Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Susan Boyle, A star is born  (Read 4311 times)
birdwhistler
Member

Posts: 13


« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2009, 05:18 PM »

Hi All,

I think there's been a lot of misunderstandings here. My basic problem in this thread was with Rad's presumptions about Susan Boyle's past lives in terms of her misjudging others and abuse of social power and standing (which frankly I didn't see in her chart or her personal vibration) and his vague definition of abnormal in regards to those being publicly executed. Rad has not seen fit to address this issue. No disrespect to you, Pam, but I have worked with the mentally disabled for a long time as well and have had to research the history of their social treatment. Nowhere in my research (and I wasn't including Hitler who basically wanted to make a graveyard of the planet) have I come across any mention of burning at the stake in regards to a constant public execution for the mentally disabled. Instead, other horrible things were done to those who were considered to be "moon children" or what we now call "mentally disabled." I would like to hear further justification from Rad in regards to Susan Boyle's past lives as to why he is making such a harsh judgment on her when he has no personal contact with her. What are her current life circumstances that would reflect such a past life history?

Respectfully,
Bird     
Logged
PamS
Active Member
*
Posts: 124


« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2009, 06:21 PM »

Hi Bird,

Its all good..... I have lots of research that says the miss-treatment and killing of people with mental/physical disabilities- sorry to say.  I think think the thread got a bit out of wack.. I will gracefully say what I have to and move on...   If you want pass on your e-mail and I will send you some of the research that I have found....

blessings,

pam
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2009, 07:47 PM »

Hi Bird,

I can only suggest you read again Rad's analysis and check the chart step by step accordingly...

I did not hear Rad "judging" the soul; he simply explained the 10th house s.node in pisces correlations within the whole context. Ruler, other planets etc....

Pisces is a sign for  illusions/delusions amongst other things...where ever is the soul now, certainly it has  been in social power in the past within the consensus state ...that's CRYSTAL CLEAR from the chart.  Delusions/illusions were certainly part of that past and it was certainly such a "supreme" power at that time (pisces=supreme, 10th house social power)
The fact that virgo is the n.node and in the 4th and pluto is conj. shows (at minimum!) the fact that the soul 1) feels it needs to atone 2) it has destined to deeply humble itself (virgo) 3) totally reshape it's identity/self image without any social power (4th)
This also means to heal from any kind of delusion (pisces s.node conj chiron) of the past. Pluto in virgo=some kind of guilt on a soul level, 4th house affecting the self image of the soul....   

Saturn in capricorn in the 8th=social power and some sort of judgment has been used and in a very INTENSE way (8th house) ....including the possibility of causing death (8th house) ...in the same time this is what pushed the soul to reach a limit.... it then needs to overcome and metamorphose above the prior limitation....8th house archetype: learning about absolute power and powerlessness, capricorn:within a social context.....

Rad's analysis embraced both: how the soul experienced absolut social power in the past and how this lead to abusing that power..than experienced the opposite, absolute powerlessness, when the famous rug has been pulled under it's feet....

By the way, no soul can go through the consensus state especially not within patriarchy without making mistakes....evolution is not taking place via a nice, soft, white carpet on which we can keep our shoes clean...we learn via our mistakes....there simply is no other way....

So I really don't see what do you mean by this soul has been "harshly judged"....this soul appears to be learning natural lessons via the only way it is possible: experience. No soul can learn the lessons of equality without learning through unequlity, no soul can learn the lesson of compassion and understanding without learning the lesson of judgment and rejection...and it has to be learned both ways...how it looks from this "role" and how it looks from the opposite "role"....and so on....


To me it seems that this soul has learned a valuable lesson from its past ...what Rad said about the fact that she is now a living example and as such an inspirational "teacher" of that very lesson (even without her knowing it) i.e. how wrong is to judge people based on appearences and assumptions is anything but a judgment....

And how else can a soul learn and represent any lesson other than trying it out/experiencing it itself from both ends...?

That's what evolution actually means....it is an illusion that it can happen in any other ways...everything we know we know it from experience...

In Susan's case: when the s.node is in the 10 and ruler is in the 5th, there was a leonic, self centered way of reality which was out pictured into the social sphere...but of course within that leonic reality it would not be CAN NOT be objectively seen....
As a result look at the 11th house sun and venus placement. Obviously showing that something NEW (aries) has just begun about the 11th house lessons; objectivity! Now looking at things differently, underlined by the humbled 4th house n.node/Pluto - which gives the chance for this new beginning symbolised by the aries planets in the 11th.
A totally new life purpose with a new way of forming relationship to herself ...wherever aries falls in a chart that's the area of a new beginning and a new self discovery in that very area...for her it is the 11th house....(I don't think it is a coincidence that it starts with 0 aries!)
Also wherever pisces falls something is certainly culminating...that's 10th house for her....

So even if I wouldn't know about Rad's analysis from this little bit it can be suspected that something certainly need to be culninated and reformulated regarding social status/power and  judgment issues...and that the soul is in a transitionary state (virgo pluto and n.node) and on it's way of becoming equal .....neither superior nor inferior to others......that's why one of the major lessons is and has been to humble itself (virgo)....just to be who the soul is and shed any delusions of the past (pisces)......

Blessings,

Lia


Logged
yarrow8
Member

Posts: 15


« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2009, 09:47 PM »

Hi Everyone,

Susan Boyle is certainly an interesting character. In regards to the birth data, however, I have found conflicting accounts for her birthday...one account even states that she was born June 15, 1961, which gives a different look to her chart. Most accounts state that she is the youngest of ten and not nine and is Irish Catholic and very devout. I found a very interesting article that gives some more detailed background information for Ms. Boyle by David Hinckley of the Daily News:

"That's just how life works, a fact of which Susan Boyle is well aware. She was born June 15, 1961, in the small Scottish town of Blackburn, West Lothian, and brought home to the modest "council house" where she lives today.

She says she still sleeps in the same room. Her parents were Irish Catholics who moved to Scotland so her father Patrick could work as a storeman at the British Leyland factory.

Her mother Bridget was a shorthand typist, but spent much of her time at home raising 10 children – six boys, four girls. Her mother was 47 when Susan was born, six years after her next-youngest sibling George.

A difficult birth left Susan briefly deprived of oxygen, leaving her with a learning disability. In the whirlwind of interviews she has given since her "Talent" audition aired in Britain on April 11, Boyle hasn't spoken in much detail about her childhood.

But as the baby in a family of 10, she seems to have felt distant from siblings who in some cases were old enough to be her parents and gradually over the years all moved away.

Two brothers who have since surfaced – George, now 53, and John, now 59 – remember Susan as a shy child, an inclination likely reinforced by her difficulty in learning and thus with fitting in.

In early photos, Boyle looks like a typical Scottish child, with a broad, friendly face. But her learning disability made her different and children being a cruel lot, her classmates took to calling her "Susie Simple."

In the June 15th chart, Ms. Boyle has an Aquarius/Leo Nodal axis with Mars and Uranus on the North Node in Leo and Pluto on the North Node in Virgo.

I would have to agree with Bird on this analysis in terms of evolutionary state (meaning she's newly out of Dimly Evolved), especially after researching Ms. Boyle's life and discovering that she has a learning disability due to oxygen deprivation at birth and was extensively mocked by her peers. She has been called the "Crazy Lady" by her fellow villagers as well. Also, she gives contradictory answers to questions and seems to be completely at a loss as to how to handle her recent fame. If she had fully gone through the Consensus, she would more than likely be more comfortable with fame in general.

I don't really see abuse of social power in either chart or in her life circumstances, unless Rad is saying her circumstances are a case of karmic retribution? I simply don't "feel" that from her, and the context of her life seems to point more toward her being new to the Consensus. She doesn't seem to have a great grasp of social integration. Also, and most importantly, in Wolf's delineation of cases of karmic retribution, the individual will have a bright, white point of light in the pupil of the eye and will be angry due to knowing that there is more to their state of consciousness than they are able to currently experience. Ms. Boyle seems quite happy-go-lucky and does not, in fact, seem to feel that there is any more to her state of consciousness than she is currently experiencing. This would point toward her being just out of Dimly Evolved and not in a situation where there is karmic retribution. Just thought that I would add in my observations to see if it helps any.

Peace,
Yarrow     
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2009, 04:31 AM »

Hi Yarrow,

Thanks for the additional data. Of course I have no knowledge what birthdate may be correct. Rose said however that the data she posted was the one obtained from the official source, and there were other mistakes circulating in regarding to the correct coordinates. As for her consciousness: of course my feeling about her actual consciousness level may have been mistaken and she may still be consensus. Although I am not entirely sure, for I have observed several people who culminate the consensus state with a series of heavy prior life mistakes which resulted in karmic conditions that the souls were often pushed to the margin of society in one way or another...but of course, I do not know her personally so I can only guess.

To me the symptoms you are describing (and thank you very much for you research on the subject!) appears to be in perfect harmony with the karmic conditions that Rad referred to as having been born through a series of life times with conditions which resulted being judged as "different" in one way or another; and only in this life time she is in the position to culminate these lessons and reflect it back to the "world". (mercury ruler of n.node and Pluto is in pisces in the 10th, so in the same house and sign where the original lessons originated from yet further up outside of direct conj.)


The underlying problem with Bird's dimly evolved ideas is that it can hardly produce a 10th house s.node ruled by a 5th house planet, along with an 8th house saturn in capricorn conj to jupiter; to my knowledge, Bird was talking about this present chart that Rose posted.
Of course if the chart would be different that's a totally different issue.

The additional info you posted in regards to her parents and family relations reflects a typical 10/4th house scenario though...

Anyway, thanks for the additional data again.


Blessings,

Lia
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2009, 06:16 AM »

Hi Yarrow,

This bit slipped my attention:
I simply don't "feel" that from her, and the context of her life seems to point more toward her being new to the Consensus. She doesn't seem to have a great grasp of social integration. Also, and most importantly, in Wolf's delineation of cases of karmic retribution, the individual will have a bright, white point of light in the pupil of the eye and will be angry due to knowing that there is more to their state of consciousness than they are able to currently experience. Ms. Boyle seems quite happy-go-lucky and does not, in fact, seem to feel that there is any more to her state of consciousness than she is currently experiencing. This would point toward her being just out of Dimly Evolved and not in a situation where there is karmic retribution.

Appears there is some misunderstanding here. I would suggest re-reading the detailed description of the dimly evolved state in Pluto I.: The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul.

For ease I copy here what Wolf wrote on this in his "Review of the Key Principles of EA":

 The Dimly Evolved State: For those Souls that are evolving into human consciousness from other forms of life, typically animal and plant since animals and plants essentially have the same `emotional´ and `nervous´ systems as humans, are characterized by a very limited sense of self-awareness. This self-awareness is typically limited to the time and space that they personally occupy. When one looks into such Souls eyes they typically express a `density´ within the pupils, like a film effect within the pupils. These Souls are typically very joyous, very, very innocent, and can bring great love to those who are close to them. Modern terminology that reflects these types of Souls are words like critinism, very low i.q´s, mongoloidism, metal retardation, and the like. The root desire within this evolutionary stage or state is the desire to be `normal´ where normal means to be like most other people: the consensus state.

Conversely, it can occur, due to `karmic´ causes that Souls can be de-evolved which means that such Souls are forced back into this state. This then becomes very problematic for such Souls because they had previously evolved beyond this stage. Thus, such Soul now experience great and humiliating `limitations´ because of the de-evolution. As a result these Souls are very, very angry and some can go about creating great disturbances for other people. These souls can also be `classified´ through the modern terminology as above. But the great difference is that when one looks into the pupil of these Souls eyes one will notice a great while light manifesting from the pupil: piercing like. And within that light one will inwardly experience the intense anger within such a Soul.


Susan Boyle state is very far from being classified as “ critinism", "mongoloidism", "metal retardation", and the like...

These people in the past have been frequently institutionalised and in some cases they still are. In fact they usually need some level of assistance in order to be able to function within a societal environment......Many do not have the ability to communicate properly as other humans do, sometimes they are making sounds only - understandably for they are just at the beginning of learning how to be a human. As they evolve in this state they learn communication of course but it will be limited in this state...

Again Susan’s case can not even be compared to this with a mild learning disability. She is perfectly able to function within her social environment and most importantly the dimly evolved does not have the ability to look after another human being in a way she did for her mother during most of her life. Simply because the dimly evolved state is occupied only with their own physical life, functions, and immediate environment. They haven’t developed (amongst other things) the concept of time and future as most humans do. This is necessary for example to take care another in their daily functions and needs. Caring demands an awareness of the needs and the timing of those needs so that a plan can be implemented to meet those needs on a daily basis -for obvious reasons.

The dimly evolved usually needs assistance of some degree sometimes for their whole life. They can be very loving to those who take care of them or close to them - but they have no, -or extremely limited -awareness of mostly anything outside of their immediate time and space reality of any moment.

So again, only in this condition the above differentiation applies what you referred to, i.e. looking into the eyes to determine the reason for the condition.

Susan is way ahead of this “retarded” or “mongoloid” like state; therefore what you said above does not apply to her at all.

I'd also like to mention what Wolf taught in regards to the de-evolution into the dimly evolved state; he said, this can only happen to souls who have  committed EXTREMELY SADISTIC DEEDS AGAINST MANY MANY PEOPLE REPEATEDLY (for example like hitler).

This means each soul has a chance to learn from their lessons outside of this rare karmic de-evolution. Just like the soul of Susan did. Of course we can't see it "in her" now if the soul learnt the lesson.

The rare karmic set back to the dimly evolved state happens only if a soul refuses to learn via the normal karmic consequences and despite the chance it has been given it will REPEAT these kind of deeds and will sadisticly hurt a LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE AGAIN. Only then this kind of totally limiting karma would occur ..basically that's another chance to start over and learn the lesson...

Anyway, point is just that the past life scenario discussed in Susan’s case did not even come near to this kind of karma. Simply the soul in the consensus state, just as many others do, followed the norms of its society in the past and having inherited great social power the soul misused it according to judgments that were based (as many times in history) on total delusion.


Blessings,

Lia
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 06:24 AM by Lia » Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2009, 08:25 AM »

...would like to add that I think I said everything -and perhaps more Grin! - that is there to say regarding this topic....  I agree with Pam this thread appears to be going to the wrong direction and becoming some sort of argument based on Bird's differing opinion, coming up with his dimly evolved idea...

With all respect to you both, Bird and Yarrow - of course you can have your personal opinions - however let’s respect the fact that this MB is for EA learning purposes: this learning is intended to take place via the lead of Rad and Deva and with the help of the EA council members.

I would like to publicly restate the fact that their lead has been agreed by all members of this council and it is based upon their supreme knowledge of EA. The in-depth knowledge they represent was passed onto them by Wolf himself in a very unique way.

What you read on this MB represents the original EA teachings of Wolf; and as such THIS IS what we represent.

You of course may not like what we represent; that's fine, then it may not be for you?


I personally see some gaps in both of your understanding regarding some of the EA principles and I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way, but I can only suggest learning more about the subject if you are interested. Please know, this does not mean that I would consider my understanding as "full" not at all, that's why I am just one of the members of the Council and accept the leading role of Rad and Deva. Being graduated from the school does not mean one knows everything there is to know. It is like any "degree" it is only a start for gaining the real knowledge via practice; and sometimes we need to learn from our mistakes on the way, as always in any area of life. 

In the same time I see Rad's knowledge as comparable to only Wolf's; and while I intend to help others in their study and share what I already know, I am still in the process of learning more via the invaluable inputs of Rad, also Deva and the others on this MB who generously share their wisdom. 

So, if you still disagree with the analysis presented here, and if you don’t wish to look further into the whys as what you may have missed or overlooked at the first place which resulted in the different analysis or guess you presented here, -well that’s fine too, than lets agree that you disagree and let’s move on.

Blessings,

Lia

 



Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 18956


« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2009, 10:15 AM »

Hi,

 Well certainly a 'lively' discussion about Ms.Boyle. It's important to remember that Evolutionary Astrology is, in the end, about the natural laws of cause and effect. And by understanding these natural laws as applied to the individual case of any Soul allows for an understanding of the causes and effects of their individual Soul's journey through time. In this way we then understand that all Soul's are responsible for the reality that they create. There are no victims as a result.
 The original question that Ari asked that set all this discussion in motion was this: "I'm confused when it comes to synthesis. How do we understand Pluto retro on nn in relation to the south node? What kind of past life story can we find in this chart? What would you say is the evolutionary intent in this life?"
  This is exactly the strength and beauty of Evolutionary Astrology for it is able to answer such questions from the point of view of natural laws as embodied in the natural law of cause and effect. What is the past for any of us that has caused or is responsible for the current life circumstances that we have created for ourselves.
  The answer that I gave to Ari's question demonstrates this natural law of cause and effect as applied to the past of Ms.Boyle by employing the Evolutionary Paradigm that Wolf taught. Lia's responses also reflect this understanding and, as a result, her analysis and statements about Ms.Boyle are well reasoned within the paradigm of Evolutionary Astrology. Any one is free to agree of disagree with this analysis by Lia and myself. But in so doing that disagreement should be rooted and expressed within the parameters of the Evolutionary Paradigm itself.
  And, above all else, all discussions amongst us should be of respect and consideration versus the pounding of one's chest as to who is 'right and wrong'. The last thing that will be tolerated on this message board is disrespect dissolving into cat fights of who is right and wrong.

  Rad
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 10:25 AM by Rad » Logged
birdwhistler
Member

Posts: 13


« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2009, 10:51 AM »


Hi

 Wolf always taught that we must consider individual context, observed context, that's Natural Law. He never taught to use imagined context.
As you well know there is a karma in misinterpreting and expressing that notion. You did it with Joan of Arc by misjudging her evolutionary state and then allowed that ill-rendering to stand. It is a great disservice to any Soul. I'm just glad Ms Boyle is not a member of this forum as she would again experience the trauma of false judgment.
 I'll leave you to pound your chest mr. global moderator
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 18956


« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2009, 01:06 PM »


Hi

 Wolf always taught that we must consider individual context, observed context, that's Natural Law. He never taught to use imagined context.
As you well know there is a karma in misinterpreting and expressing that notion. You did it with Joan of Arc by misjudging her evolutionary state and then allowed that ill-rendering to stand. It is a great disservice to any Soul. I'm just glad Ms Boyle is not a member of this forum as she would again experience the trauma of false judgment.
 I'll leave you to pound your chest mr. global moderator

 In reality Wolf taught us to understand the Evolutionary Paradigm that embraces the past of any Soul by way of the Signs, Houses, and Planets that are involved with a Soul's past. This is why he spent so much time teaching the importance of understanding the totality of the archetypes of each Sign, House, and Planet. And by having that understanding of the totality of the archetypes correlating to a Soul's past relative to the EA paradigm that this then establishes that 'context' of the past. There is nothing to 'imagine' as a result. He also taught that there are no victims, that each Soul is responsible for their own actions. There is indeed a natural law of cause and effect. Within the symbols of Ms.Boyle's chart the issue of wounding others through judgments could not be more blatant. That, indeed, establishes context. The effect of that cause then results. Many call this karma of course where every action has a proportionate reaction. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
  As I said before, and is stated as conditions for being part of this message board by the Administrator, abuse of others, mis-respect, and belligerance will not be tolerated. You are clearly demonstrating belligerance, etc. This is not what this message board needs whatsoever. I will notify the Administrator to have you removed from this message board. Until then all your posts will be deleted. Good luck and Godspeed.
Logged
yarrow8
Member

Posts: 15


« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2009, 01:11 PM »

Hi Bird,

I completely agree with you about Wolf's methodology. Observed context is the most important thing when reading a chart...the archetypes are to be read on top of what has actually occurred in an individual's life.

In regards to this forum, in particular Lia and Rad, I was under the impression that EA discouraged hierarchy and that we can all share our take on a chart while employing EA methodology. It seems to me that because a couple of people disagreed with an analysis (which would be pertinent to EA methodology, wouldn't it?) and said so, they were told to simply obey those in authority without questioning. This is something that I cannot stomach. If a fellow psychologist gave me a faulty hypothesis based on a case study, I (and any other peers involved) would point out the illogic of the hypothesis and the psychologist would be required to further prove his or her statements or retract them. I had hoped that those who claim to be teachers on this forum (and really, I'm just speaking to Lia and Rad here because they are claiming to be the authorities in most situations on this forum) would be a little more scientific in their approaches. This forum ought not to be a Sunday school where I must simply accept what I am told, no matter how illogical statements are. Of course, you need not worry about me "rocking the boat" further...I will not participate in this forum again and of course, I fully expect you to delete my posts because that's what free speech is all about, right?

Yarrow
  
Logged
Rad
Moderator
Most Active Member
*****
Posts: 18956


« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2009, 01:34 PM »

Hi Bird,

I completely agree with you about Wolf's methodology. Observed context is the most important thing when reading a chart...the archetypes are to be read on top of what has actually occurred in an individual's life.

In regards to this forum, in particular Lia and Rad, I was under the impression that EA discouraged hierarchy and that we can all share our take on a chart while employing EA methodology. It seems to me that because a couple of people disagreed with an analysis (which would be pertinent to EA methodology, wouldn't it?) and said so, they were told to simply obey those in authority without questioning. This is something that I cannot stomach. If a fellow psychologist gave me a faulty hypothesis based on a case study, I (and any other peers involved) would point out the illogic of the hypothesis and the psychologist would be required to further prove his or her statements or retract them. I had hoped that those who claim to be teachers on this forum (and really, I'm just speaking to Lia and Rad here because they are claiming to be the authorities in most situations on this forum) would be a little more scientific in their approaches. This forum ought not to be a Sunday school where I must simply accept what I am told, no matter how illogical statements are. Of course, you need not worry about me "rocking the boat" further...I will not participate in this forum again and of course, I fully expect you to delete my posts because that's what free speech is all about, right?

Yarrow
 

 Yarrow,

    This issue here is not disagreement of the analysis. The disagreements that were posted were simply statements without any Evolutionary Astrology being used in those disagreements. There were simply statements of disagreement. Disagreement if fine as long as  one then uses or employs EA itself to do so. In the initial analysis I specified the EA symbols that I was using that generated that analysis. For those who wish to disagree that is fine but, in so doing, to then use the symbols involved to do so. In this way meaningful discussions can take place between any of us here that actually utilize the language of EA.
 The observed context of any of our lives is about the nature of the current life that we all live. How does one 'observe' the past lifetimes, context, of another without having the ability to do so ? As in being able to 'see' into anothers past lifetimes ? If I have a client who, in the current life, has been raped how am I as an EA astrologer meant to understand the fact of that observed context ? And within that observation the persons who has been raped has lead a life that has no basis for being raped ? This is what directly connects to what Wolf taught in terms of Natural Laws, cause and effect, relative to a past in which the cause can be found for the current life observed fact of being raped. Nothing happens in a vacuum. And that, indeed, is the power of the EA paradigm as it relates to the past of any of us as the total determinant of the current life.
  Disagreement is fine. It is how that disagreement is expressed that is the issue here with Bird.

  Rad





 
Logged
Lia
Active Member
*
Posts: 135


« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2009, 03:38 PM »

Hi Yarrow,

I am really sad to see this....this kind of thing happened on Wolf's old message board and it is really a shame that it is happening now here....

The real point here: OF COURSE EVERYONE is free to discuss their take on any chart, but this does not mean WITHOUT any kind of reasoning and astro correlation. For that indeed would be nothing but "imagined context". That's the problem and it is kind of funny to see that this is what Bird is accusing Rad with - yet it is him who is doing this.

For Bird didn't give ONE SINGLE astro correlation to back up his idea and offer it for discussion. For that would be the way to go about it. And this is what I missed from him altogether. It could have been great to discuss his ideas no regards right or wrong, would he be open for discussion within the framework of the EA principles....

Rad analysis was based on astro correlations which can be followed and see through where it was coming from and where it led, backed by the planetary symbols.

With your example, if you go to a psychologist or a doctor who will base their diagnosis on nothing else just what they think in any moment, without ever CHECKING out the facts, and just insists on it because they said so, would that be good enough in your opinion?

I think testing and checking facts is the necessary probe of everything...every idea, intuition etc. By all means yes, go for it try it out test it, for it may prove to be true. But we need to be open for the possibility that it may not be right. How can we know that without any effort of checking it out and testing it in the light of the facts of reality itself?

But if someone has such a degree of personal pride that they can not accept even the possibility that they may be wrong at least time to time, and if they would not check any facts just say it is so, for that's what they think - well be honest Yarrow, is that the way to go?
Would you not say this attitude would make one a dangerous doctor for example? Or anything else they may do this way...

That's the point to begin with...there was no meaningful intellectual argument on Bird’s part other than saying he disagrees with Rad. Fine. But he didn’t say on what base, what correlations does he use, how he interprets them and so on...not a word on this just going on disagreeing then all of a sudden using highly disrespectful words and offending him ...is that really the way for an astrological or any kind of intellectual discussion? Is that what free speach means?

For honestly it appears to me the opposite, like if we don't agree with Bird we are hieracical, unscientific and who knows what...that's pretty much like personal judgments...I didn't hear Rad or anybody else ever doing this except the two of you...

To me this is the phenomena which can be called “false authority" insisting that people believe Bird just because he said so, and if there is an argument about the subject personal judgments come in the way....

I don't think if anyone needs that, everybody is just as human as teh next person....I did not hear Rad ever "reasoning" this kind of way, and it is NOT what Wolf taught he is highly against anything like this....

Again, from Bird's post any EA correlation was completely missing, while you were at least applying some although mistakenly; i.e. the dimly evolved state eye comparison in relation to Susan Boyle - though she is not in that state. But that's no big deal, we all make mistakes none of us are perfect, that's what makes us human....

It doesn’t matter “who is right” what matters is the fact that Bird didn’t reason but started to personally offend and judge....

He never answered to my attempt reasoning with him within the astro paradigm he just went back to what HE thinks and what HE feels without  justification. He said: "I don't see anything like that in the chart".
Right, and what does he see, did he say? Not one word...instead he said that Rad was judging the soul harshley and all this kinds of things.....Is that a well supported argument based on correlation and observation within the framework of astro reasoning? Or is that simply a personal opinion based on NOTHING but what he thinks....??

This is why I asked at the end to at least agree to disagree and if reasoning does not work at least lets respect the fact that this MB was created for learning purposes lead by Rad and Deva....it is certainly not about offending and impolitely judging those who share their views and back it up with the EA paradigm.....

I don’t see why asking to respect this MB for what it was set up for and asking to move on is about "hierarchy" in your view but I leave it there....

Appears to me you are good friends, it is great to be loyal to our friends of course, however I would like to ask for just one simple thing: apply objectivity...then help your friend to gain it too - perhaps a bit later once he/she calmed down. That would be a real service from a true friend ....For we all sometimes take things in a wrong way and make mistakes because of it; friends are there to help us in those times for we all are listening to them differently than to others ...

Anyway, that's of course just my suggestion......


Peace and blessings to you both,

Lia




Logged
adina
Active Member
*
Posts: 234


« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2009, 10:02 PM »

Hi to all,

Goodness gracious, as Lia said, it makes me sad to find this same KIND of discourse happening here, especially as we're finally getting a new MB going again and having some really good and deep analysis in different threads - analysis that has helped at least one soul at a very personal level and all of us in learning more about working with the EA paradigm.

I, too, have no problem with disagreement, just as Rad and Lia said, and again, it's the NATURE of what the disagreement is based ON and how it's approached and supported, in this case by using the paradigm itself and using the aspects, phases, etc. in stating one's arguements, just as we did when we wrote up homework for Wolf. We HAD to SUPPORT our arguements. And what I "heard" from Rad was simply that same thing - please support your arguement with the necessary astrological symbols/understanding. I'll leave that part because Rad and Lia covered it beautifully.

But I woud like to add, Bird Whistler, in relation to your statement you made about Rade above that, "As you well know there is a karma in misinterpreting and expressing that notion. You did it with Joan of Arc by misjudging her evolutionary state and then allowed that ill-rendering to stand. It is a great disservice to any Soul."  That is simply not so. Stacie reminded Rad that Wolf had put Joan of Arc in third stage spiritual and Rad did NOT let his "ill-rendering" stand; he DID correct his misstatement with the following post:

Hi Stacie,
 Thanks for saying that about Wolf. And, of course, he is right.When one remembers that one of the things that Wolf taught about that 3rd Stage within the Spiritual Stage is that as the Soul evolves through it that their 'name', as in Joan of Arc , can transcend the individuals actual life and live on into the future and become progressively widely known as hers has. And many others at this level of evolution. Thanks for pointing that out.


Good, honest disagreement backed with astrological reasoning tied to the symbols can be lively and educational. It can also be done in a manner that's courteous and respectful of others, so I hope you can see a different way of looking at this current "discussion," birdwhistler.

Peace and Blessings,
Adina
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Video