Most of the first scientists were alchemists, as alchemy preceded science, and one of the three pillars of Alchemy is astrology. Most of the effect of astrology is not in the material, but in the Astral, the creative energy flowing from the source through all things, also the place of dreams and imagination. Modern science is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it is because it has forgotten that, among other important, integral things.
Lad here's one you can have a future read into, The Sun has the same day cycle as male hormones and the Moon the same monthly cycle of female hormones.
Depending on where the moon is in it's lunar cycle can tell you when she's in a 'mood'.
just so, they do. the native people literally called it Moon time. and some of them gave women a week off in a hut just for that time, because their energy was "too strong", which, is a very sensible position, for all concerned. (it actually helps the balance to be kept better) women cycle so much faster, it is easy for some deficiency or even just stress, to knock them off balance, more so than men. and no one enjoys that.
Well done, in my opinion. But you write at the start, "This post also explores promising investigative leads to hopefully one day tie us back to the cosmos." I don't think the cosmos itself has let go of us, all human thoughts and perceptions to the contrary.
Also, the problems you describe dogging scientific examination of astrology also dog science in all of its many inquiries. Looking at any one new 'hot' topic of inquiry in scientific literature, you'll see the results of different scientists and research groups into the particular question initially vary almost randomly, and seem completely noisy and almost entirely inconclusive at first. It's hard to get a clear focus on figuring out new problems very well until you've tried working with them for a while.
Very interesting. I think a lot of the problem as you stated is the lost knowledge of why we do things and so our ancient knowledge of the universe has been lost to the ages.
I like to think that yes we are tied to the cosmos, that everything is is cyclical and we as humans have a greater purpose; to think otherwise means we are nothing more than specks of microbes floating in a vaccum
I just got really into astrology starting right about the beginning of this year, and so I was very interested to read this article, which I enjoyed.
I know astrology is a big and deep topic, but I thought I would tell you about some things that I have learned that I think are important and you might find interesting.
You mentioned that there two zodiacs due to axial precession. There are not actually two zodiacs, as everyone generally agrees that there are 12 signs, they go Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc., they are ruled by these planets, etc. etc.
The difference is actually due to where the zodiac begins: usually, Western astrology uses the "tropical zodiac", which puts 0degrees Aries at the ascending equinox. Usually, Vedic astrology uses a "sidereal zodiac", which fixes a certain point of the zodiac to a certain star. There are actually a lot of sidereal zodiacs because there are a lot of different places/stars people think the zodiac should start; where it should start is called "ayanamsha". The most common one is called Lahiri ayanmsha, which puts 0degrees Libra at the star Spica.
Often people will say the sidereal Lahiri zodiac is "astronomically correct" because the signs on the horoscope match up with the constellations. However, this is false. The star Spica is in the middle of the constellation Virgo. So the most common sidereal zodiac used puts 0degrees Libra in the middle of the constellation of Virgo. (https://humanhaven.substack.com/p/sidereal-is-not-astronomically-accurate)
However, the point I really want to make and that I think everyone should consider is: what exactly is the source of the qualities that the signs impart? Is it some arbitrary collections of stars which, as you pointed out, rarely look like anything they are said to look? No, it isn't. The constellations don't have anything to do with astrology as it should be practiced, in my opinion. (Perhaps those stars do affect us, but the planets affect us much much more than stars light-years away, so we need to understand their effects first, we need to understand our own solar system before going beyond it.)
The signs are actually a division of the ecliptic. That is all. They are not seasons either. The Sun has four main points in it path: when it ascends over the horizon of the Earth, i.e., the equator, when it is most north in the sky, when it descends over the horizon of the Earth, and at its most southern point. These points are called ascending equinox, northern solstice, descending equinox, and descending solstice, Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn, respectively, and they are the same regardless of which hemisphere you are in. However, there definitely exists a northern hemisphere bias, so the ascending equinox is often called the "spring equinox", which it is in the northern hemisphere.
The signs are an esoteric way of understanding the relationship between the Sun and the Earth, which is what the tropical zodiac describes. The signs are not constellations!
I personally am studying Vedic astrology using the tropical zodiac. The sidereal zodiac has a long history in India for many reasons, but as I don't believe the constellations affect us, it doesn't make sense to me to use that. (Here is a video about the history of the zodiac in India: https://youtu.be/NBcyZSk38uE?si=zOHpv24Rn4Ekk5Ji)
I think it is unfortunate that Vedic astrology is associated with the sidereal zodiac and Western astrology with the tropical zodiac, because you can do both kinds of astrology with either zodiac, and people do. Truly, the difference is primarily one of technique. It is true that there are cultural/religious elements that are often associated with Vedic astrology, however, it is completely possible to use the techniques and reinterpret their meaning in a more culturally appropriate way for yourself.
In truth, Vedic astrology has many many more techniques and that is generally why it is more accurate, even using the sidereal zodiac. One that I will mention is called the vargas, or divisional charts. For example, in the second varga (D2), one divides each sign into two. If the planet is in the first half of the sign, it stays in that sign. If it is in the second half, it goes to the opposite sign. The D2 chart is then used to interpret a persons wealth, or more generally 2nd house concerns.
The most common varga is called the navamsha, the D9. Basically, you split each sign into 9 equal parts, which makes 108 parts in the whole zodiac. Then starting at the 1st part in Aries you write the numbers 1 through 12 continuously. Then a planet in a part labelled 1 go to Aries in the D9, in a part labelled 9 goes to Sagittarius in the D9, and so on. The D9 is used to interpret someone's marriage, or their life path in general.
Basically, varga charts are gradations of the signs of the natal chart, which aid interpretation.
This is just one example of something Vedic astrology has that is very very useful which doesn't exist in Western astrology. And you can use it with tropical or sidereal both. I suppose it is similar to the Sabian Symbols (...which as I understand it was the original example of "degree astrology"), yet probably more powerful over all.
Thanks for the detailed comment, Josh. This is interesting stuff. You spend a good amount of time analyzing which system is better than the other, and why one makes more sense than another. I understand the impulse. Perhaps both systems may be of value, though, so long as it has been properly calibrated by adjusting its method to be in accordance with future predictive abilities? The concept of synchronicity was hinted at in footnote 6 in the post, but I preferred to stick to scientific data in the post itself...
I will quote Ernst Junger on what I mean here. “Astrology is rooted in a very ancient lore, next to which I might possibly put the art of chess and other phenomena of that ilk. It’s a different way of combining things, but since everything in the world forms a coherent whole, this too has to make sense. Naturally, I could devise some kind of soothsaying - in coffee grounds or whatever; it’s impossible for that not to have some form of accuracy. But one should simply not reduce everything to a purely personal destiny.”
It was Carl Jung, considered by gnostic Stephan Hoeller to be the greatest gnostic of our time who came up with the idea of synchronicity, where events seem to be related without any casual connection. If we are to believe that material reality is the lowest form of reality, that “As Above, So Below”, then doing an open minded deep dive into any kind of esoteric system may shine light on reality as a whole. In other words, historical methods of divination such as via the Tarot, rune casting, tea-leaf reading, automatic writing, water scrying, casting the bones, or deciphering the flight of birds if approached with the right motivation and attitude (a big if) may also shed light on this bizarre reality of ours. The same logic may apply to the ancient art of entrail reading or haruspicy after animal sacrifice as a form of divination, as practiced so intensely by Julian the Apostate within the cult of Mithras…
Under this approach, both Western and Vedic astrology likely have value...
From my point of view I don't feel like I'm analyzing which system is better than another, rather I'm trying to understand what is going on and what we are actually talking about. I was comparing the two zodiacs, not the systems of Western and Vedic; I don't actually know anything about Western astrology so I am not qualified to compare it to anything.
I had been familiar with the tropical vs. sidereal debate years ago, but I didn't actually understand it, so when I became actively interested in astrology recently I needed to truly understand what was going on, and this is the main intention behind most of what I have written so far. Most people on YouTube, for example, who comment on this issue clearly don't understand the technical differences between the two zodiacs and yet make claims about them, which frustrates me and which I would like to remedy.
As to synchronicity, historical methods of divination, and soothsaying by coffee grounds, all of that is certainly true and exists. Any kind of astrology can be understood in that way, and in that sense it certainly doesn't matter which zodiac you use, or what methods you use, as long as they work to stimulate your intuition. However, doing so cannot be called scientific, so if that is what astrology is, then, no, it is not and can never be scientific.
If however we want to study astrology scientifically, or demonstrate its scientific validity, then astrology itself has to apply scientific methods and be more rigorous and explicit about its foundations and methods. This is the vein in which I wrote the post I linked in my comment. If you want to rely on intuition and synchronicity to do astrology, that is fine and you can use whatever zodiac and method you want.
However, if we want astrology to have any scientific validity, then we need to start on a firm foundation. If someone says they use the sidereal zodiac because it is "astronomically accurate" then there is no foundation upon which science could happen, because that claim is itself false.
I submit that astrology can function in way similar to any form of divination, which is as an aid to the subtle sense. If one is looking for hard proof, such is often sought in specifics and details-yet the essence of any aid is to avoid crippling the subtle sense with too much determinism. Thus symbols and definitions must be open ended enough to allow for deep recognition of the subject. There is no hard and fast rule for this, since the connection between querent and reader is dynamic, of varying strength, and limited through time.
Years ago, an astrologer summed up his craft by describing it as "a beautiful language". I find this definition to be both poetic and accurate to this day.
In short, the veracity of astrology rests on a different set of requirements than that of traditional science. While science has no solution for consciousness, or the observer, astrology is fully occupied with both!
Unless of course you are talking about the true sidereal system (masteringthezodiac.com).
However, I personally don't believe any sidereal zodiac is "correct", because I don't believe that the constellations impart any qualities into us. In other words, the signs are not constellations. The (tropical) signs are descriptions of the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.
If you are interested in learning more about this perspective/possibility, see here:
I don't follow why the correct time of birth would be so important in fixing your degree. As if you didn't already exist in in the womb prior, and weren't already influenced by whatever cosmic forces while there. Wouldn't your time of conception be more important still?
Hi Martin, certain astrological signs change degrees quickly in the natal chart. The ascendant (how you come across to others) changes degrees every couple minutes in the natal chart; the moon sign (your emotional core) changes degrees every half hour, as examples. You are right that the slower moving planets (Uranus, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune, Jupiter, etc.) don't change very quickly. This is why you can get a pretty decent chart read just based on your date of birth, but to include the fast moving planets the time of birth is needed.
Re: time of birth vs. time of conception, whether there are special spiritual considerations for time of birth versus using other metrics I don't know and defer to astrological experts, but the former is an easy point of reference that everyone can visually see and agree upon while time of conception is usually unknown; therefore using that as the reference point would open up a lot of additional uncertainty for error.
if you think multi dimensionally, you are a multidimensional being, that parts of you that are not visible will be effected by the energy forms that made you.
Apologies for the off topic comment, but are you aware of David Webb's theory on how the Great Reset will play out vis-à-vis us "own[ing] nothing"? 70 minutes of extremely well reasoned argument on how the billionaire class plan to take it all. If YouTube takes it down it is also at https://rumble.com/c/c-5345620
P.D. Mangan is incorrectly given credit for the "iron-overload" theory of aging and earlier deaths for men. Mangan is a late-comer to the theory, which was first put forth by Bill Sardi in his various articles and, later, a book called THE IRON TIME BOMB, published in 1999, 17 years before Mangan's book! I rather suspect that Mangan simply adopted Bill Sardi's theory and then wrote his own book about iron's effect upon early death. Please give credit where credit is actually due for this theory, and that is to William F. Sardi.
Hi Scott, this is the first I've heard of Sardi's book, thanks for the comment. I looked up The Iron Time Bomb in Amazon and it seems to relate to using IP6 rice bran extract to lower iron levels -- if so, that's quite a different approach than Mangan's recommended bloodletting...
Thanks for your reply. Actually, Bill Sardi also mentioned bloodletting as an approach to lower iron levels in his book THE IRON TIME BOMB, so again an approach that GREATLY predates Mangan's suggestion 17 years later. See pages 83 and 185-187 of Bill Sardi's abovementioned book! Bill was often speaking at conferences and on radio programs throughout North America and beyond, so Mangan could have easily picked up Sardi's concepts and then parlayed them into a book that touted "his" idea about iron overload. Or, not. Maybe Mangan arrived at this concept independently. Regardless, Sardi predates Mangan by almost two decades and deserves the credit.
Did you know there is a volunteer group of people that can accurately predict earth quakes and such as well as their locations by calculating the angles of heavenly bodies? I'd link them, but they were deleted from FB recently. It seems that a charge of electromagnetic energy flows at greater intensity when more of them are aligned at certain angles. In antiquity, every god is associated with heavenly bodies, even minerals, plants and animals are. if volcanoes can be, why not other things? as above, so below...and the Trivium, is just a foundation for the Quadrivium. which includes the study of heavens. For years i have been trying to grasp it how they did, especially about the herbs and healing , when to plant, when to harvest. very challenging for me. The electric universe theory is closer to the truth , i think. it would have to also include other reality potentials, other dimensions magnetic energy too. in the organism theory of the universe this is easy enough. The world seems more coherent like that. i do not know what the big deal about shifting it is. I like it when things make more sense and do not contradict each other.
Most of the first scientists were alchemists, as alchemy preceded science, and one of the three pillars of Alchemy is astrology. Most of the effect of astrology is not in the material, but in the Astral, the creative energy flowing from the source through all things, also the place of dreams and imagination. Modern science is as morally and ethically bankrupt as it is because it has forgotten that, among other important, integral things.
Lad here's one you can have a future read into, The Sun has the same day cycle as male hormones and the Moon the same monthly cycle of female hormones.
Depending on where the moon is in it's lunar cycle can tell you when she's in a 'mood'.
just so, they do. the native people literally called it Moon time. and some of them gave women a week off in a hut just for that time, because their energy was "too strong", which, is a very sensible position, for all concerned. (it actually helps the balance to be kept better) women cycle so much faster, it is easy for some deficiency or even just stress, to knock them off balance, more so than men. and no one enjoys that.
Great article. Wolfgang Smith, who I discovered via Substack, has written in favor of astrology and I've been looking for some good science on it.
Well done, in my opinion. But you write at the start, "This post also explores promising investigative leads to hopefully one day tie us back to the cosmos." I don't think the cosmos itself has let go of us, all human thoughts and perceptions to the contrary.
Also, the problems you describe dogging scientific examination of astrology also dog science in all of its many inquiries. Looking at any one new 'hot' topic of inquiry in scientific literature, you'll see the results of different scientists and research groups into the particular question initially vary almost randomly, and seem completely noisy and almost entirely inconclusive at first. It's hard to get a clear focus on figuring out new problems very well until you've tried working with them for a while.
Very interesting. I think a lot of the problem as you stated is the lost knowledge of why we do things and so our ancient knowledge of the universe has been lost to the ages.
I like to think that yes we are tied to the cosmos, that everything is is cyclical and we as humans have a greater purpose; to think otherwise means we are nothing more than specks of microbes floating in a vaccum
Glad to see someone other than myself and two other guys discuss Eysenck!
I just got really into astrology starting right about the beginning of this year, and so I was very interested to read this article, which I enjoyed.
I know astrology is a big and deep topic, but I thought I would tell you about some things that I have learned that I think are important and you might find interesting.
You mentioned that there two zodiacs due to axial precession. There are not actually two zodiacs, as everyone generally agrees that there are 12 signs, they go Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc., they are ruled by these planets, etc. etc.
The difference is actually due to where the zodiac begins: usually, Western astrology uses the "tropical zodiac", which puts 0degrees Aries at the ascending equinox. Usually, Vedic astrology uses a "sidereal zodiac", which fixes a certain point of the zodiac to a certain star. There are actually a lot of sidereal zodiacs because there are a lot of different places/stars people think the zodiac should start; where it should start is called "ayanamsha". The most common one is called Lahiri ayanmsha, which puts 0degrees Libra at the star Spica.
Often people will say the sidereal Lahiri zodiac is "astronomically correct" because the signs on the horoscope match up with the constellations. However, this is false. The star Spica is in the middle of the constellation Virgo. So the most common sidereal zodiac used puts 0degrees Libra in the middle of the constellation of Virgo. (https://humanhaven.substack.com/p/sidereal-is-not-astronomically-accurate)
However, the point I really want to make and that I think everyone should consider is: what exactly is the source of the qualities that the signs impart? Is it some arbitrary collections of stars which, as you pointed out, rarely look like anything they are said to look? No, it isn't. The constellations don't have anything to do with astrology as it should be practiced, in my opinion. (Perhaps those stars do affect us, but the planets affect us much much more than stars light-years away, so we need to understand their effects first, we need to understand our own solar system before going beyond it.)
The signs are actually a division of the ecliptic. That is all. They are not seasons either. The Sun has four main points in it path: when it ascends over the horizon of the Earth, i.e., the equator, when it is most north in the sky, when it descends over the horizon of the Earth, and at its most southern point. These points are called ascending equinox, northern solstice, descending equinox, and descending solstice, Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn, respectively, and they are the same regardless of which hemisphere you are in. However, there definitely exists a northern hemisphere bias, so the ascending equinox is often called the "spring equinox", which it is in the northern hemisphere.
The signs are an esoteric way of understanding the relationship between the Sun and the Earth, which is what the tropical zodiac describes. The signs are not constellations!
I personally am studying Vedic astrology using the tropical zodiac. The sidereal zodiac has a long history in India for many reasons, but as I don't believe the constellations affect us, it doesn't make sense to me to use that. (Here is a video about the history of the zodiac in India: https://youtu.be/NBcyZSk38uE?si=zOHpv24Rn4Ekk5Ji)
I think it is unfortunate that Vedic astrology is associated with the sidereal zodiac and Western astrology with the tropical zodiac, because you can do both kinds of astrology with either zodiac, and people do. Truly, the difference is primarily one of technique. It is true that there are cultural/religious elements that are often associated with Vedic astrology, however, it is completely possible to use the techniques and reinterpret their meaning in a more culturally appropriate way for yourself.
In truth, Vedic astrology has many many more techniques and that is generally why it is more accurate, even using the sidereal zodiac. One that I will mention is called the vargas, or divisional charts. For example, in the second varga (D2), one divides each sign into two. If the planet is in the first half of the sign, it stays in that sign. If it is in the second half, it goes to the opposite sign. The D2 chart is then used to interpret a persons wealth, or more generally 2nd house concerns.
The most common varga is called the navamsha, the D9. Basically, you split each sign into 9 equal parts, which makes 108 parts in the whole zodiac. Then starting at the 1st part in Aries you write the numbers 1 through 12 continuously. Then a planet in a part labelled 1 go to Aries in the D9, in a part labelled 9 goes to Sagittarius in the D9, and so on. The D9 is used to interpret someone's marriage, or their life path in general.
Basically, varga charts are gradations of the signs of the natal chart, which aid interpretation.
This is just one example of something Vedic astrology has that is very very useful which doesn't exist in Western astrology. And you can use it with tropical or sidereal both. I suppose it is similar to the Sabian Symbols (...which as I understand it was the original example of "degree astrology"), yet probably more powerful over all.
Thanks for the detailed comment, Josh. This is interesting stuff. You spend a good amount of time analyzing which system is better than the other, and why one makes more sense than another. I understand the impulse. Perhaps both systems may be of value, though, so long as it has been properly calibrated by adjusting its method to be in accordance with future predictive abilities? The concept of synchronicity was hinted at in footnote 6 in the post, but I preferred to stick to scientific data in the post itself...
I will quote Ernst Junger on what I mean here. “Astrology is rooted in a very ancient lore, next to which I might possibly put the art of chess and other phenomena of that ilk. It’s a different way of combining things, but since everything in the world forms a coherent whole, this too has to make sense. Naturally, I could devise some kind of soothsaying - in coffee grounds or whatever; it’s impossible for that not to have some form of accuracy. But one should simply not reduce everything to a purely personal destiny.”
It was Carl Jung, considered by gnostic Stephan Hoeller to be the greatest gnostic of our time who came up with the idea of synchronicity, where events seem to be related without any casual connection. If we are to believe that material reality is the lowest form of reality, that “As Above, So Below”, then doing an open minded deep dive into any kind of esoteric system may shine light on reality as a whole. In other words, historical methods of divination such as via the Tarot, rune casting, tea-leaf reading, automatic writing, water scrying, casting the bones, or deciphering the flight of birds if approached with the right motivation and attitude (a big if) may also shed light on this bizarre reality of ours. The same logic may apply to the ancient art of entrail reading or haruspicy after animal sacrifice as a form of divination, as practiced so intensely by Julian the Apostate within the cult of Mithras…
Under this approach, both Western and Vedic astrology likely have value...
From my point of view I don't feel like I'm analyzing which system is better than another, rather I'm trying to understand what is going on and what we are actually talking about. I was comparing the two zodiacs, not the systems of Western and Vedic; I don't actually know anything about Western astrology so I am not qualified to compare it to anything.
I had been familiar with the tropical vs. sidereal debate years ago, but I didn't actually understand it, so when I became actively interested in astrology recently I needed to truly understand what was going on, and this is the main intention behind most of what I have written so far. Most people on YouTube, for example, who comment on this issue clearly don't understand the technical differences between the two zodiacs and yet make claims about them, which frustrates me and which I would like to remedy.
As to synchronicity, historical methods of divination, and soothsaying by coffee grounds, all of that is certainly true and exists. Any kind of astrology can be understood in that way, and in that sense it certainly doesn't matter which zodiac you use, or what methods you use, as long as they work to stimulate your intuition. However, doing so cannot be called scientific, so if that is what astrology is, then, no, it is not and can never be scientific.
If however we want to study astrology scientifically, or demonstrate its scientific validity, then astrology itself has to apply scientific methods and be more rigorous and explicit about its foundations and methods. This is the vein in which I wrote the post I linked in my comment. If you want to rely on intuition and synchronicity to do astrology, that is fine and you can use whatever zodiac and method you want.
However, if we want astrology to have any scientific validity, then we need to start on a firm foundation. If someone says they use the sidereal zodiac because it is "astronomically accurate" then there is no foundation upon which science could happen, because that claim is itself false.
Thanks for the clarification, josh, nice response. I agree with it.
I submit that astrology can function in way similar to any form of divination, which is as an aid to the subtle sense. If one is looking for hard proof, such is often sought in specifics and details-yet the essence of any aid is to avoid crippling the subtle sense with too much determinism. Thus symbols and definitions must be open ended enough to allow for deep recognition of the subject. There is no hard and fast rule for this, since the connection between querent and reader is dynamic, of varying strength, and limited through time.
Years ago, an astrologer summed up his craft by describing it as "a beautiful language". I find this definition to be both poetic and accurate to this day.
In short, the veracity of astrology rests on a different set of requirements than that of traditional science. While science has no solution for consciousness, or the observer, astrology is fully occupied with both!
An excellent article,
Thanks NLF.
https://youtube.com/@moonmindology7133
You should check this channel
It's probably shadow banned because it touches controversial topics
Not only she's cute but uses the correct zodiac based on constellations
Not the tropical linked to the seasons in the northern hemisphere
I appreciate that you said the sidereal zodiac is "based on constellations", because that at least can be defended.
Often people say the sidereal zodiac is "astronomically accurate", which is false.
See here for images that disprove the claim that the sidereal zodiac is "astronomically accurate":
https://humanhaven.substack.com/p/sidereal-is-not-astronomically-accurate
Unless of course you are talking about the true sidereal system (masteringthezodiac.com).
However, I personally don't believe any sidereal zodiac is "correct", because I don't believe that the constellations impart any qualities into us. In other words, the signs are not constellations. The (tropical) signs are descriptions of the relationship between the Sun and the Earth.
If you are interested in learning more about this perspective/possibility, see here:
https://humanhaven.substack.com/p/why-use-the-tropical-zodiac
I don't follow why the correct time of birth would be so important in fixing your degree. As if you didn't already exist in in the womb prior, and weren't already influenced by whatever cosmic forces while there. Wouldn't your time of conception be more important still?
Hi Martin, certain astrological signs change degrees quickly in the natal chart. The ascendant (how you come across to others) changes degrees every couple minutes in the natal chart; the moon sign (your emotional core) changes degrees every half hour, as examples. You are right that the slower moving planets (Uranus, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune, Jupiter, etc.) don't change very quickly. This is why you can get a pretty decent chart read just based on your date of birth, but to include the fast moving planets the time of birth is needed.
Re: time of birth vs. time of conception, whether there are special spiritual considerations for time of birth versus using other metrics I don't know and defer to astrological experts, but the former is an easy point of reference that everyone can visually see and agree upon while time of conception is usually unknown; therefore using that as the reference point would open up a lot of additional uncertainty for error.
if you think multi dimensionally, you are a multidimensional being, that parts of you that are not visible will be effected by the energy forms that made you.
Apologies for the off topic comment, but are you aware of David Webb's theory on how the Great Reset will play out vis-à-vis us "own[ing] nothing"? 70 minutes of extremely well reasoned argument on how the billionaire class plan to take it all. If YouTube takes it down it is also at https://rumble.com/c/c-5345620
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk3AVceraTI
P.D. Mangan is incorrectly given credit for the "iron-overload" theory of aging and earlier deaths for men. Mangan is a late-comer to the theory, which was first put forth by Bill Sardi in his various articles and, later, a book called THE IRON TIME BOMB, published in 1999, 17 years before Mangan's book! I rather suspect that Mangan simply adopted Bill Sardi's theory and then wrote his own book about iron's effect upon early death. Please give credit where credit is actually due for this theory, and that is to William F. Sardi.
Hi Scott, this is the first I've heard of Sardi's book, thanks for the comment. I looked up The Iron Time Bomb in Amazon and it seems to relate to using IP6 rice bran extract to lower iron levels -- if so, that's quite a different approach than Mangan's recommended bloodletting...
Thanks for your reply. Actually, Bill Sardi also mentioned bloodletting as an approach to lower iron levels in his book THE IRON TIME BOMB, so again an approach that GREATLY predates Mangan's suggestion 17 years later. See pages 83 and 185-187 of Bill Sardi's abovementioned book! Bill was often speaking at conferences and on radio programs throughout North America and beyond, so Mangan could have easily picked up Sardi's concepts and then parlayed them into a book that touted "his" idea about iron overload. Or, not. Maybe Mangan arrived at this concept independently. Regardless, Sardi predates Mangan by almost two decades and deserves the credit.
Did you know there is a volunteer group of people that can accurately predict earth quakes and such as well as their locations by calculating the angles of heavenly bodies? I'd link them, but they were deleted from FB recently. It seems that a charge of electromagnetic energy flows at greater intensity when more of them are aligned at certain angles. In antiquity, every god is associated with heavenly bodies, even minerals, plants and animals are. if volcanoes can be, why not other things? as above, so below...and the Trivium, is just a foundation for the Quadrivium. which includes the study of heavens. For years i have been trying to grasp it how they did, especially about the herbs and healing , when to plant, when to harvest. very challenging for me. The electric universe theory is closer to the truth , i think. it would have to also include other reality potentials, other dimensions magnetic energy too. in the organism theory of the universe this is easy enough. The world seems more coherent like that. i do not know what the big deal about shifting it is. I like it when things make more sense and do not contradict each other.
Axioms apply:
The devil is in the details.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Astrology is far too complex to take at face value and is hugely open to interpretation.
The aspects are where it's at.