I dont think there is much evidence at all that is solid and can be held against astrology. I dont buy the BS individual horoscopes I see in the paper etc though.

Why wouldn't the planets have some effects on us? People menstrate according to the moon cycles..the tides move becasue of the moon..solar storms effect electro magnetic activily in the atmosphere..we are a part of the earth and the things that effect the earth effect us as well.

We have hormonal cycles that are tuned to lunar cycles etc..the planets are not THAT far away when you think about it. I dont think there is conclusive evidence discrediting it. I would be happy to read it if any does have any.

I am not saying I read my horoscope or anything..yet I am pisces and it fits me..I have even had many many people say things like "oh you must be pisces etc.." ..and met other people that are very much like me that are pisces as well.
It might go agaisnt some of my logic yet things still seem to match up.

I dont know why it seems so unscientific that environmental cycles can have effects on people.

You can believe anything you want but that doesn't make it true. At all. If something doesn't exist it doesn't exist. Astrology is a flawed idea. Deeply flawed.



You obviously haven't looked at any evidence.

Since we are moving onto discussion about 2012 lets put this in new thread I started where we can systematically go through why this whole 2012 and astrology stuff is nonsense.

You make a big fuzz about grof, but seriously; heidegger or lacan are much, much worse.

heidegger says: "Die ausdrückliche und durchsichtige fragestellung nach dem sinn von sein verlangt eine vorgängige angemessene explikation eines seienden hinsichtlich seines seins."

Wich is such nonsense that it's even hard to translate. It would translate into "the definite and transparant question to the meaning of being needs a foregoing explicit pronaunciation from a being towards the being of its being".

And this is one of his clearer sentences.

The only reason I wrote this response was because I read an article posted in this thread by him. Rather then write it in that thread I chose to make a new one.

Actually before reading the article I didn't really know Grof was so silly. I saw him in person and thought he was a bit off with his whole Freudian ideas but that was all. But after reading this article I really lost all interest in his work.

There are plenty of other people I would like to line out criticisms for but its time consuming...