Προφητεία (42)

We know astrology works, but nobody takes it seriously—why? Because it’s dominated by girls and nobody takes anything girls do seriously, even girls themselves. So dominated by women is astrology that if you visit an astrology page you’ll find it says, “She is strong, confident, and feisty,” under a star sign—the pronoun “she” is just assumed, not in a contrived progressive sense (you can tell from the tone) but because the astrologer knows the audience, only a woman could want to read this stuff (or a Chinese, hence the ropey English on some sites).

Imagine a time when computer science goes the same way; after decades of wokeness, of “empowering programming boot camps” for women, the discipline is mostly feminised. All people use computers for is to access a trite app that tells you what your most suitable partner is in the broadest terms—possibly Tinder still works.

This is all “computer science” means to most people—it’s a funny-silly thing done by women and there’s a suspicion that the people who do it are gullible and are taken advantage of. Occasionally, people dress up like a quintessential mid-90s nerd and, amid much dry ice, turn on “the computer” and make “wacky predictions” for people…

It can’t happen, not to computer science! You think that way because you have a linear historical worldview locked in—you have the “arc of history” model, where everything is always getting better and better and, in the end, leads to heaven or utopia.

So it’s inconceivable to you that technology could go backward—or be forgotten altogether, or even that there are entirely different technological directions that we could take (directions that would be sophisticated but wouldn’t involve computers, or computers as we know them today, anyway).

Hence, not being cyclical, you think “it couldn’t” happen, everyone knows how useful computers are—yeah, and 3,000 years ago “everyone knew” how useful astrology was (and practiced it in a much more sophisticated way than we do now). Yet here we are.

What we can say is that astrology has followed the pattern seen in any institution in decay…the feminisation of the male practitioners, the decline in the art’s precision, and its final complete feminisation—at which point it becomes a “women’s thing”, which, like women’s football, nobody takes seriously or thinks is anything more than a game connected to how to snag a mate.

So it’s not serious, nobody takes it seriously—along the way, as with the way various institutions go “woke” today, the core knowledge was lost. Astrology was once much more sophisticated than it is today, even when done properly—but to most people it’s a funny joke and only gullible people take it seriously (Ronald Reagan was mercilessly mocked by the progressives because Nancy had an astrologer).

The final end state for any discipline in decline is for it to be dominated by women and become a joke—beware, it could happen to you. Astrology is mathematics, at base—but the talented mathematicians today don’t become astrologers; so the scope and effectiveness of the mathematics behind astrology is never improved or deepened; it’s left to its more intuitive—often highly open to experience and, therefore, gullible (as “spiritual” people usually are)—practitioners to use it.

But there must be a whole set of unexplored possibilities to do with how the location of the planets and the stars is charted that could make the whole discipline more effective, if top minds went into it. If there are top minds working on it, they’re doing it as a hobby (which is the best place to do anything—but I’m sceptical there are any top minds looking into it at all). Time was, the top minds went into it.

To expand the theme about alternative possibilities: people, partly due to the Enlightenment, think we just “rediscovered” Greek science and Roman engineering and then “picked up the thread” after the Christian era. But we didn’t—for example, the Romans built sophisticated and long-lasting aqueducts without the methods we’d use, like calculus; and what they used to achieve similar ends often involved knowledge encoded into rites and ceremonies.

It’s not my contention Roman engineering was achieved by magic, it’s more the point that you can achieve the same ends in very different ways. Further, it’s not clear there’s a linear relation between the Greek antikythera mechanism (“the first computer”) and our computers—as if the Greeks had “kept on” they’d have ended up with an iPad. So it’s not “inevitable” that we have the science and technology we have now.

Yet that is a popular misconception—although there could be very different technological forms and “sciences”; and if civilisation breaks up now it’s not necessarily true that science, when it was picked up again, would be in continuity with what we have now.

Another upshot from the fact astrology works is that things like Ayurvedic medicine work—non-invasive medical procedures that occur at astrologically propitious times work, as do crystals and rhythmic chants. Again, I wouldn’t throw your antibiotics and chemotherapy away just yet—as with astrology, these disciplines are badly decayed (and so dominated, in many cases, by total crackpots).

But if astrology works, the principles behind these medicines—which are totally non-invasive—are also sound; and that means that there is a superior way to treat illness. Antibiotics are always becoming ineffective due to the way they cull out the weaker bacteria—and so always have to be increased in potency; and there’s a suspicion that at some point the potency will fail.

Again, it has all been forgotten—not to mention, of course, that marriages should be contracted on the basis of astrology. There are technical reasons why the divorce rate is so high, because it’s so easy to divorce and women are never satisfied—but as regards genuine marital complaints and quality the answer is astrology (and the same goes for employment—every potential employee should be screened astrologically).