Civilization question?

[Interested Onlooker]

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/cover

This article always fascinates me and really hones in on the importance of seafaring as a catalyst towards change in a region. I wish I had visited if I was aware of it when I had a residence in Rome....

"They had paddled 20 miles up the small river from the sea."
That 20 miles is key in my opinion when considering most other Neolithic sites. Far enough stream to explore but within a one day hard-walk to the coast.

"The time was roughly 5700 B.C., early in the Neolithic Period, five millennia before the founding of Rome. By then, biologically modern humans had lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years. Many archaeologists would call them culturally modern as well, insofar as Lascaux and other painted caves show they were capable of symbolic expression. But another essential human characteristic was still missing in these people. They painted animals, but they did not tame them; they manipulated symbols but not the world. They lived wild, nomadic lives. Like animals, they hunted and foraged. Unlike us, they left the world as they found it. Europe thus remained mostly wild, primeval forest."

"The change, when it finally came, was so fast and deep it is called the Neolithic revolution. Around 11,000 years ago in the Near East, some people stopped roaming and began farming—domesticating wild plants and beasts, living in permanent settlements. By 9,000 years ago, or 7000 B.C., the revolution had arrived in Greece, and by 4000 B.C., it had spread across Europe into Britain and Scandinavia. "

"They arrived here by boat, with animals that were already domesticated and with a large collection of plants. And they found here an ideal place."

[Interested Onlooker]

Related to topic...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... racle.html

This story makes my mind spin.

First of all, you have to believe that a higher altered state of consciousness can be induced that can bring temporary beneficial cabilities. Possible?

[Minimalist]

The first article is fabulous.

[Ishtar]

First of all, you have to believe that a higher altered state of consciousness can be induced that can bring temporary beneficial cabilities. Possible?

Shamanism.

The Pythonesses of the Delphic oracle were shamans that used pyschotropics of some kind, whether gas or herbal is yet to be discovered.

I'll copy into a quote here a post I did a few days ago, so that you can see some of the beneficial capabilities of shamanism and hallucinogenics that induce a different state of consciousness.

OK, let’s talk about ‘drugs’.

Just the very word ‘drug’ implies a substance that will make us dozy, to say the least, and blur or distort our perceptions of ‘reality’. Then there’s so-called ‘recreational drugs’ such as the purple hearts or speed that was popular in the Sixties and Seventies. None of these are anything to do with shamanism.

For millennia, shamans (although by no means most) have been known to go into trance with the use of psychotropic herbs. We know that the Vedics used soma (which most think was probably the flyagaric mushroom). And the South American shamans used ayahuasca, peyote and datura, and still do today.

Virtually no scientific work has been done on whether hallucinations caused by psychotropic herbs are just random images being produced from the subconscious (common Western, rational scientific view, although not proved by them) or whether they are the key to an altered state which is as equally valid as this ‘normal reality’ state (view of shamans plus Aldous Huxley, Carlos Castenada, Timothy Leary and Ken Kesey plus his Merry Pranksters).

Jeremy Narby has also done some very good work in his book “The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the origins of knowledge”. And of course, we cannot forget Michael Harner who was the first anthropologist to take ayahuasca in the 1960s to experience subjectively, first hand the shamanic altered perception, rather than just viewing it objectively from the outside.

So while you could take the view that these substances are ‘drugs’ that create a false sense of reality, the forest shaman of South America sees them as the key to help him enter another reality which is, in fact, part of this reality in that it makes it whole.

Perhaps another way of looking at this is to go back to our earlier discussions about the fact that we only see about 1 per cent of what really is. The shaman uses psychotropic herbs to enter into more of this ‘what really is’. to expand his perception, in order to discover more about the natural universe.

(John – you’ll be interested to know that Jeremy Narby calls this ‘forest television’.)

Ironically, one of the benefits of work by the South American shamans is now being plundered by Western drug companies (e.g. Haliburton) which are run by the self same people who are responsible for the laws about the legality or otherwise of drugs.

The drug companies have discovered the herbs of the Amazonian rainforest and are in the process of harvesting them. So how are they identifying which plants or herbs do what? They are relying on the expertise of the forest shamans, who hold this knowledge in great detail. And how did the forest shamans acquire this expertise on their natural environment? Well, they say that they acquired it by taking psychotropic herbs like ayahuasca and datura. In this way, they were able to enter into the spirit dimension and talk to the spirits of each plant to learn what its properties are.

Their knowledge of the plants, acquired in this way, is proving of immense value to the drug companies. This wouldn’t be the case if the ingesting of psychotropic herbs led merely to useless random and unreal hallucinations about imaginery 'gods' or spirits.

[Interested Onlooker]

Ishtar - would you say that we have 'inate' abilities that may not be realized unless psychotropic drugs are induced?

[dannan14]

I/O that might be the case, but once you learn the things that psychoactive plants and other psychedelics can show you it becomes unnecessary to use the substances anymore. This is a view held by Terrence McKenna, Ken Kesey, the late Timothy Leary, and for what it's worth, myself.

Think of them as tools for learning.

[Digit]

If that's the case IO then drugs that suppress certain faculties would logically permit access to them, but it's a sledge hammer way of achieving it I think and with little or no control of what you get left with as still being active.
Surely this is what hypnosis achieves and with more control?

[Ishtar]

Most shamans use drums, Tibetan singing bowls, singing, movement and don't use psychotropic herbs at all. It's mainly South American shamans who use them, and I'm just being told by my shaman friend that the Welsh Druids used the herb artemisia. Also 5,000 years ago, the Indians used soma.

So no, it is not necessary but it is a way. The plant is a gatekeeper to expanded consciousness.

[Interested Onlooker]

OK.

So, there are capabilities that are inate within our brain. In the normal non-influenced state, there is not a connection to these additional beneficial capabilities.

There are multiple ways to make these connections to these inate qualities, using psychotropic drugs being one of them. However, it may not be the best way since it may lead to an over-abuse or addiction.

Once 'connection' occurs in a disciplined manner, the footprint of the connection is remembered and recognized.

Correct?

[Ishtar]

There are multiple ways to make these connections to these inate qualities, using psychotropic drugs being one of them. However, it may not be the best way since it may lead to an over-abuse or addiction.

Once 'connection' occurs in a disciplined manner, the footprint of the connection is remembered and recognized.

Correct?

Yes, except there is no addiction with these substances. They are not addictive.

A very good book to read on how all this works is the Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmic-Serpent- ... 164&sr=1-2

The Cosmic Serpent is a book written by an anthropologist who sets out to aid indigneous peoples keeping rights to their land by demonstrating that their knowledge of the fauna and flora allows them to use the rainforest as a natural pharmacy, during his time with these peoples his life is re-directed by the honest spiritual accounts of the 'ayahuasqueros' the local shamans. Years later he cannot ignore the spiritual elements of what he learned with these people and he begins to push at the boundaries of the known sciences.

The book is written in a very readable manner, and even though the author has little or no background in other sciences he has gone into great detail in his research. I think this book would be quite readable for those with no science type background right up to those with a good knowledge of biochemistry, but an open mind is needed to observe the logic Narby works with.

As pointed out in some of his other reviews his logic can seem to leap a little far sometimes, e.g. a plumed snake from the Aztec mythology representing both 'serpent' and 'non-serpent'. However i believe this is more to do with the detail he has gone into for when he states examples from other known myths and civilisations, books on ancient Aztec and Mayan civilisations would explain this conclusion a little more.

Parts of this book read very much like Bill Brysons short history of nearly everything, and it is wonderful to read the fascinating facts of DNA and biochemistry first hand from someone who has just learned about the awe inspiring facts of our bodies and there secret codes. I think Narby gives a much needed push to some 'accepted' areas of science. For example, as DNA has been further understood since Crick and Howell, it has become apparent that only a small portion of it, 3%, is used to instruct how to make a human body. When i studied biology it was a source of frustration to me that the other 97% was termed 'nonsense DNA' and was believed to be useless. Why after however billion years of evolution our DNA would only be 3% useful is beyond Darwin, It was good to read Narby pushing this and other curious elements about things we take for granted scientifically.

[kbs2244]

Isn’t there a distinction between physical and mental addiction?
In other words, you can like the effect and want more of it, with out having a body chemistry need for it?

[Ishtar]

Isn’t there a distinction between physical and mental addiction?
In other words, you can like the effect and want more of it, with out having a body chemistry need for it?

Yes, but you could say that about anything.

[dannan14]

Especially chocolate, oh yeah and doughnuts.

[Interested Onlooker]

From a genetics standpoint, based on my understanding, it would be difficult to infer a global connection when examining mummified remains.

If someone was to humor the notion that there was a link between (for example the middle east or indo-eurasia region with the earliest S. American nobles), the answers could not be inferred genetically. Y-DNA cannot be obtained from mummified remains to determine if genetic markers, such as the haplogroup F family, is present.

To do this type of genetic analysis on the people living in this region today would be equally futile. Between the plagues that wiped out people by the 10's of millions during the Spanish conquest of that region and the genetic mixing that has occurred since those times of the earliest settlements, the waters are too muddied.

[Interested Onlooker]

OK.

So, there are capabilities that are inate within our brain. In the normal non-influenced state, there is not a connection to these additional beneficial capabilities.

There are multiple ways to make these connections to these inate qualities, using psychotropic drugs being one of them. However, it may not be the best way since it may lead to an over-abuse or addiction.

Once 'connection' occurs in a disciplined manner, the footprint of the connection is remembered and recognized.

Correct?

Basically this was just a summary of what I thought was being said in the previous posts by Ishtar, Digit and dannan with Ishtar later questioning the addiction part.

I would have to agree with what you all were saying. What I'm having trouble understanding is how do we account for these inate qualities. It may be laziness, but it is easier for me to agree that there was an "un-earthly" influence to account for these characteristics vs. acquiring them from evolutionary random mutations and the applied natural selection pressures.

I'm not willing to go as far to suggest what this outside influence might be.

I may also be shown how that there are other examples in nature that exist that can draw parallels.