Re: OT: the Monkey Year (wasRe: Religion and Holidays)

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:12:55PM +0100, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > You might also want to see what you work out to in Indian astrology.
> > > It's similar to what is done in the West, but with the actual
> astronomical
> > > positions of the constellations, rather then signposts based on where
> the
> > > constellations used to be when the art was founded.
> >
> > Isn't that injecting an unhealthy amount of common sense into the
> discipline?
>
> How, exactly, does it constitute *more* common sense to maintain that the
> positions of stars many light-years away are actually relevant to the
> goings-on here, rather than just a convenient reference point? :)
That the constellations actually have physical existence?

> > Then you can do as one New Age groups I saw did, and redefine a Zodiacal
> Age
> > as 2000 years, apparently just because it's a nice round number (should be
> > 2160 years or so), and _still_ maintain it has some relevance to
> > cosmic goings- on. The Gods apparently not only have a thing
> > about the Earth's position in the galaxy, but also about base ten.
>
> Of course they do!  Why do you think They created us with ten each of
> fingers
> and toes?
To make us realize the cosmic importance of 1024.

                                                         Andreas

Reply