To say that no progress has been made in Metaphysics is incorrect. Only if you define progress via the tenets of Science could this hold true. When
one makes up the Rules it is easy to make the game play as you desire.
I acknowledge the great strides made by Science and the usefulness of it's methods but there are truths which, while real and valid, simply are not
easy to contain with the 'box'. If something happens to me, a one time event that leaves no physical evidence, or any other way for Science to
investigate, does that mean it did not happen? Of course not, but as far as Science is concerned it is untestable and of no consequence.
To accomplish the goals set for it, Science must constantly expand it's boundaries, the rules change, because they must. But no matter how far those
boundaries extend they remain a finite attempt to explain an infinite Reality. The further Science looks, the more of Metaphysics that is accepted as
valid. Chaos theory anyone?
how does one critique the quatrains of nastrodamus?
Just to pick a single example, but like anything these should be evaluated based on their contents. If someone makes a prediction, or better yet, a
set of predictions then the test is 'Are they correct'. If they are then there is something there, if not, then there is not.
The goals of Metaphysics do not, to me anyway, really align with those of Science. The former is about people and their connection to Reality, while
the latter is a study of Reality from an objective, hence non-personal point of view.
What I have seen happening is that over time Metaphysics has been moving from the 'spooky' to the accepted. The best example I can think of involves
the concept of Stress and physical illness. It has long been accepted in Metephysics that your emotions have direct physical consequences. These
extend far beyond a flushed face when angry. If you sustain a Stress-filled life you will eventually find your physical form breaking down, you get
How many people here are old enough to remember when medical Doctors scoffed at this idea. Anyone besides me have to listen to a MD say 'that is a
bunch of mystical nonsense'? Not today though, questions about Stress are involved in any basic medical exam. There is no throwing away of the basic
concept, it is simple and exactly the same thing that mystics have been saying since time began, only now it has the AMA seal of approval.
The progress that Metaphysics makes is slow, we are hampered by old beliefs, but it is progress.
Astrology is one of those things that remains mysterious. I am not talking about the future prediction part which every seems to fixate on, I am
speaking of the personal understanding that is really what it is about. I have never seen anyone who, upon having a full chart drawn by a skilled
worker, was not to some degree amazed.
But I can make it even simplier, I have a book that with a set of basic charts, allows anyone to look up both their Sun Sign, and their Moon Sign.
Even at that level, completely lacking the Intuition that is considered by most to be essential, the results are never anything less than surprising.
What is even more amazing is that people change as they grow, they adopt new attitudes and other changes in personality. So you would think that the
older a person is, the more likely such a simple book-based method would become less and less accurate. This is the case to a small degree, but much
less than makes logical sense.
Why does this work? I really do not know I just know that it does. And for anyone who does not believe me I can only suggest: Try It. You need both
Sun and Moon signs but if you find the results are better than 50% accurate (better than random chance) then you might want to rethink.
After you have done that, try something else. Randomly flip to another page with a different Sun/Moon Combo and see how accurate that is. If this is
just random guessing then you should be able to easily find a different combo that is just as accurate.
Oh, and to avoid self-delusion, ask someone who knows you to evaluate your results. Compare their analysis with your own.
[edit on 7/28/05 by Alexander Tau]