body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

Replying to

and I'm not saying we need to pinpoint the mechanics - I just want any plausible theory at all that we can then pursue testing. I don't mean I need to know how it works, I mean I need to know a path towards testing it and discovering more about how it works.

1

Replying to

I think that will only come when scientific culture has developed enough courage to step into that space of the seemingly unknowable. Quantum physics will surely be a gateway, it will just take a while

1

Replying to

I don't need scientific culture - it's just me, with my own curiosity. Just give me literally any theory that isn't immediately disprovable or extremely unlikely, like literally any one. Otherwise there's no way to differentiate what you're saying from complete bullshit

1

1

Replying to

I’m not steeped in the techniques of it enough to give you a testable theory. I function more in that blank space, archetypal kind of knowing. I wouldn’t doubt there are some out there though, hold on let me go quickly skim that book and see if I can find something for you

1

Replying to

and

1

Replying to

and

2

Replying to

and

Not a theory for you to test but here he conveys what I was saying in greater depth

1

Replying to

this all sounds like anybody could have made it up - could I then pick literally anything and then derive personality correlations from it, like the arrangement of rocks, as indicative of cosmic state at the time?

1

1

Replying to

No, but, the thing that is important to note is again the difference in the age when astrology was developed. Those people they operated in a different state of relation with the world than we do now. I don’t think it was ‘making it up’ so much as receiving a deeper intelligence

1

Replying to

and

The same way some indigenous tribes come to know how to utilize & make healing mixes of certain plants that would otherwise be deadly

1

1

Replying to

They figured it out after a huge amount of generations plus trial and error plus passing down wisdom, that's how. "Deeper state of intelligence" - what is that? How do you know it's there? How do you know you're not just believing what feels good?

4:20 AM · Jan 30, 2020

Replying to

And who’s to say the process of developing astrology was any different? And deeper state of intelligence. Like the intelligence that codes our dna. Innate intelligence as wedded into all things by virtue of it simply existing.

1