Abstract Visual Metaphor

[ If your browser does not display two complete images, then left click on the image to see both images. ]


Which of the above images is most is much more closely associated with the following quotation ?

" We do not think good metaphors are anything very important, but I think that a good metaphor is something even the police should keep an eye on... "


[ now scroll down]




Now read a second quote from the same man a see if you still choose the same image:


"It is almost impossible to carry the torch of wisdom through a crowd without singeing someone's beard."



Now consider how the two quotes compliment each other and support each other's thesis. This seems very much the way I sense the presence of individuality. Being that I practice sensing and recognizing astrological patterning, I could tell that the author ('speaker,')
was born with the Sun conjunct Neptune (and had some important major aspect of the planet Pluto.) in his natal chart.
Upon checking him out, I find that the angle between the Sun and Neptune was only two minutes of one degree of arc. If one does the math, one finds that my "guess," in terms of percentage of correctness = 99.9999% And, the next planet in terms of closeness of aspect (here a trine, an angle of 120 degrees) was indeed Pluto. These perceptions (not really guesses) are the joy of discovery found only by way of the art of astrology.

Misc.
If anyone reading happen to think of George Orwell, while reading the first quote, you get a gold star, for he too was born Sun conjunct Neptune and Pluto also being the next prominent feature of his natal chart. But here is the author:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Georg_Christoph_Lichtenberg

Speculation: If there was an actual author writing about Moses and a "burning bush", was he too born with the Sun conjunct Neptune.... :)
Exodus 3, 1-4:
¹ Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. ² There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. ³ So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up."

⁴ When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!"
And Moses said, "Here I am."

[As you can see, I think astrology has never had the slightest problem engulfing its less imaginative competitors...: ) ]

Cherry Picking to Create Horoscopic Expressionism

"Hi, I'm Roger."

[ the enthusiastically supportive members of cherry pickers anonymous sing out in chorus ]

"Hello, Roger."

"And, I'm a Cherry Picker!" [ head held high, curiously flaunting an obvious heresy without shame. ]

--------------------


From Wikipedia (...eh, its faster):

[..]Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.[..]

[..]Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.[..]


But more to the point, the acceptable form of cherry picking can be fundamental to any idea's *defense*:

[..]When a person is assigned to advocate a particular position, then cherry picking might be seen as entirely appropriate. For example, defense lawyers are free to present any evidence supporting the innocence of their client.[..]



"Pick not the rotten or unripe cherries, and claim that they are as fit as any cherry more *likely* to be picked. This indefensible act is but shameless sophistry." - Pedantus Pontificus

<....sorry. just couldn't leave the ol' frother sitting on some park bench.>


Horoscopic Expressionism, as with other forms of astrological communications, has a (currently fuzzy) type of grammar and vocabulary. It's task is to show, rather than merely 'tell,' how to find a more one to one relationship between natal charts and individual persons. It's strategy is to discover parallels of symbolism and a web of inter-symbol functions, which serve the purpose of exhibiting some representational symmetry, some mirroring of charts and persons.
People develop both strategies and various levels of tactical prowess operating within those strategies when confronted with the unavoidable challenge of being their own 'person' representative. In this case, representing oneself in terms being actively 'present'--a 'being there' quality as an entity in a given social realm--a recognized or at least, recognizable, individual (not a just role playing stereotype). Nothing short of one's very existence seems at stake . To fail at presenting/rendering oneself in symbolic ways, effectively, and then one's Individuality is understandably in question--it means nothing short of failing to be social being with acknowledged 'potential' (whomever may be the incidental beneficiary of that social currency).
What's worse, far too many very intelligent social circles still suffer from group-think and thus politically distorted beliefs about Individuality, or that it doesn't even exist! So, to examine how well some persons can present Individuality, from and astrological perspective ( specifically, not as Sun signs, etc.) I continue to suggest that, first, a person must be clearly be able to communicate some form of *specific* relatively singular behavior, and secondly, that astrology must show a more objective than subjective means of being equatable to that target instance of Self-expression....preferably in the form of a recognizable astrological expression--a certain pattern found almost exclusively in one's particular natal chart. As in algebra, both events ( one a specific behavior pattern, the other a more singular planet/aspect/sign/house identifier) should exist as terms that are equally comfortable residing on either side of the equal sign in an equation--it should work *both* ways. If natal chart patterns of planets in aspects (angles), signs, and houses cannot be at least partially deduced from the ('artistic'--creatively coded) expressions of Individuality, then no equation actually can be claimed to exist. (What a bummer, huh? )
I further suggest, that to reject this reciprocating theoretical relationship--to claim things don't work both ways, is to reject any physical reality as to whatever astrology may be altogether. There is no way to execute the hanging of natal astrology, separately, and not also suspect that all of its implications, like co-conspirators, will surely be hung together--their once pedestal-ed feet pathetically dangling in the wind for all time. No physical correlation between the two--Individuality and astrological chart signifier, means no existing astrology.
And, if one is firmly convinced that society creates the presence of Individualism by 'writing' on a persons presumed "blank slate" mind, in the first place, then one probably has no business even commenting on astrology's basic birth chart premise--that it indirectly signifies a hypothetical, particular, innate patterning of individuals occurring (somehow) at birth. This because one has to first at least concede that Individuality may actually exist! Horoscopic Expressionism, then, takes two controversial premises and puts them both to work at a mutually gratifying exercise. They can simply proceed to create each others 'presence' in a limited but more objective seeming manner. We here attempt to employ the powers inherent to art (arts in general) to partially (but significantly, I think ) promote a cooperative exhibitionism which allows two faint ideas to simply superimpose --one fuzzy mental image upon another makes symbiotic details pop out of the admitted incompleteness of both original mental 'images'.
The result is that, wherein these 'images' are found to be coincidentally occupying and sharing some theoretically identified points in mental space, we see that the effects of overlapping materials from each idea make the products of their sandwiched translucent layers a little more opaque--more observable. However, to be fair, some notions we expect to find because they are or were previously presumed to be observable--long standing traditions of associations (and cultural biases), may conversely become more transparent, so as to be 'clearly' not there at all. The latter case probaby threatens some widely popular traditions of astrological beliefs which may be found lacking any persistent art-based structure to support them. To explain, I suggest that not all revelations are testable, therefore not demonstrable hypotheses. These will of course suffer no demise in what is popularly known as astrology, but they will not be relevant to the more objective observational experiences of the more limited realm of Horoscopic Expressionism. So, one by-product of such research may be a status change for many a heart felt notion (if one actually enters the new paradigm, I mean). The more likely to be invalid astrological ideas (of which we all are certain only exist in 'other' people) may be seen to dissipate, and that is understandably a great fear of personal loss for many astrologers who cling to their individually operant perceptions by sheer force of religious-like convictions. (This, I'm certain is not something to put on a recruiting poster intended to promote Horoscopic Expressionism).

How to frame the actual experience of observing Horoscopic Expressionism, how comparison's can actually be accomplished, of course seems rather windy for single post to a newsgroup; so, to the annoyance of many, I promise that examples and explanatory notes ( these often only implied or only very roughly alluded to in past posts) will keep inundating you with words wrenched from the unfathomable machinery of a intermittently functional dyslectic.

Rog

http://pedantus.blogspot.com/
http://horoscopicexpressionism.blogspot.com/

An Anonymous Internet Atheist's Favorite Authors

I.) Partially Random--versus--Much More Random

. The illustration above shows how I plotted the Zodiacal positions of both Sun and Mars from two different groups birth charts. The first is a sample of authors reportedly preferred by a very angry sounding atheist who ardently states that he hates topics like astrology because, "It's obviously just a religion." And, of course, all notions not "scientific" enough for our atheist here are of course, "pure ignorance!" The second chart also a plot of Sun and Mars 'birth' positions for some only hypothetical persons. These plots (yellow circle = Sun, red circle = Mars) were generated using a random number generator program available on the web. What I attempt to show here is the noticeable degree of non-randomness in the birth chart patterns of the authors which were selected as favorites by the angry anonymous internet atheist. The authors which he reportedly most identifies with--his chosen target, "atheist authors, " seem to (unfortunately for him) show the emergence of statistically weak but detectable pattern (trend?) as a result of his choosing them. We cannot know what 'causes' what here, but we can fairly question the apparent lack of expected randomness in this comparison.

. Two things come to mind. Either "atheists", as defined by the subject, have some astrology in common, or the subject's selections were (as I more often come to suspect) an unconsciously performed act of identifying with metaphorical similarities, and thus pointing to persons who are, somehow, (astrologically speaking) very similar to himself. There would seem a certain lack of actual total anonymity implied here. I mean, is the guy himself a Sagittarius native, like two of the three first to be chosen authors in the most center circle (above)? ( In truth I thought he might be Sag, or a late Scorpio like his chosen role models, but that really got him going on about what a complete waste of molecules I truly must be...:)

. Religion is broad topic. Unemotionally viewed as a some kind of neutral object, like a rabbit or personal computer, it has parts, both real and hypothetical, with metaphorical modules or sub-assemblies and individual components. Personally, I see Science itself as having most of the same or alt least very similar types of subroutines and psychological functions, not the least of which is some form definition of the "belief' and 'faith' modules found in both mental activities. This, at least in part, allows me to see Science as *probably* more like the 'religion' (--the belief and faith system) which just happens to have the most *objective* evidence in its corner. But there are atheists in the world with a strong distaste for this kind of sloppy seeming sentiment and implied delusional thinking at its center. Some will vehemently argue that all things not "scientific" in their ways of understanding the world--whether the topic is human life, or merely just "the universe and everything," are unforgivable, abominable acts of perverse ideation--deliberate ignorance--willed malfeasance perpetrated by crackpots and religions (and of course experimenting astrologists) in general. I cannot seem to muster that much anger (or at least attempt to sustain it for longer than I can hold my breath), but some persons can, and it may be more psychological pathology than a 'soldier for science' type unflinching duty to Reason at that point.

========================================================