch?ONLY while hunting, killing and packing around dead things!
> <g>
> Tia
Deb L, the bearded lady
[email protected]
Well, *I*, being a Lady certainly don't *snore*!
<hmph>
Elissa, who will soon be singing
Yippee - Kai - Yay!
<hmph>
Elissa, who will soon be singing
Yippee - Kai - Yay!
>
>You mean to tell us that *you* don't snore, fart, or scratch?
><g>
>Tia