Re: KT's birth data

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

Loren Moore answered me:

>Now that I have a bit more time, I'd like to respond at length...
>
 chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>   Not to *FLAME*?!?! Call me closed minded and I'll call that a flame. Take
>> responsibility for your actions, rather than "wishing upon the stars." You
>> started this.

>Yes, I started this. I posed a question related to my beliefs about
>astrology, and it's relation to Kate. I admit that these are not popular
>beliefs. I merely wanted to know what her birth data was. I did not flame
>anyone in my original post, I just asked for the data (to which I still 
>have not even a hint of). If anybody at least knows the mm/dd/yy of her
>birth, I would still like to know.

   Yes, but you *did* rather snottily flame me in your response to my
answer. *NO ONE* other than Kate's close family and friends would know
that. It is *not* in the fannish record. (Possibly to prevent just this
sort of "investigation".)

>btw, I don't 'wish upon the stars', I merely like to see what they have
>to say about me (which is quite significant, when you look at my full chart).

   Guess what *my* sign is (please, if anyone reading this knows, please
don't help him.) One fool went through *all the other signs* before
guessing the correct one.

>quite impressive Kate background deleted...
>>   So, do you think we qualify as "TRUE-KATE-FANS"?

>Well, insomuch as a TRUE-KATE-FAN can be, I guess you are. I would have to 
>define this as 'someone who is quite fanatical about Kate'. I am one myself.
 
>>    She has explored a great many silly things, astrology being one.
>> What her level of belief is, is questionable. She said: "I believe it's
>> a very old science..." (this may not be exact. Ron?)

>In the song notes for 'Strange Phenomena', she said: "It's all about
>coincidences. And there's in fact a school of thought about that called,
>well it's Synchronicity". This is Carl Jung's theory. It's one of the
>prevailing beliefs as to why Astrology works. The general idea is that 
>events on earth of a certain nature coincide in time with astronomical 
>events of a similar nature.

   The Kate Bush Fan Club newsletter had a section for syncronicities. 
There are other schools of thought on syncronicities and deja vu, having
to do with the nature of perception of time, and "perceptual slippage."
Jung had as many flakey ideas as valid ones. I wouldn't rely on him.

>>   Kate believing in something has *nothing* to do with my beliving in that
>> thing. Kate may have introduced me to some concepts, but the idea of believing
>> in something just because *she* believes it is, at best, pathetic.

>I said she was a major influence upon me. I don't see how she could have been
>otherwise.

   There is a level of fandom that one eventually reaches that allows
one to see the object of one's adoration as another human being, another
person possessing flaws. Kate was the victim of a Catholic school, a
process that seemed to result in the need to find some new theology to
replace the doctrine that she rejected.  

   Think for yourself. Also, it should be pointed out that *most* of
what _you_ believe _she_ believes is supposition. Kate's songs are
*storys* first and foremost. She reveals as little of herself as
possible in her lyrics, hiding behind characters. Be aware of how much
of your own beliefs you are projecting onto her. 

   I (and others) have studied every available word she has spoken and
written. In spite of this, I cannot claim to "know" her mind half as
well as those of my close friends.

> I love and respect her music so deeply (and we're talking
>intuitively and spiritually here) that I was open to the ideas. Thereafter, 
>when I was further exposed to astrology, I chose to believe, on my own.

   You may rest assured that what Ron quoted was every single word that
Kate has had to say on the subject in hundreds of interviews. Very
little to base your claim of her deep influence on your own beliefs.

> All
>of this is in light of a previous 'born again' experience which happened
>years ago, and was a major wall to overcome. I mention Kate's spiritual
>influence because it was just that. It allowed me to see that there is more
>to our universe than is seen in our present philosophies. Just another Jewel
>in the Lotus, if I may.

   Any worthwhile philosophy should be (IMO) self-consistent. It sounds,
(again this is opinion) like you have an ill-thought-out grab-bag
of beliefs. If it works for you, fine. But don't blame Kate.

   If it's any consolation, from what little we can surmise of Kate's
beliefs, they appear to be a similar jumble.

>I don't intend to preach. I usually don't like to preach. A man will believe
>what he wishes to believe, and nothing else. Synergize this with my beliefs
>on Existentialism. The two don't seem to mesh at all.

   The human mind is a wonderful thing. It doesn't *require*
consistency. Many people are capable of living long, happy lives without
the slightest taint of it.

> And yet, I can see
>a territory to explore. My beliefs are my own, and they are unfinished. Take
>all of this in light of my being a Sagittarius (philosophy, student, gypsy).

   Please. (Sorry, that was a gimme.)

>Anyway, it makes sense to me. You will believe what you wish. But, until
>you study it indepth (and I'm not talking the newspaper, pop-astrology, which
>has given it a bad name), don't judge it. Have you ever had your chart read
>by a reputable astrologist?

   No, nor have I had the bumps on my head read by a reputable
phreneologist, my tea leaves read by a reputable tea leaf reader, or
my palm read by a reptuable plam reader. 

   Highly organized nonsense is of no more intrinsic worth than random
nonsense. Astrolgy is very aged nonsense devised by folks who believed
that the stars were painted on a some sort of shell surrounding the
earth. It matters little if the motions of the stars are plotted in
a computer, or via carefully placed pebbles and rocks. No data, no
matter how exhaustively processed, has any value if the underlying
suppositions are false. 

   My Dad was a magician, and most of our family friends were show
business folks. My "uncle" Billy Papon was a "mentalist," and had an
act of reading minds, telling peple what card they had picked, knowing
exactly what was in their wallet of purse, etc.

   Did he possess "powers?" No, of course not. But I am continually
amazed at the people who are able to fall for Uri Geller-types, 
insisting that, even though people like my uncle were doing the same
thing, this other guy was "real."

>>   I have infinite respect for Kate as an artist, but Kate Bush is *not* known
>> as a philosopher.

>Maybe not. But, I know she touches me in ways that no mere mortal can. And
>that's true for Jane Siberry, Peter Gabriel, Tear Garden, Samuel R. Delany,
>George MacDonald. All have been influences of their own. In some way, I hope
>I can repay this vast spiritual energy by giving back of my own.

   I hope that you can repay this vast intellectual energy by expending
some of your own. Learn Astronomy. It'll destroy any belief in
Astrology.

   We share many of the same tastes, but in the struggle against
entrophy, I have not succumbed to the siren song of easy answers.

>> > Just the fact that she's a Leo is significant (roars forth like a
>> > lion; needs to be on stage).
>> 
>>   Uh...how many Kate interviews have you seen? You would be hard-pressed
>> to find a quieter, more self-effacing person at her level of fame.
>> 
>>    Uh...are you aware *how* long it has been since she has fulfilled this
>> burning need to be on stage? She hasn't toured in over a decade.

>Leo's are the hardest type I've had to recognize.

   ...umm-hmmm

> Some of them are downright
>pushy. Many of them are excitable.

    ...Kate is neither...

> All of them are interesting, in one way
>or another, to me (probably because of the fire in me).

    ....hardly going out on a limb here...

> But they can be
>difficult to figure out. 

    ...in fact it doesn't appear that you've found the tree...

>This is part of what I could learn from studying her
>chart.

    ...far less than one could learn from reading three random
interviews..

> For instance, maybe she has a Virgo Ascendant, which would tend to 
>make her shy, and reserved, to other people.

   ..maybe she has a Hoover in her closet making her a good
house-keeper. 

 But this info can't be 
>ascertained unless you know the hour/minute of her birth.

   Successive levels of refinement will do *nothing* to repair a
faulty premiss.

> On the other hand,
>you CAN still tell quite alot about a person if you merely know the day.
>PLEASE, that was what I wanted in the first place. Anyone? Anyone?

    The *Date* in in the damn FAQ, re-posted two days ago! You wanted to
know the hour and minute.

>> > but hey, thanks for playing! and for being such a good sport, your concession
>> > prize is: The complete works of Barry Manilow (volumes 1-10).
>> 
>>   Prat.

>So, now you're calling me a buttocks?
>Oh well.

   You were behaving like one (see above). Actually it's a Kate in-joke. 
It's something Kate called someone who insisted on asking her stupid
questions. 


                                Chris Williams of
                                Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                                chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                vickie@njin.rutgers.edu        (hers)
                                katefans@chinet.chi.il.us      (ours)