Diary: Back to school

[degringolade]

Current Homework

I suppose that one of the best things about hanging around as long as I have is that  odd notions that occasionally wander into your brain can be pursued without much in the way of social opprobrium.  A friend and I have been having an extended discussion/debate/argument over the nature of consciousness which devolved briefly into a vitriolic tirade against modern neuroscience, and the occasional foray into communication.  

I don't want you to think that I am stating that these discussions have solidified my stances on any issues that have been raised in this long term conversation, mostly I have been grateful for the questions that it has allowed me to ask within whatever it is that passes for my "mind".

Long term followers of this blog know that for years I cast I Ching hexagrams every morning while drinking coffee and getting prepared for a day of work and/or a day of experiencing a new retirement.  Mostly the process kinda ran out of gas, I still dabble occasionally, but the thrill is a bit gone.  The yarrow stalks haven't left their cup for a while now.

There are two ways to begin looking at the not very well defined area concerning the nature of consciousness.  In a sense, this is the ongoing argument in the nature of the mind that has been going through the world for around four centuries now.  Simply put, is the study of humans (a remarkably complicated subject BTW)best approached by considering the isolated brain as an individual entity or is it best studied by considering the individual as part of something?

All that being said, while having no “proof” in any way whatsoever, I think (believe?, feel?) that there might well be inputs into human consciousness outside of other humans and/or individual observation.  I am trying to figure out what that is.  It isn’t the American Christian concept of “God”, that just doesn’t work for me.  So for the next month or so, I am going to spend some time figuring out just what it is that pisses off both scientists and clergymen about Astrology.  I am not even going to bother with what is known as “natal” astrology as all that seems good for is picking up slutty women in bars (my complete prejudice shows here) but I am curious about “mundane” astrology.

A lot of this curiosity has to do with the attitudes of my tribe (scientist/engineer) and their routine pronouncements of anathema on the field.  When you dig down in the literature and try to find any kind of reasoning behind this abhorrence of the field, all I can seem to find is the idea that since things aren’t testable by using the tools of the tribe, the field must be a badness thing. 

I have no idea where this will head.  I am trying to go in with an open mind (it isn’t that easy) and I will forcefully reject any suggestion that I need to believe first and ask questions later (that nonsense does wash with Christanity, it ain’t gonna wash here either).  So right now I am going though “Mundane Astrology 101” and try and figure out the “technical” aspects of the field in order to come up with something even roughly resembling a hypothesis/experiment model.