Bang Zoom!

Well, here we go. . .aqua on la luna. And potable at that. Can humans be far behind?

For me, I'd love to go, of course. .I like a good vacation as much as anybody. And I'd me more than a little bit curious to see what life, time, energy, and space feel like from that perspective. As an astrologer, the thought of getting that close to one of the most important bodies in the horoscope would be incredible exciting. Then there's the weird irony that humans will eventually have so depleted our home planet that we will flee to the planet that represents our mothers. I suppose that would require teasing apart the astrological archetype of the moon to separate the emotional and liquid (milk) element of the mother from the earthy, Taurean, Gaia mother that is what we are made of physically.

No matter. It would be damn cool. But anticipating the massively (and typically scientific) naive final line of the piece, I had a sudden flash of the surface of the moon looking like parts of fly-over Nevada and Arizona look today. A barren and extraordinary desert with the random impossible lush green farm in the middle of it. The notion - in all sorts of ways - of turning the moon into some sort of foreign garden to support human life is utterly appalling to me. Maybe some day it won't be, but the thought of looking up at the moon from earth and seeing little green speckles everywhere. . .I can't even imagine (unless, of course the green speckles were made out of cheese, which would make perfect sense of course. . .)

But on an astrological note, it must be mentioned that the scientific/Aquarian perspective with its fundamentalist belief in humanism in the dignity of mankind always misses the boat when it comes to predicting the ways that "evil" men will turn their magnificent inventions against mankind and life itself. I used to think that there was something coldly attached about Aquarius- that somehow they knew that their inventions (like the original Promethean fire itself) could be used for good or for evil, and yet they believed it had to be invented anyway- for the sake of Progress. But I have come to think that Aquarius's square to Scorpio pits it so far against instinctual Darwinism that Aquarians really do hold the belief that even if their inventions are used for both good and evil that the good will prevail in the end. Kind of like a high-tech Zoroastrianism.

But it may be that scientists, because of their phlegmatic nature in general, probably just believe in this naive view of the world because they don't spend any time in the world of religio-/social upheaval and catastrophe. The Ivory Tower is a tired analogy for Aquarius, but I think it holds in this case. When I hear the scientist at the end of the piece say

"I think it is a destiny that we will go there as humans. I hope it’s not just for commercialization.”

I have to wonder if he's ever read anything but the Science section in the New York Times. Or if he ever took a history course, or walked across the tracks, or did anything but play make believe with his nerd friends in the laboratory.

The history of mankind has been exploitation. Even the United States - the great bulwark against unfairness and inequality - has been as exploitative as any other nation has of the natural world- and with a technological power millennia ahead (thanks to those scientists) of anything anyone in history could have dreamed of.

So we're amazing. But we're massively naive. Will liking on the Moon change us? Will Her compassionate aura calm the savage beast of exploitation and ragagery? Or will she be overrun with mining equipment and deep well diggers to extract what milk she may have left in her for us?

If it's the latter, I fear the end. Yes, she will then be used as a "springboard" to Mars, and all bets are off. The zodiac as we know it relates to us as earthlings. The timing and location of the planetary bodies are ephemerized around our physical place in the universe. All buts are off once we discover a lunar-centril or a Martio-centric zodiac. What could that possibly mean?

Here's a thought: Because earth-born humans will always maintain some memory of time (even when you're stoned, you can think of what it's like to measure a day and a night, etc.). So they will be able to carry with them a baseline sense of time based on their terrestrial (and caffeine boosted) experience. But what about the next generation? And the one after that? I think about the colonists who came here to America who originally had a British disposition and a loyalty to the old way of life. But by a few generations - and certainly by 1776 - the identification with Briatin had fallen off, and a new "breed" of human was born: The American Proper.

This has had a big effect. Not just on us as Americans, but on our planet and its destiny. We are in a way a Novo Homo, despite all the biological contradictions to that statement. And we have pulled the entire world in the direction that our inventions have indicated.

What then of those future children whose allegiance to Earth time/space/culture is secondary to their allegiance to Martian or Lunar space, gravity, and climate? Will they have adapted so much that they may never visit earth? That they may look at still-grounded earthlings as odd and curious fuddy-duddies the way I see Britons when I ventuire to their Island? Maybe. Like I said, all bets will be off. Who we - if it's appropriate to talk about "we" in that context - become is anyone's guess, but I have no doubt that we will have evolved (if that's appropriate to talk about!) into something other than what we are as earth-bound terrestrial humans. Terresties, or 'resties might be the derogatory name for those that never got off the planet. (Just a thought)

But I'm not so certain. Scorpionic economics and Capricornian limits have blessedly cut the budget for now, and President Obama has graciously pulled the plug. Does my imagination suffer for it? A bit. The thought of time shares on the moon is not an entirely unhappy one, but for now I feel blessed to have Her in her current role maintained, with only a few bruises from our scientific meddling. No doubt there will be a day when we overcome this "setback," but it looks like it will have to wait another cycle or two. . .

Peer-Review 'r somethin'

So I've got a couple more pieces on Science and the New Religion in the pike, but I stumbled across this today, and it is certainly worth a read, esp. in the context of the previous post about cows and such. Enjoy.

Science, Religion, and Sacred Cows

That science is the new religion is an idea expressed by many. But to what extent hasn't always been fleshed out.

My friend David just referenced this blog post about an experiment conducted giving raw vs. pasteurized milk to calves. It's a fascinating read, and I highly recommend taking the time to check out the literature about raw milk.

The quote that caught my attention was:

To understand the results of our raw milk experiment it is important to tolerate the so called scientific demands. That means in order to get accepted and being taken seriously by the scientific establishment you need to have 100 or 200 or 300 or may be even 1000 calves to make a scientific valid point.

and then this:

The experiment was costing us over 5000 dollars just in milk. This is a significant amount for us, since we did not get any support from corporate sponsors.

and finally this:

. . .the simple fact that the so called experts have not yet entered into a joint research project as proposed by me already in 1994 has given me even a greater confidence that the results we have seen with these two calves are credible and significant. They are in fact supporting the findings of Pottenger’s cat study, which as well has been ignored and ridiculed.

1 + 1 = 2


While on its surface, Science seems to be the very essence of objectivity. Facts and studies were reasoned through, checked for contradictions, repeated may times, peer reviewed, and sent to the presses for publication and dissemination; It would appear to be a foolproof system.

But of course no system is fool proof. There are always leaks and cracks, and these leaks and cracks beg for exploitation.

But I won't bother too much with that argument today except to say that it is impossible - impossible - to separate pure science from politics, policy, and economics. Someone has to pay for the studies, the equipment, and the lab time. The scientists performing the studies have to be concerned about their careers and their advancement (in choosing which experiments to perform). The journals must buffer the shocks to the system that would upend the financial investment of other scientists. And the politicians/commercial interests must rely on studies to make their policy cases and advertise their products.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even science.

But here we concentrate on cost:

The study above is a very compelling one. It is indicative of something we all (raw foodists) experience every day. And yet at $5,000 a pop, adequate experimentation to produce science-worthy results would costs 100s of thousands of dollars or more. From a reality point of view, this is not possible for a small dairy farmer. Thus, whatever the theoretical possibilities of discovering objective science might be, the practical execution of science by non-(sponsored) scientists is virtually impossible- at least if they want to make any cultural impact with their studies.

How is this any different than the position of the Medieval illiterate laity vis a vis the literate clergy? There was literally no way a peasant could corroborate the word of a pastor in interpreting scripture. Therefore, the truth (and therefore the law) was whatever the priest said it was, based, presumably, on that priest's interpretation of the Bible.

This is hardly the democratic ideal that we believe we are living today. And yet, practically speaking, how different are things for the modern "illiterate" scientist - someone without access to funds, equipment, and research team to explore the truth?

The answer is, of course, not very. For all practical purposes, the medieval men in smocks have been replaced by more men (and some women) in smocks dictating truth to us. The only difference - if there is one at all - is that the medieval peasant didn't necessarily expect that they were getting objective, post-superstitious truth (though the church probably took the same attitude towards pagan religious knowledge that the modern scientists take towards Chirstian knowledge). But that's about it. Other than that, we're mostly in the same boat.

My friend David remarked that the longer he lived the more he realizes that shit doesn't change that much. Yes there is progress of a sort, but the fundamentals are the same. The immortal gods, as we astrologers would say, are always with us, whether we recognize them or not.

For better or for worse, it would appear that mankind requires a priest class of learned authorities to tell him what to do. That has not changed. It used to be priests, and now it is scientists (and doctors). Their function is the same (as is, interestingly, their dress and their sexual inertness).

What happens when humans meddle too much in their nature is that they achieve progress, but the natural forms remain in tact, only hidden from sight. We see that in our modern attitudes towards clergy vs. scientists. Popular thinking is that priest-truth has been outsmarted by science-truth, thus deluding us into believing that we have conquered the primitive religious instinct. We have not. it's just hidden. Right before our very eyes, as it turns out.

Think about this the next time the call for "progress" is heard. In the times to come, we are sure to hear the progressive urge very loudly - and, of course, we ignore it at our peril. But how we integrate our progressive desires with the timeless givens of the natural condition will determine how well the implementation of "progress" works. In *that* choice in particular we are completely free beings. We ma not control the choices we have, but our relationship to them is always ours to pass or fumble as we like. So far our track record is not that great, but we will have unceasing opportunities to get it right. And when we do, we will see the kind of real progress that we have always dreamed of.

D-Blog

[NB- it is for this reason I remain such a champion of the irrational American Right. Not that I wish to se Biblical literalism replace the scientific canon, but because I believe both are only partly true, and neither should ever be without a loyal opposition. Part of religious virtue is its acceptance of the universalities of the human experience (particularly sexuality and its problems) and its frontal - if ineffectual means of dealing with them. That science posits that we are already beyond these impulses - or can be made to be simply by "thinking" is a position unsupported by history and reality. The religious people seem to understand this better than their modern, scientific counterparts. Somewhere in the middle lies truth, and that truth must be flexible, as it sustains the tugging in all different directions from all different parties. A full time job, this truth. ]

Comments

So. It has come to my attention that some of you have been trying to comment on my blogs, but the bureaucratic red tape of signing in/registering dissuaded you. You have my deepest sympathies and understanding.

Now that the problem has come to my attention, I have taken steps to correct it, and now anyone - anyone - can comment on these blogs. Have at, go to, but please try to have no less tact than I display here on a day to day basis- which should give you plenty of latitude in your commentary.

I will look forward to reading it.

D-Blog

Plug - Part 4

Whoa.

Plug - Part 3

Worth checking out