A Miss for the Moon-Begotten (i)
Some notes on guerrilla flame wars:
The Dalai Lama and GW Bush: Odd, isn't it, to see their names in the same phrase?
Evidently a subliterate "dig" was issued yesterday, as some imbecile shot off his big mouth about how such and such "proves" that Astrology is 'bunk' without having the first idea what he was talking about. This can't be taken as a meaningful criticism by anyone with a fair mind or an open one, which are, generally, the same thing.
I'm not here to answer astrological questions, nor even to state whether I "believe" or don't "believe." (It frankly doesn't matter in this 'debate,' nor is it appropriate to this forum.)
But in the interests of edifying imbeciles everywhere who are quick to shoot off their big mouths without being prejudiced by the facts, here are the two horoscopes in question:
Without knowing ANYTHING about astrology, you can see that the two charts are vastly different. Gee: so are the two men. QED.
The statement was that since Bush and the Dalai Lama were born on the same day (eleven years apart!), this proved that astrology was bunk, since they were "identical." They are both sun sign "Cancers" or "Moon Children" (since the sign of Cancer is ruled by the moon).*
[* The sun sign was NEVER considered a determining factor in astrology, by the by. Sun sign astrology was introduced at the beginning of the XXth Century by a Theosophist, Alan Leo, as a way of printing up loads of "Astrological Profiles" at a couple of pennies apiece -- according to historian Benson Bobrick's The Fated Sky: Astrology in History. When Alan Leo was flooded with pennies, the modern marketing of astrology began. The modern "sun sign" horoscope column made its debut in 1930, by English astrologer R.H. Naylor. 6,000 years of prior practice had placed the strongest emphasis on the 'rising' sign, which, in the case of Bush and the Dalai Lama, are completely different. The sun sign wasn't considered particularly that important.]
But there is an important point here, that we see in politics all the time: people are more than happy to shoot off their big mouths on a near constant basis on subjects of which they know virtually nothing at all.
It doesn't work with astrology, and it sure as hell doesn't work with political discourse -- the major difference being that when this happens with astrology, it is generally comic.
When it happens with politics, it is generally tragic.
I leave it to the merely subliterate to explain the remainder to the specialized illiterate.
Courage.
The Dalai Lama and GW Bush: Odd, isn't it, to see their names in the same phrase?
Evidently a subliterate "dig" was issued yesterday, as some imbecile shot off his big mouth about how such and such "proves" that Astrology is 'bunk' without having the first idea what he was talking about. This can't be taken as a meaningful criticism by anyone with a fair mind or an open one, which are, generally, the same thing.
I'm not here to answer astrological questions, nor even to state whether I "believe" or don't "believe." (It frankly doesn't matter in this 'debate,' nor is it appropriate to this forum.)
But in the interests of edifying imbeciles everywhere who are quick to shoot off their big mouths without being prejudiced by the facts, here are the two horoscopes in question:
Without knowing ANYTHING about astrology, you can see that the two charts are vastly different. Gee: so are the two men. QED.
The statement was that since Bush and the Dalai Lama were born on the same day (eleven years apart!), this proved that astrology was bunk, since they were "identical." They are both sun sign "Cancers" or "Moon Children" (since the sign of Cancer is ruled by the moon).*
[* The sun sign was NEVER considered a determining factor in astrology, by the by. Sun sign astrology was introduced at the beginning of the XXth Century by a Theosophist, Alan Leo, as a way of printing up loads of "Astrological Profiles" at a couple of pennies apiece -- according to historian Benson Bobrick's The Fated Sky: Astrology in History. When Alan Leo was flooded with pennies, the modern marketing of astrology began. The modern "sun sign" horoscope column made its debut in 1930, by English astrologer R.H. Naylor. 6,000 years of prior practice had placed the strongest emphasis on the 'rising' sign, which, in the case of Bush and the Dalai Lama, are completely different. The sun sign wasn't considered particularly that important.]
But there is an important point here, that we see in politics all the time: people are more than happy to shoot off their big mouths on a near constant basis on subjects of which they know virtually nothing at all.
It doesn't work with astrology, and it sure as hell doesn't work with political discourse -- the major difference being that when this happens with astrology, it is generally comic.
When it happens with politics, it is generally tragic.
I leave it to the merely subliterate to explain the remainder to the specialized illiterate.
Courage.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home