Sagittarius: You will go on a long journey when you become a highly trained astronaut and travel to the International Space Station to fix the toilet.
Capricorn: Your former opposition to embryonic stem cell research becomes grudging support when you realize that Michael J. Fox isn’t shaking, you are.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Looking for a Sign".
This article was originally published with the title Looking for a Sign.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add Commentre astrology atmospherics: if you don't tune in to the 'music of the spheres' (pythagoras) you will not dance to the tune of the stars. you will remain a wallflower (artificial at that), like many scientists at a barn dance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's absolutely funny and smart! i'm laughing...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm an "orientalist in progress" - i like linguistics and history and the world behind a word. Astrology is interesting for its symbolism but please, who is so naive to believe it's a science? we're in 2008!
I thought this was a nice article. Clever stuff. Very enjoyable. Pointed humor. Until I got to Leo and read, "What, you were expecting 'cheetahs never prosper?'" A cold shiver ran down my spine; I bolted upright. What was that? Something strange. Something erie. Like an out-of-body experience. Sipping my coffee, I stood. I clenched both fists and looked in the mirror, smiling and checking for signs of a stroke. Everything apparently normal. Except that feeling. Sat down and read the words again expecting the weirdness to pass. It happened again; I shivered involuntarily. The conditions were the same and the results repeated, exactly the same! But what? Why? This time I gulped my coffee, stared at the article and pondered. Brain, get into gear. Explain this. Reason, take hold of my mind please, I prayed. I can figure this out, this autonomic reaction to seemingly harmless prose. It couldn't just be the awful sixth-grade humor: that's just my speed. It had to be something else. Think, man, think! Read that line again. And again. Those words. Those blasted seven words! That goofy humor. Something about them or it. I resolved to figure out what. Now I chugged my coffee. Thought some more. Think in a new way, not in an obvious way. What else could it be besides those words, about them but not them? And suddenly... it wasn't the words! Not the putrid pun! It WAS something else entirely. It was the SOUND those words made as I read them. IN MY HEAD. I could NOT read those words without hearing them. I was reading the article, like normal, and then hearing a VOICE reading just those words, I swear. But why a voice? Where did it come from? It was a particular voice, a familiar voice. And it was someone I know. But who? Why was this person in my head? Who was my tormenter? And then it all came together. Clear as day. It was that podcast guy, Steve somebody, from AmSci's Science Talk. It was his voice, of course! Only he would write something so corny in a science magazine. I repeated the experiment... Leo... bla, bla, bla and bam: "What, you were expecting 'cheetahs never prosper?'" They were So Steve. They had no choice but to take on his character, to be read in his voice and no other. Now it made sense and order was restored. Simple explanation after all. I just had never knowingly read Steve's stuff before; it had to be him. And to be a good scientist and validate my suspicion, I looked up to the byline and read the name. Steve Mirsky. Thanks, Steve, for the smile. It's so you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWait...so you are saying astrology *isn't* real? I must consult
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy Scientology books about this!
So...are you saying astrology is *not* real science? Harrumph! I must consult my Scientology books on this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy God (or something else if you are don't believe),you are going to upset a lot of people I know .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are an amazing number of them of these enlightened times.
lool, who ever takes astrology seriously in my opinion is a person with no real direction in life, who needs something to tell him what to do, and how he should be. In my opinion, the best thing to do is be yourself and not care about what people think, cause your self-esteem would be high and you wouldn't stress yourself on what people would think of you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you see a problem with somethings that you do in life (something you know is not right but you do it anyways), then you should know that people can change, you just have to believe in yourself.
re: looking for a sign....It's sarcastic, satire and word funny and I'm laughing, too. I'm a child of the Big Bang in progress. I also love the words behind words, such a s Astro: Stars, logical : logging. Ship captains, astronomers and space explorers find it indispensable and logical. Science is interesting for its symbols, but please!, who is so naive as to place it on a par with astrology if you're just considering the human to God to universe connection. C'mon..its 2008, the age of Acquarious, not the age of agnostic analysis. Geeez!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a card-carrying scientist who got my theoretical quantum physics lessons at MIT ('78), and being in the top 10 practicing Western astrologers (different from Hindi, Arabian, Chinese), may I note the essay's hilarity. Most curiously 'funny' is its own oblivious oversight (undersight?) of sure how spot-on it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor instance, the strawman contention that astrology discerns individuality and does not compute as general categorical prescription, readily proves out that failing by committed essay of inapplicable categorical prescriptions. And avoids to test the affirmation, leaving unshown any individual application, (whether seen to propound or refute).
A wise Cambridge homey explained once to me: The Arts academics at one end of Mass Ave, (Harvard), most stridently (and emphatically empiricist) denied any deux ex machina ('ghost' or 'spirit' in the 'machine'), while the Sciences students at the other end of Mass's polarity, (MIT), most glibly asserted fudge-factor magics. As though a mind senses the authoritative most, in the topics and realms where its consciousness never has ventured, never gainfully booked a visit -- most sure of knowing exactly what it don't know.
A (cit.) quotation on that point is by Sir Isaac Newton, ('astrologized' the ideal time for laying the cornerstone of Greenwich Observatory ... perhaps random selection coulda-woulda-shoulda made indifferent results), on being blasphemed for practicing astrology, by Sir Edmund Halley, ('astronomized' the orbital mechanics eigenvalues of periodic comets), in the well of the House of Lords, c. 1680, in retort: "Sir, I have studied it, you have not!"
Actually, astrology acclaims not its Science, but its Art. Which might be why 'scientific' dismissal fails to disappear the Art into vapors or the vapid. And heaven knows, Science has tried to; ever since three magi(cians) rode camel-back 1000 km conveying treasures through trail-bandit lands, to arrive at one certain place, close at the parturitive moment, and ask 'Where's the baby, whose individual birth announcement is published in starry skywriting?' (Lit.: VIDIMUS ENIM STELLUM EJUS IN ORIENTE, ET VENIMUS ADORARE EUM -- We saw His star as it rose and have come to do Him homage. Matt 2:2-3)
The persisting incongruity to Science is (documented) the three artful magi(cians ... of triplicate simultaneous autism?) defied Heisenberg's principle, by being at the predictable place at the predictable moment derivative of time.
Consider all that affair, yet I stand avowedly atheist.
Wait, there's more ... from this (cowboy, born liking star entertainment, in saddle, night-watching the herd) counterfeit Yankee in Majesty Science's (kangaroo) court, here, in brief:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho sees astrology flub to foretell the future, needs also see astrology is mirror, reflecting rearview, (insubstantiates a preview perspective, only presages conjecture). That is, astrology hardly predicts the future, and says so -- that it doesn't (ethically) apply to; and says only (ethically) that its comprehensible arts of reflection serve singly to Know Thyself, understanding.
However, here anonymous among the ethical voids of the web, one may mark disreputable prediction. The words of the prophets are written on subway walls, tenement halls ... uh, oops, no not that one ... wrong prediction -- reject. Re-conject, as a counterfeit Yankee in Mark Twain (not his real name) style may re-write:
August 1 brings a solar eclipse, 10:13 GMT -- mid-Atlantic noon meridian viewing, seen in the sign Leo, (constellation Crab, or Chinese Horse), hard by Praesepe, The Ascelli, and combusting Deneb and Regulus. Ptolemy's text (c. 150) 'Tetrabiblios' provides: "The nebulous mass ... called Praesepe, has the same efficacy as Mars and the Moon. The bright one ... called Regulus, agrees with Mars and Jupiter. The bright one in the tail (Cauda Leonis - Deneb, is) like Saturn and Venus." And knowing: 1- "Mars chiefly causes dryness, ans is also strongly heating" (read: 'intemperate'). 2- "The Moon principally generates moisture; ... highly capable of exciting damp vapors, and of thus operating sensibly upon animal bodies by relaxation and putrefaction" (read: 'tidal vicissitudes'). 3- "Jupiter (in) between the extreme cold of Saturn and the burning heat of Mars, ... consequently a temperate influence; ... produces fertilizing breezes" (read: 'vast', 'exogenous'). 4- "To Venus also the same temperate quality ... conversely; ... moist vapors ... the same manner that the Moon does" (read: 'acclimating'). And 5- "Saturn produces cold and dryness, for he is most remote" (read: 'inevitable').
Derivative of that is written, (1933, 'Encyclopedia of Medical Astrology,' H. L. Cornell, M.D., LL.D. -- btw, astrology and 'medicine,' not 'astronomy,' "have common historical roots," co-origin): "Praesepe said to cause blindness and hurts to the face ... said to cause disgrace, diseases, and every calamity and evil upon humanity ... the danger of a violent death."
Artfully mix the metaphoric ingredients, ration recipe, half-bake, and predict:
Thus, my conjecture foresees August 1 brings calamity off the Atlantic, more on eastern North America than on western Europe (the elipse-viewing extents). Such calamity involves the magisterial, ('regal' of Regulus), so a 'ruler' (premier, tyrant, despot) is endangered in lethal violence. While the public's eye is blinded from witnessing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally speaking, such prediction (subjectively) arguably is fulfilled in any day, or is fulfilled in no day. That is, saying such is astrology's nonsense and folly. Perhaps in an individually-given assignment of portents, though, is astrology's competence, concise and testable.
Diligent study (only) acknowledges, and practice perfects, noticing congruent positions of planets, instanced in Aug.1,'08; Sep.11,'01, (transfixed); Jan.14,'01, (pretzel-ed); and Jul.6, 1946, (born, first breath). Accordingly, Aug.1 might apply as an individual one 'president,' wrenched a moment of 'hurts to the face' coupled to 'mid-Atlantic Ocean,' 'unseen' in public. In the portraiture of the art of astrology, illustration becomes visionary, (read: 'irreproducible result', i.e., non-scientific), and may depict that day to come as a re-cast of September 11 and different in injury danger around the star in the leading role. Add magnification, ('empirical emphasis'), by the concentrating lens of a solar eclipse ... highest and lowest tides, of whatever fluids are embodied. Drawing magically from all this a picture foreseen in the future -- as I did seeing "an explosion and fire making world history, this day," and said 24-hours before 'nine-eleven' -- eight-one, oh-eight, is seed of a nine-eleven sequel, tragic world-history occurring by that day's action extenuated as the Moon waxes, (Full, on Aug.16), most crucial at the halfway, (1st qtr., on Aug. 8). Therefor: eight-one, oh-eight, begets eight-eight, oh-eight, and the culmination of events of that week exceeds the historic heights of the precursor nine-eleven. (Copied in this, and shown in the masterpiece works of artisan Nostradamus addressing the magistery, is a sort of poetic license which deliberately foregoes objective nouns in favor of subjectively read allusion, entendre, maybe tonal innuendo. Masterpieces are irreproducible, by definition.) - - - btw, remaining in brief, where was Science's emphasis on empirically sustained conclusions regarding nine-eleven? The potential energy in Action (of a Tower, 135,000 KWH) was not-Equal by 2 orders of magnitude less than the energy in kinetic Reaction, (> 10,000,000 KWH). See: TinyURL.com/2p8kep
If someone still thinks astrology might be scientific somehow, let me point out that if you look at the actual constellations in the zodiac, there are actually 13 of them (Ophiuscus or serpent bearer is missing from astrology). And they are not the same size - some are quite large, while some are very small. So the length of time the sun is in each constellation is not about a month, but varies from something like 2 to 6 weeks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the astrological signs were assigned their dates about 2000 years ago. In these two millennia, things have changed, and right now the Sun is nearly one constellation off on any given date. So for 53% of people the sun was actually in the neighbouring constellation when they were born than what the astrological dates implied.
I remember a year or so ago reading a Sunday newspaper supplement, featuring a truly dazzling-to-look-at Indian film star, who announced that she was "very much into astronomy".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was truly thrilled! Almost I fell in love with her straightaway! I intended to join her fan club, become her most devoted fan on earth or in the heavens!
I read the article in detail. Alas, it became clear to me that she had confused the word "astronomy" for her thought of "astrology" in which she believed implicitly and explicitly: What she belied in was precisely Aquarius and Scopio and Virgo and Leo and the rest of that bunch whose existence in our cultures prove for sure that human beings are more foolish than chimpanzees or even grasshoppers (who do not, so far as I know, believe in any of that nonsense......
Anyway... Poof! My balloon totally collapsed in the little while I took to read that article, That was the end of my 'love affair' with one of India's most glorious-looking actresses.... ended it to to the extent that I do not even remember the lady's name now!
-- GSC
As I sketchily noted, in space limitations building up to my outright prediction, the persisting aggravation for Science's unsuccessful efforts to discount, discredit, dismiss, and disappear astrology Arts, is that the Art-consciousness evolved first, coincident with mindfulness of 'medicine' and conscientious self-'comportment' -- arriving spontaneously. And the Art-conscious survives -- across all cultures, across all History -- even this day and beyond; inexorable, un-excommunicate-able, irrepressible, intractable, self-set self-referent. Maybe that's called 'integrity.' In practice, astrology does not deny Science; rather, the opposite -- in practice, Science does to deny astrology-Art. Many thinks the Science doth protest too much. See: the 'reason' up-standing sanctified sober newspaper publishers include astrology columns (and comics and crossword puzzle entertainments) in print, is not for themselves being adherents or 'believing in' astrology, (etc.), but because people do not buy newspapers which omit astrology columns, (etc. 'entertainments') -- just ask a publisher. As for the invalidating disarray of astrology's (Tropical) 'signs' being 29 degrees precessed out of phase with 'actual' constellations, (although Chinese 'signs' and 'Sidereal' astrology-Arts are IN PHASE), well, in only invalidates the premise that the 'invisible force' influence which astrology charts, emanates from the star body positions. Yet, that's not the premise of astrology. The premised 'influence' of astrology is GEOcentric, intrinsic in Earth's orbital, rotational, and coupled-satellite (i.e. Moon) Time-of-cycle period -- saying, born in the Summer, (etc.), or at mid-day noon, (etc.), or at Full Moon, (etc.) is similar in affect for such birth; a babe of Spring is 'springy,' of Summer is 'endeavorous,' of Autumn is 'languid,' of Winter is 'retiring' -- all irrespective of specific star positions: it's the season, the time of day, and the Moon's lunacy factor, which are the 'reasons.' (So in Southern Hemisphere, October births 'behave' as 'Aries,' springbok, the N. Hemisphere's April 'affect.') ---- And, rectitude, ERRATUM: The Aug.1, 10:13 GMT, solar eclipse is mid-East noon meridian viewpoints -- say, Egypt; (not "mid-Atlantic" as stated before). Viewing extents are Asia (at sunset) to barely eastern N. America (at sunrise). Whatever 'effects' in it, is MOST magnified at the location where eclipse maximum minute coincides with sunrise, (atmospheric aberration?). Secondarily, 'effects' is prominent at the geocentric 'noon.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is nothing but Scientific arrogance. In the middle ages, when a king asked his astrologer if his newborn son would grow to be an effective ruler, if the astrologer answered "yes" and the child died two weeks later, it wasn't that the astrologer didn't get published... it was off with his head. Astrology has been tweaked and fine tuned for thousands of years outside the scientific community. In fact, many psychologists are using it in their practice. Astrology not only offers the most complete map of the human condition, it works! Most addicts have strong water in their charts, most megolomaniacs have strong fire and most workaholics have strong earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you truly believe Astrology has nothing to offer, you probably haven't studied it. Or else you've been looking at the "Sun-sign Astrology" in your local newspaper. A true astrologer looks not only at the sun-sign, but at nine other "planetary influences". It's not surprising sun-sign Astrology doesn't work, it's only a tenth of the picture.
This article shows a surprising ignorance.
You go 2reikis! Futile as appears setting sumptuous nourishment arrayed before ivory towers. One quibble though: "thousands of years outside the scientific community" never happened -- the 'scientific community wasn't born then, and is today younger than Methuseleh. Indeed, astrology's maternity of child Science is the radix of Science's defiance (of its mother). The homily of "a king and his astrologer" exists in fact today. King Ibn Saud (b. 1875), namesake patriarch of Saudi Arabia, (est. 1925-32), taking 16 wives or more, fathered 70 viable children or more, between 1900 and 1947, and His Highness succumbed in 1953. Half or more are maile heirs, throne-eligible. Yet, schooled in Arts since generations before antiquity, the royal astrologers pick-and-choose the line of succession in the few heirs specially 'innately' suited to preside, in whatever terms. Studying the horoscopes of the ones picked, within the variety of horoscopes in the population of all heirs, offers an appreciation of the pragmatic craft of astrology's Arts by its premier artisans. I recommend the exercise to the reader; here lists the heirs and birthdates: [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia ] And in emphasis of a fundamental precept, repeating as stated before: Astrology's schematic is for understanding History -- personal or cultural, it is NOT for foreseeing the future -- but as past is prolog. Not the ring of Truth, it is the ring of Science, ivory-tower round, concaving enlightment borne in passe nepotistic inner torch-passing, the sooty hallmark of Science sequestration which occults the outer lights of illuminating Arts and brilliant Society. The ring of Science being fossil-sterile is the other, (and perhaps more deathly), warning from Eisenhower foretelling dangers to democratic humankind, here: [ en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech ] - "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that PUBLIC policy could itself become THE CAPTIVE of a Scientific-Technological Elite." More degrading than a Military-Industrial Complex, which is deadening. Either meta-perceptive one -- astrology-Arts, or Society -- being freed by being ostracized, may toss a memo for the shackled ring of Scientists, citing Groucho Marx's maxim: "Society wouldn't want to be a member of any club that has to invite it to join." "Nor Arts." Toss the memo on the web and there's a double-slitted-window chance it might light in the ring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapricorn and the shakes, must be some synchronicity going on here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must protest against Meremark's use of the Bible to back up his belief in astrology. For this same book is also quite heavily set against this very "art". For example Isaiah 47:13 says: "All the counsel you have received has only worn you out!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet your astrologers come forward,
those stargazers who make predictions month by month,
let them save you from what is coming upon you."
and Daniel 4:7 says: "When the magicians, enchanters, astrologers [a] and diviners came, I told them the dream, but they could not interpret it for me."
So, if the Bible says that astrologers are not as good as some poor Jewish boy then who are we to say they are any better?
One sided quotes from religious texts are always good to prove a point... But beware the kick, for they may contradict themselves in the very next verse. :D