| |
|
I feel kind of similar to you, Sine. I'm not convinced all is pre-determined by the stars, though I think the symbols nd thinking of Astrology might prove useful. The most helpful commet I've heard is that it's a "symbolic language for observing people". If you treat it's symbols as a map for observing people, their bodies and behaviour. I think there's some benefit there.
Onto the CISCOP schooling - can't do it really. For a start, I couldn't imagine convincing someone who was heavily commited to disbelief as most CISCOPians would be. I would suggest a look at the works of Michael Gaquelin (sic - the book is called "The Cosmic Clocks") - which began as an attempt to disprove astrology, but ended up establishing some statistical correlation between planetary positions and careers of prominent people. ANother book I keep meaning to check out is Neil Spencer's "As True as the Stars Above". he used to write a great column in the British newspaper, The Observer. I had a look through this in a bookstore, and I recall the ending - to paraphrase, he said something like "Astrology. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't." Much like magick in that regard, I think. Possibly it's effectiveness depends on how much you internalise it. I would suggest to any skeptic to internalise it's symbols and thinking for 6 months and then see how felt, but I can't see James Randi et al bothering to do this - and why should they? |
|
|
