Subject: Re: Отношение РПЦ к астрологии 
Replies: 22318 22326
Date   : 20 Sep 2003 11:09 GMT
From   : Lena Teissier [LG] (chanellg@hotmail.com)
To     : Sergey Evtushenko [Ardashir] (consult@arimoya.spb.ru)

 SE>   В 1994 году состоялся АРХИЕРЕЙСКИЙ СОБОР РПЦ, на котором астрология была
 SE> отнесена в разряд дисциплин, которые несовместимы с учением христианской
 SE> церкви.

а не подскажет ли уважаемое собрание, как РПЦ относится к физикам-теоретикам?
Особенно тем, которые занимаются суперструнными теориями? 

Кстати, если вдруг пропустили (простите, что на англицком, влом переводить
самой):

"Are there any serious students of behavior? Medical researchers have for a long
time recognized that folk remedies often work. Ethnobotanists examine the
healing use of herbs by primitive people, who don''t know what molecules are,
but when the herb works, it works, and therefore it gets incorporated into
scientific medicine. If nobody knows how it works, somebody finds out. Folklore
is a rich source of new information. But you don''t hear about modern
psychologists out mining the world of folklore for new concepts. You don''t hear
about it because it's not done. 


They're stuck with a loose set of theories of learning and behavior that
completely ignore a vast area of human understanding that begins with the
premise that all men are definitely not created equal. They are divided into a
complex array of different types that can be at least sorted out, if not
partially understood, by looking at the positions of the planets in the sky at
the site and time of their birth. Preposterous, but it is true, and it is
scientifically accessible. Furthermore, these various types of people are
affected differentially by the continued movement and rearrangements of those
same planets for the rest of their lives. They come in and out of cyclical
bursts of creativity, periods of deep depression, warm fulfilling experiences,
horrible losses, and on and on. 

How can somebody call himself a student of human behavior and hang out a shingle
offering to help humans solve their problems without at least studying
astrology? How could an institution of higher learning grant someone a Ph.D. in
psychology without requiring at least a few courses in astrology? If
psychologists were doing okay, that is, if they had a good track record for
freeing their patients from the pain that they pay good money to sort out and be
relieved of, then I could see why the good head doctors could thumb their noses
at the folklore of astrology, but nobody would be so demented as to imagine for
a moment that when you go to a shrink you get anything resembling good mental
health. If you are lucky in your choice of psychologist, maybe you won''t do
yourself in this year, but no one expects a human in chronic emotional pain to
get a miracle cure. In other words, psychology is practiced by a bunch of
well-paid incompetents. They can't fix a broken heart. 

They ought to be looking around for some new theories. Freud, Jung, Maslow -
they were cool, fun to read maybe - but we''re still neurotic, and some of us
still jump off bridges. Astrology by itself is not the answer to all our
problems any more than herbs from the Amazon witch doctor, but it''s a shame to
waste such a vast and ancient resource because of the simple fact that our
modern witch doctors are too frozen in their attitudes to take a look around. 

I don't go to shrinks. Would you take your car to a mechanic who refused to
acknowledge the existence of separate makes and models? Astrology also contains
a deep mystery or two that should whet the appetite of any curious student of
"what''s going on in the universe." How the hell does my brain have any way of
knowing about the relative position of the planets before I learned how to use
the Nautical Almanac? It must somehow be in touch with these things either
directly or indirectly since it seems to be affected by them. And the "how" of
that should be as interesting to a physiologist as to a sociologist, or a
psychiatrist, even a physicist. The fact that it is correlated with these things
can be easily established by observing the nonrandom distribution of birthdays
among various professions. 

A recent scientific study of the distribution of medical students in birth
months discovered that a lot of medical students were born in late June. They
postulated that it was because the sun was up earlier and so there was more
light for them right away and they could be outside and therefore would get
interested in biology. Well, that was bullshit. It''s the same in Australia, and
the sun is not up early in June down in the antipodes. Successful applicants to
medical school do not come equally from each month. They cluster around
Gemini-Cancer in both hemispheres. More biochemists are born in Sagittarius.
Lawyers have their own distribution, and some people claim reasonably that
lawyers hatch from eggs and eat their own young - not enough obviously - so they
have their own separate problems. Sociology has so far turned a blind eye to
these things. It could be that''s one of the reasons sociology is so boring and
such a worthless science. It''s pedantic and uninformed." 

"Dancing Naked in the Mind Field" by Kary B. Mullis

http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1993/mullis-autobio.html

----

И ещё (но не кстати, просто интересно) - а что уважаемое собрание думает о
западном и сидерическом зодиаках? Чем пользуемся и почему? Как долго догмы
Птолемея будут преобладать над умами вполне здравых людей?