Seems to me that since a single photon of light hitting a dark-conditioned retina can trigger a change in the flow of consciousness -- a single photon could possibly be a tipping point's "final straw" and so, an infant's-personality-that's-ever-so-fragile could thereby get hard-wired into a "something or other."
Of course, it's hard to imagine a research scenario that could measure such thing. But I mention this as a viable concept for this discussion, because of the research on the "dirty water that is purified by radiation" -- "purified" means anything-not-water gets separated out. I'll link below to the research, as I have done several times here at FFL, Not that that's a proof of astrology's main axiom, but that that indicates that light is VERY impacting at the subtlest of levels. There is very very much proof about instant printing. We see birds immediately attach "that's my parent" to anything that moves when it is first born. We know this kind of global psychological "hardening" is seen across the biological spectrum. Us human beings too? Why not? We know that trauma can do this. Why not the first light that floods the newborn's eye? I paid good bucks to eleven jyotishi-types. Nothing came true, no one "nailed me," I was never warned about something, and no insights into what I'd been in the past, and they all majorly disagreed with each other. And all of them were consulted EXACTLY WHEN I NEEDED ADVICE THE MOST -- my life troubles during that time were the WORST of my life, but no jyotish person warned or saw this. So don't try to sell me any more jyotish, but don't toss it out with the western astrology bathwater. I think the "light is synchronous" (not causal) concept has traction. It's just that science is not up to examining it, and probably won't be for another 100 years. Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh Views From the Water's Edge https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XVBEwn6iWOo ---In [email protected], <mjackson74@...> wrote : What possible difference can those things make? The fact that astrology and astronomy have common roots only means that eventually those who created and followed the SCIENTIFIC method and way began to require real evidence for their theories and ideas. The astrologers on the other hand continued to rely on mystical ideas that have never been validated. Isaac Newton was a scientist and an alchemist. The fact that he pursued some non-scientific mumbo jumbo does not take away from his scientific achievements nor does it validate his mystical endeavors or make alchemy as he practiced it a science. From: "Bhairitu noozguru@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:47 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Astrology Science? My bet is the only astrology the writers are familiar with is western or tropical astrology. They probably don't even know what jyotish is. And I bet they don't know that astronomy came as the result of astrology nor that Kepler's day job was making charts for astrologers. So he developed better methods of determining orbits. On 05/27/2015 01:31 PM, Michael Jackson mjackson74@... mailto:mjackson74@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: Astrology: Is it scientific? http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Astrology: Is it scientific? In some ways, astrology may seem scientific. It uses scientific knowledge about heavenly bodies, as well as scientific sounding tools, like star charts. View on undsci.berkeley.edu http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/astrology_checklist Preview by Yahoo
