Controversial

I gave a speech today on how people can 1. Figure out who they are and who they want to be, 2. Find what they seek, and 3. Find what holding them back and overcome it.

My solutions to finding The Self were: Buddhism/Christianity/"The Divine", Zodiac Signs, and Freud's views on Ego.

Apparently my speech was Controversial in some ways. Not in religion, which I made a point not to preach on but merely show the benefits of adopting a higher level of reasoning and guidance from religions in general. Not in Freud's views which are also partially substantiated in Buddhism as well. But in the Zodiac Signs.

Damn people. The Signs are complicated because some people are raised in cultures that believe in them too much and other people are raised in cultures that believe in them too little or not at all. I was presenting to people in both categories.

People raised in Eastern Cultures are brought up to acknowledge the Zodiac signs as a way of understanding life -they learn it as they would the Alphabet. A common truth of life. They can also place too much emphasis on them with very little knowledge to back their views up, which makes the Signs look uninformed and invalid instead of the person talking about them.

Then there are Westerners who believe in certain stereotypes associated with their signs and either don't know the full details behind them or don't see any validity to them.

Both groups have a disposition of thinking a certain way about he Zodiac signs that comes from a lack of true research/ understanding of them. No wonder Zods aren't taken seriously. No one does research and even if they did most of the info on the signs is generic and unfounded. You have to really look for the True Sign Info that is out there. You have to track it down.

So I was called out for speaking on a "pseudo science" that is "controversial" and has no real founding. I've never heard anyone call the signs controversial, and I honestly didn't understand why.

Things that do with religion for example are almost always controversial (See Ghosts and Witchcraft). But the signs have nothing to do with Science or Religion. They may have come from "pagan" times, but they have been carried on over the centuries and not associated with any religion. The signs Transcend religion and ultimately have little or no mention in any.

As for science, Science measures things like chemicals/velocity/physical planes of this planet/ meteorites/ geology/ molecules... not Psychology or Human Behavior. That's Sociology, which is not necessarily Scientific. You wouldn't call the study of human personality an exact science. But you also wouldn't call it a fake science. It isn't science related, it's just a study that develops theories on human behavior.

So me and this individual got into a disagreement. He said it was controversial because it was fake and had no validity to it. I asked if he had done actual research on it, and he rolled his eyes and said no. I said, Well there you go. Some sources are unreliable and have false information on Zodiac signs, but if you do real research on the topic you will see consistencies to it that show its validity." He smiled ans said, "You're entitled to your opinion" -which is a polite way of saying "I think you're an idiot, have fun believing in your stupidity".

But that's when I remembered, scientists can't believe in certain things. They aren't allowed to or suppose to acknowledge or claim to believe certain things if they want others to believe they are knowledgeable. Aliens for example may be something some scientists genuinely believe exist based on evidence they've seen, but they are not suppose to believe in aliens and cannot speak about the topic because if hey do they will run the risk of losing credibility among others and their peers. Same goes for Bigfoot and leprechauns. I guess Zodiac signs wound up in that category too. So even if a scientist were to see validity in the zod system, that person could not actually say so for fear of being thought inconsistent or uneducated.

Ironically science itself is based on people who were open to test theories seen as controversial or invalid. The Earth revolving around the sun, the Earth being flat, gravity, germs, inherited traits, genes, evolution... all were controversial and deemed irrational lines of thought in their own time. Science needs people who aren't afraid to explore outside of the box and find truths others don't naturally believe in. It's called Discovering Truth for a reason. It's not that the Truth isn't there from the beginning staring people right in the face, it's just that people haven't acknowledged it yet.