Micheal Proxon wrote: >Padraic, do you mean astronomers or astrologers, or is this a >"coniversion?" >It's just that the former (of which I'm one) don't like being confused with >the latter ;-)) >-'coz if they're studying the physical universe they're definitely >astronomers! Gotta disagree. Whereas I hate astronomy and astrology being confused as much as the next guy, I can't agree that studying the actual physical universe is the test between them. Surely were, say, the Mayan or Babylonian priests who studied the heavens to acertain the will of the Gods astrologers, but they nontheless studied REAL planets and stars. I'd rather say that the difference is what kind of study we're dealing with; if they're subjecting the heavens to scientific examination they're astronomers, if they take a more mystic view they're astrologers. Then, Padraic's coniverse may be one where astrology is true. If so, it's hardly meaningful to maintain a distinction between astronomy and astrology. Andreas >Padraic wrote > > An interesting problem. I'm sure most of us must have encountered > > it. In my own coniverse (agreed, nice word; I move we add it to > > our lexicon), astrology isn't so advanced *there* that there is a > > native concept equivalent of "universe". [Personally, I refer to > > it simply as "the World", because that's what an older cousin > > called it.] Astrologers call it "qellorum pantallon", or bowl of > > the heavens. Philosophers usually call it "estades", or that > > which is; and "allares", or everything. Mind you, the two > > concepts are different: the astrologers are studying a physical > > place with Sun, stars, planets, etc.; while the philosophers are > > looking as much at a spiritual place. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.