James

I'd like to share some thoughts I had about evolution of man. Read carefully when you have time and patience...hehehe . And please send your opinions and comments too, many thanks. Well here we go, firstly consider the following subjects: 1) How pre-historic man is described, mainly by Anthropology and Archaeology using analysis and dating of findings and then speculating on them. 2) How physical characteristics are determined and passed on generation to generation, in other words, Genetics and Paleontology. 3) How changes in these characteristics or genes occur and what determines it to occur - Evolutionary biology. Now consider what each of these subjects states (or tends to state today) respectively: A] Ancient Man is described as a primate living in rough conditions, having only a couple of tools, in a situation that makes him very vulnerable to nature, no tecnhology whatsoever is available to him. As a sample timeline to illustrate our thoughts consider the 50,000 year ago mark. B] Genetics and Paleontology states that DNA changes occur very slowly, and consequently, on a completely different time scale than the cultural and technological changes occur. In other words the 50000 year old man is considered relatively equal to today's man in genetic terms. Actually, recent fossil records (skull findings) seem to acknowledge that modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) is much older than previously thought of before. C] Darwin's Natural Selection is almost unanimously accepted as the major evolution theory today, that is..."random mutations in members of a geographically determined population tend to differentiate individual offsprings providing some with greater survival (and procreative) advantages over the others thus leading them to outnumber the others and consequently re-shaping the populations whole genome. The "survival advantage" is obviously determined by the environment in which the population is living. "Let him who hath understanding reckon the... heheh... just kidding...hehehe Well, the aparent inconsistency in what is presented to us by these fields of study cannot be perceived when analysing each subject separately, but only in their relation to one another, that is: - If ancient man's habitat and environment was really what is depicted by anthropology [A], and - If genes were relatively stable over 50000 years, so man then was genetically similar to us now , and - If Natural Selection really determined evolution [C] Then we can question the following: Focusing on A ========= > How could ancient environments (even older than 50000 if you consider the recent skull findings) present favorable directions for DNA evolution towards characteristics of modern man? For instance, when you consider that "intelligence" in this kind of savage environment would probably not be any of the aspects we consider intelligence in our society today, for example, among a group of men living in the wilderness (without technology) the offsprings that would present better adaptation for survival would be the ones that developed better "sense intelligence" of the environment (not just rational intelligence), in other words, better hearing, smelling, tasting, etc (just like animals). It would also be important to "interpret" these sense inputs in a rational way (aka modern man's symbolic and analytical thinking process), but without the sense input (or tools to substitute the natural input, aka technology) what good would just the "thought power" be of? It seems to me that if natural selection was the main evolution process occurring then men would have evolved in a different direction. Another example is our skin. Just take a walk in the bush and see how sensitve to cuts and bruises we are. Now why would man lose the animal fur and have to "make his own fur"? What advantage would that have produced among "still cave-like men"? It seems to me that if natural selection is the main determinant for our evolution then ancient man would have to have been living in an environment in which he was already disconnected from direct contact with nature. An interesting analogy for this "conspiracy like" theory would be the "legend of tarzan". We could imagine that our genetics evolved in a totally different environment (already containing some technology) and then for some unknown reason was put back into the "direct contact with nature". One could even speculate that man "mythologically" knowns this when he creates religions in which he is a "creation" especially made by God, and the "Garden of eden" could be thought of an archetype of this ancient environment where he didn't experience the "dangers" of nature, in other words, he wasn't in crude contact with it. Just for the sake of illustration let's return to the "tarzan myth" and imagine the following hypothetical example: if a large number of offspring were abandoned in nature without any cultural education, most would die but maybe some could survive. These survivors would have the inherent capacity to speak a language and excercise deep abstract thinking just like we do, but it would probably take them thousands of years before a formal written language came up again, not to mention all the sciences and technology. Just one more example here before I move on: Another inconsistency of the evolution theory presented is what I will call the "latent intellectual capacity" found in native populations. For instance, you could get a native child whose parents have been living in a very archaic society for thousands of years and bring the child to a modern society. The child will go to school and learn just like another child from our society and could even end up a PhD at Harvard or Oxford. So why did evolution develop this inherent potential of intelligence "evenly" among different populations and tribes in the world? It's obvious that these characteristics would have to have been common among the first ancestors of man that started roaming the earth in much older times and under even tougher environments. It all doesn't make sense to me. Focusing on C ========= > Well, I was already considering statement A to be incorrect, meaning that man would have an unknown past, much different from what he ever had imagined. But one could change the focus from A to C, questioning if Natural Selection was really the main evolution process. I'm not saying, Natural Selection is incorrect and doesn't occur, but maybe it plays a much smaller role in man's evolution. Though it would still be the main determinant for animals, but not men? This does sound wierd, but let's bare with it for a while just for the sake of analysis. Well, if we can postulate on the idea that there are other forces that determine evolution, then the A statement could still be valid and the "atlantis" dream can be but back in the cupboard for now, heheh. But then the question is what force? And why wouldn't it affect animals too? Mckenna describes in "Food of the Gods" that the food source could have had an impact, but I'm a bit skeptical of considering this as the main force, maybe a catalist though. Even Terence gives us hints to this when he metaphorically mentions the "Trojan Horse" for bringing the "elve's own agenda". While this is just a philosophical view I had, my tendency is to think as the mind as being an agent that could direct evolution. Similarly to Lamarck's discarded theory of behavioral genetic inheritance. I don't think behaviorlly acquired physical characteristics would be genetically passed, as stated by Lamarck (an athlete would have strong children, or the Giraf developed long necks due to stretching it. But I seem to believe that the mind can... Well, enough said for today. Thank you for the patience of those who managed to read til here! Please send your comments and ideas. I look forward to it. I've got some other insights into Economics that I'd like to share with you guys. But don't what to bore you so let me know what you think. Peace and Love, James

I'd love to go, but it's so far away from Sydney...

count me in to help out too

It was very nice meeting you guys. Thanks for the tour at the Gardens. I've got much to learn about plants and nature. At the end I found myself contemplating a giant Fig tree and missed the walk to the pub for a beer Hope to see you again soon.

Cool. Wish I could go too... For specific plants it would depend on what part of Brazil he is going to. I didn't find Guarana in the SAB list, I think it's name is Paullinia Cupana. So maybe some guarana seeds or extract would be something good to get? By the way, sometime in the future we should plan a trip to the Amazon. I can help with the portuguese language. Cheers

Yeah, it's very hard to become optimistic about the world when you switch on the TV. Media is just getting worse as time goes by. And the general population seems to be getting dumber too. The ironic point here is that in the old days there actually was some censorship, nowadays people are free to say whatever they want, but who is out there saying something different? Noam Chomsky has an interesting article called "What makes mainstream media mainstream", in which he states that nowadays the actual system has evolved in a sense as to "leave out" things that "do not fit" in the generally accepted ideas of society, in other words, there's no need for censorship anyone since the system has incorporated it into it's culture! Here's the link to the article: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9710...ream-media.html It really is a shame that the world in the 60s and 70s seemed to be evolving towards the right direction and then all of a sudden things started to go downhill again. Look at the arts for instance, music, cinema, the awesome creativity that came up in that era, and look at it all now. In those days real intelligence and creativity made it to the mainstream, i.e, 2001 a space odyssey, Kung fu (tv series), etc, are examples of this. Nowadays you really have to "dig in" to find things that have intelligence, 99% of what is out there is pure crap for the stupid and blind population to consume. Education is always mentioned by politicians as something very important in society, but then shouldn't people study general concepts of Economics and Law in school? Shouldn't people really undertand what are the building blocks of society? Why is there so much emphasis in the teaching of science and so little in the subjects that people actually need to understand how the system works? The relationship among citizen and government is something that is taken for granted, not something actually studied as a formal discipline. People are led to think of the government as a "paternalistic" entity that knows everything, loves them, and always wants the best for them. This is actually a psychoanalytical projection, people are seen as infants that are still unprepared to face the dangers of the world and need protection/punishment, as a child that tries to play with fire might burn himself, and would get punished if he insists. Despite this increasing trend among governments of the world, there seems to be an uprise of intelligence. And differently from what we would think of the the 60s, it's not coming the the once leader of liberal thought united states. It's coming from some of the western european countries, such as Germany, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, etc. The German autobahn is an example of this, the line of thought there is the following: "If the population demonstrates greater maturity, they will have greater liberty", so as the statistics of traffic accidents are becoming lower, people are driving more carefully, the speed limits on some highways are being removed, you can drive as fast as you want to. In this way, the government can mobilise people towards a cause, but without the same parent-child-punishment approach, instead it's a adult-adult-conscience approach. I believe all goverments should start changing to a more mature approach towards seeing the public. They should be pushing towards making people act as adults that are responsible and "know how to deal with" fire and other dangers out there. Government marketing should emphasize that greater responsibility will lead to greater liberty, not the opposite. The "we will punish you" and "behaviour is achieved through fear" should be seen as a medievel thing that needs to fade away. That "double demerit points", "how fast are you going", etc, will only achieve behaviour by making people scared. Why can't they change to a more adult way of seeing the public? Well, enough said for today, send your comments, Peace and Love, James

Don't have all the ones listed by inpsyght, but I do have most of them and also some others not listed. I'll bring the collection to the EGA so if anyone has a notebook with a burner they may copy as they wish. Maybe we should compile a full list in alphabetical order of all files we know of. Just need to "keep the volume down" about it since there might be copyright issues with some of the videos... Hope to see you all at the EGA. Cheers

Hi there, Cool... I just saw the meeting schedule. Looking forward to see you guys, spiritual brothers. Missed the last meeting minErval set up, but I'll make it this time. I don't have anything special to trade so I'll bring along some dvds/cds to give away. Thought of burning "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" (a movie from the 70s) and some other video docos on the cds like the Basel 2006 conference (but some in german..) and a very interesting video of Terence Mckenna in Prague talking to Richard Alpert, and a doco with lots of original 60s footage of Leary, Metzer, etc Looking forward to meeting you... Peace and Love, James

The main URL: http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/

Interesting talk radio show from the UK. They have a web site with some shows in mp3 for download. "Best Of " (22nd December 2005) All the best bits from our 13 episodes, glued together and underlaid with a fine soundtrack: http://www.seethru.co.uk/tgdg/tgdg10.mp3 I especially enjoyed the information on how our modern psychiatry serotonin medications for depression are being "pushed" to the public. "Asking Dr Shulgin " (18th November 2005) Where do new mind-altering drugs come from? Who invents these things? And why? Well, most seem to have been invented by one man: Dr Alexander Shulgin. http://www.seethru.co.uk/tgdg/tdgd6.mp3 It's always nice to hear Sasha and Ann talking. Enjoy

Thanks for the comments. I've never been to these workshops and "deep ecology" is a new term to me. So I greatly appreciate your remarks. Life has tought me to become skeptical of things. I just had a bad experience with an ashtanga yoga school, they were more or less just doing physical exercises using a "yoga" context, so everyone there could "feel" as if they were doing something different. But looking in deeply there was nothing different, nothing spiritual or philosophical there. Sometimes I question myself if maybe I'm expecting too much? But then I listen to one of the Terence Mckenna or Alan Watts audios, or just read some posts the senior members here write and then I realise there is real intelligence out there! There are people that are really seeking deep understanding of things, but it's so rare too find. Reminds me of that old Rush song: "So much style without substance So much stuff without style It's hard to recognize the real thing It comes along once in a while Like a rare and precious metal beneath a ton of rock It takes some time and trouble to separate from the stock You sometimes have to listen to a lot of useless talk Shapes and forms against the norm" But I believe Nature has much to teach us, but the language culture teaches us to use: rational thought, maniqueist paradigm, objectivism, capitalism, etc, isn't probably adaquate to establish contact to these forces. You guys know more than I do... hehehe Peace and Love

Has anyone been to a "Council of All Beings" workshop? Originally started by Australian ecologist John Seed. There's gonna be one now on the 25th of March in Katoomba. http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/deep-eco/katoomba.htm Any comments about them? Peace and Love

I was also shocked by Soissos attitude towards AndyAmine. And if you read his message you'll see that he is actually tyring to help! I'm also new to this forum but I've seen that AndyAmine is someone that deserves our most grateful respect and honor. We have much to learn from him. Soisso, Please apologize and mediate about your reaction. If you have cultivate a pure heart and a positive feeling you will achieve your goals. Peace and Love

I'm interested in going but I'm new here and don't know anyone yet so I'm not sure how to find and meet you guys there. Let me know? By the way, where is the Psychedelic Art Gallery in Newtown? I didn't find any references to it in the web... Hope to see you soon

I'm also interested in the file collection. And maybe I've got some files that can be added too. I'm new to the forum and must say that it's very cool. Everyone seem so nice here. Let me know how to proceed for the file collection?