 |
| 2001: A Space Odyssey |
One
of the questions that I find most fascinating with evolutionary
theory is the following assumption: At some point, there must have
been a significant break or invention that influenced not only the
following generation but rather all of humanity. For example, tools
began to be used as weapons, a point that is visually best
exemplified and underscored by the opening sequence of Kubrick's
2001: A Space Odyssey.
Moreover, other tools were later used for farming on the fields and
for painting illustrations on cave walls. Finally, what is considered
the milestone of inventions must have been the realization that round
wheels were best suited as means of transportation.
In
most, if not all of the cases, there must have been the realization
first, a flash of insight or inspiration, which may have come from a
person or a group of individuals. Of course, the often tried and
tested trial-and-error method produced a line of inventions more
often erring on the error side until one “hit the spot” and
became the most useful tool or prototype of its kind. For instance,
they may have tried squared and rectangle wheels until they came up
with their most practical round-shaped form.
This
inspiration, this significant moment of consciousness (and even of
history) might have been sheer luck, the fortuitous but necessary
outcome of probability, or perhaps due not to luck at all, but through
the use of mind-altering drugs.
There
are other potential alternatives, such as a visit from another planet
or time dimension, the appearance of a god-sent angel or spiritual
entity, or the divine manifestation of a bodiless voice. These options
seem rather far-fetched compared to the simple answer that it may
have been an expansion of consciousness through mind-expanding
substances.
I
can easily imagine the hunter-gathering tribes stumbling upon a
strange or rather magical type of mushroom. Since food for survival
must have followed the trial-and-error system described above, it is
quite likely that someone somewhere must have ingested and digested
this naturally occurring psychedelic drug.
And
suddenly, we have this simple and brute individual not much
different from the rest in any discerning way and who comes into
contact with a new kind of reality that opens his or her doors of
perception, so to speak. Hence, the creative urge and need to paint
some of these experiences on the cave walls, for instance.
The
relationship between drugs and art or music is nothing new to us. It
was in the 19th
century that the Impressionists experimented with visual stimuli most
likely due to the hallucinatory effects of absinthe. Consider also
the intimate link between music and drugs, of how marijuana and LSD
changed the face of music, particularly in the 60s.
Without the
introduction of marijuana, the Beatles would have been nothing but an
early version or precursor of the “boy band” phenomenon, such as
the Liverpool Backstreet Boys. The question might arise whether drugs
(opium and marijuana perhaps as LSD had not existed at the time) may have
also had an impact on the great classical composer as well, such as
Mozart and Beethoven, but that is possible fodder for another
discussion or post perhaps.
My
question is this: Why could natural mind-altering drugs not have
played a role in evolution theory? It may have been that it was not
merely survival of the strongest but of those that were able to
utilize their creative potential. Back to our opening scene of 2001,
it was not the physically strongest ape that won the battle, but the
most inventive one that used the bone as a bone-crushing (pun
intended) weapon.
This
idea may not be as outlandish as it seems at first sight. It may
explain the riddle of why one of our ancestors suddenly stood up and
started walking on their two feet, a single step for an ape, a leap
for mankind.
What
prompted these ancestors to change their regular habits, to use
unprecedented methods to achieve far better outcomes and results? The
mind, according to some evolutionary scientists is like a Swiss Army
knife where, given a certain situation, we may use a certain kind of
tool, but I believe that to be able to use the best option available
we might have had a little - but rather significant - help from our
psychedelic friends.
3 comments:
Sorry to spoil your interesting theory, but I think you will find that before the invention of the wheel, treetrunk logs were used to move heavy stones, such as those in Stonehenge, England (geologists report that the stones in question could only be quarried in Wales, one or two hundred miles away. So you would use a series of logs, moving the hindmost to the front. I believe that the same mechanisms may have been used to manhandle the stones used to build the Pyramids.
I can't imagine any drugs would have helped invent the log-roller method of transportation, or the subsequent development of keeping sections of treetrunk fixed to the stone being transported, through the invention of an axle.
Surely the brains of our human ancestors were as capable of thought as ours are.
Do you know of any properly-controlled experiments to illustrate your thesis that psychedelic drugs can enhance the human capacity for invention, whether of mechanical devices or music?
And finally, if the question is not too personal, were you assisted in the authorship of your fine essay by any such drug?
Well, Vincent, I know that my theory is hard to prove when it comes to the wheel ... besides different cultures had different ideas about it.
I was not so much interested in who came first; still your stone mechanism would not automatically preclude the help of psychedelics for our stoned ancestors... so there we are back at square one.
But, in fact, there is growing scientific evidence about cave paintings being influenced by drugs and that is a big step indeed since it may have not only increased our imagination but opened the way to a more sophisticated manner of communicating and expressing ourselves.
As to music and art, I have already made my case. As to me, no, there was no psychedelic help or push involved in my writing; my three drugs for creativity are music, coffee and film, not necessarily in that order.
Finally, I have the fullest respect for our ancestors and do not claim that they were not capable of sophisticated thought. I just thought it would be interesting to consider drugs and its influence in the process.
Is it possible, however, that there are faults in the evolution theory? Is it possible that it is not true, but false? The supporters of this theory certainly deny this possibility, but it should be noted that weaknesses and inconsistencies in the theory can be found even in their own writings. These have been discussed, but the possibility of the doctrine's whole foundation being wrong and untenable has never been brought out. It has generally been denied. This is why we will now study this subject, which everyone should learn about.
This article proves problems of the evolution theory;
http://www.jariiivanainen.net/theory_of_evolution.html
Post a Comment