Richard Tarnas's View of Cosmology/Consciousness

[WSEN]

Can you guys debunk what he is trying to say?

This is from realitysandwich.com/98/psyching_out_cosmos

Thanks

According to contemporary cosmology, our solar system emerged from titanic accidents. Gases swirling together in the void of deep space randomly formed stars and planets; eventually, the whole show will collapse back into nullity. This perspective, developed from the Renaissance to the present, stands as a great achievement of the modern mind. It also deviates radically from the ancients’ conception of a universe saturated with meaning and purpose, where human activity reflects the movements of the celestial bodies. The basis of Hermetic philosopher was, “As above, so below.” Seemingly crushed by the rise of scientific materialism in the West, this worldview has now been rephrased in a new book that proposes a startling reversal of paradigms.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide attribution to the source.

 

[dlorde]

In the woo stakes, I prefer homeopathy - it's a better class of woo than astrology.

However, if you separate the supposed attributes and influences of the planets, shuffle them and reassign them to different planets, then do the whole cherry-picking historical analysis again, you'll come up with another bunch of nonsense, every bit as unsupportable and unconvincing as what Tarnas has come up with.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

First, there's nothing to debunk - there's no evidence offered.

Secondly, while I didn't read to the end of the whole wall of text, what I did read was the usual astrology bunk - vague enough statements and almost certainly cherry-picked "coincidences" that you can make anything fit anything, should you so choose.

Our illustrious host, with the help of some friends, did a wonderful illustration of how such wishy-washy stuff can be applied to anyone:

 

[tsig]

Can you guys debunk what he is trying to say?

This is from realitysandwich.com/98/psyching_out_cosmos

Thanks

According to contemporary cosmology, our solar system emerged from titanic accidents. Gases swirling together in the void of deep space randomly formed stars and planets; eventually, the whole show will collapse back into nullity. This perspective, developed from the Renaissance to the present, stands as a great achievement of the modern mind. It also deviates radically from the ancients’ conception of a universe saturated with meaning and purpose, where human activity reflects the movements of the celestial bodies. The basis of Hermetic philosopher was, “As above, so below.” Seemingly crushed by the rise of scientific materialism in the West, this worldview has now been rephrased in a new book that proposes a startling reversal of paradigms.

...

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of text from elsewhere. Instead, cite a short quote and provide attribution to the source.

When the moon is in the third house and the Star of Asteja is cut short so shall your post be reduced by a mod.


I further prophesy that failure to comply with the MA will make your stay nasty, brutish and short.

 

[dafydd]

''A startling reversal of paradigms'' is a sure pointer to new age woo.

 

[PixyMisa]

Can you guys debunk what he is trying to say?

"Show your equations."

 

[wollery]

In my considered opinion as an astronomer I would say that his thesis is utter bollocks with a hint of balderdash and overtones of hogwash.

 

[Aepervius]

In my considered opinion as an astronomer I would say that his thesis is utter bollocks with a hint of balderdash and overtones of hogwash.

You could also have said it was like a shooting star condemned to burn into the atmosphere.
Something more astronomical .

 

[wollery]

You could also have said it was like a shooting star condemned to burn into the atmosphere.
Something more astronomical .

I could, but then I would have been likening it to something actually scientific.