LPiA-24 Nov. 30

[RiverNotch]

RiverNotch a serious question. I get your point about the zodiac signs being from observations thousands of years ago, but does that make the poem totally redundant? Or is a ridiculous answer a reasonable response to a ridiculous question like, "what star sign are you"? 
I ask, just in case I was thinking about trying to make it better. I can see possible ways of editing that could change it if it were an issue.

Then again I might read it in a couple of days and not like it (but secretly i think i do like it) but not if it doesn't work.

Cheers

i don't think it does. for me personally it's fun to poke fun at modern astrologisers because they tend to be so far removed from what astrology traditionally -- and in the grand scheme of things, "normally" -- is, kinda like poking fun at folks who push prosperity theology, and such poking fun necessarily welcomes many different perspectives

add.: the original idea behind astrology was "scientific", insofar as people had no real way of knowing better. they could see the stars above, they could see seven of them (including the sun and moon, but excluding uranus and neptune) moved a certain way, they could connect those movements with the changes in their surroundings (the most palpable, if excluding the effects of the sun coincidental, being the changes of the seasons)....once the stars were demonstrated to be what we now know them to be, which only definitively occurred less than half a millennium ago, only then did that sort of way of thinking become, not so much illogical, as scientifically unsupportable (for all we know, their gravitic and electromagnetic effects *do* have some impact on us, only it's so minute as to be practically immeasurable), and it was at this point that the emphasis shifted from planets (whence mercurial, venereal, martial, jovial, saturnine, and of course lunatic, among other words) to signs (i don't think Shakespeare ever referred to anyone as being a Gemini) moved, since star signs were much easier to "psychologise", i.e. to make so illogical as to seem, for the scientifically illiterate, perfectly compatible with science.

i think people who choose to continue traditional astrology today are somewhat respectable, since they still have some logic behind their work, even if the premises behind that logic aren't perfectly agreeable -- at the very least, astrology still plays a part in the major religions of taoism and hinduism, afaik -- but "modern" astrology seems to exist solely to make money, and the hustle, in terms of taste, has its limits xD

that said, the way folks use star signs in pop culture -- Geminis as really creative but somewhat two-faced, from Raja the drag queen to Kendrick Lamar referring to himself as such in a few songs -- shows some promise. they never seem to play around with the star signs to suggest they seriously believe in them, though, or at least i don't think they do