Humanity Evolved |

24Apr 2013

What if the Darwinists and Creationists Are Wrong?

Very little is really known about the origins of man because – as is the case with so many branches of science – new discoveries are constantly displacing old theories. Mankind is still largely viewed in Darwinian terms, except by those who subscribe to the beliefs of Christianity and the explanation of creation offered in the Book of Genesis. This biblical account at least grants us the dignity of a soul and a loving creator – or at least, a creator who cared enough to bother to give us life. But many people have grown dissatisfied with both of these stories about mankind’s origins, feeling that they do our race a disservice. Of course, there are also those that believe that Earth may have been “seeded” via another planetary body or even aliens. This concept of panspermia may seem outlandish but then, so is the fact that life seemingly “appeared” on Earth a few billion years ago. There’s no real evidence to support this theory but then, it’s not entirely beyond the realm of possibility either.

For as long as we’ve been self-aware and able to reflect upon our own existence, we’ve created myths and theories to account for how we got here. More often than not, when we ask, “Where did we come from, and why are we here?” what we’re really wondering is, “Of what inherent value – if any – is my life?”

If the answer you cling to is that your life is the random result of accidental chemical reactions followed by a survival of the fittest evolutionary process, then your ideas about the value of human life are bound to be pessimistic. The prevailing scientific view holds no room for any sacred purpose behind our existence. If, on the other hand, you believe that you’re the creation of a jealous God who later decided that He liked one group of people best and would help them to smite all others, then your view of humanity may not be any more uplifting. Both ideas have created a lot of unrest and general unhappiness in our world, because if we think that our own human nature is either a happy accident or a sinful creation, then how highly will we regard the lives of others?

Few of us escape the social conditioning – the indoctrination – that offers us two fundamental definitions of our nature and the nature of the universe. We can accept that we were created by sheer chance, and that millions of years of unfeeling, tooth-and-claw natural selection resulted in the formation of our consciousness, our very capacity to think and feel. Or, we can accept that we were created with divine intention, but with inherently sinful natures; and we’re surrounded by a tainted world that keeps tempting us to fall farther away from grace. Neither philosophy encourages us to view the life of self and other as sacred. Creationism or Darwinism: How about doing away with both?

It would be beneficial for us to either create new stories that honor the nobility and mystery of the human spirit or else admit that we just don’t know anything for certain about our origins. Our children, naturally inquisitive and creative as they are, can speculate for themselves and perhaps come up with more life-affirming explanations than the ones currently being offered to them. At least this way we’d be preserving some of the mystery and wonder of life for them.

15Apr 2013

Individual Fulfillment for the Good of Society

Jason Carr ⋅ 1 Comment

The existence of various forms of fascism in our world – and throughout our history – reflects a deep conviction that has been held by many people in many different times: The idea that only a group, as opposed to any individual, can wield real power. Whether it is a small and secretive cult or a vast empire, an organization can draw people into its structure because it seems like the only vehicle through which effective action can be taken in the world.

It’s hard for many of us to grasp the true power of ideas. Ideas have always been the real motive force behind all of the changes that our world has seen. It seems, though, as if history has actually been written by wars, revolutions and crusades. It can be harder to see the underlying beliefs that provoke such dramatic upheavals. All of these beliefs were once ideas in the minds of individuals. Individuals can exist (and think) without organizations, but organizations cannot exist without individuals.

Society thrives when the individuals within it are able to find personal fulfillment. When its people lack a basic sense of satisfaction with life – when circumstances are somehow blocking or foiling this fulfillment – then every segment of society feels it. Wars, economic depression, political stagnation and various protests can all be seen as symptoms of this underlying dissatisfaction. Historically speaking, many governments that ignore this reality do not last long. Consider, for example, the French Revolution.

Any society will grow and prosper only to the extent to which each member is recognized for the gifts that s/he possesses and the unique contributions that s/he is able to make. Efforts to stamp out individuality within a culture will always be self-defeating in the end. A good social structure is as much a work of human creativity as any painting, novel or poem. How can it carry life-giving energies if the very creativity of the people behind it is repressed?

Following our creative impulses will lead each one of us to personal fulfillment. A society that allows us our creative expression – that encourages it, even – will likewise be fulfilled. If it fails to do so, if it blocks the avenues of creativity and communication, then it will succeed only in cutting itself off from its own wellspring. When that happens, all of the various systems that it has created will begin to break down.

All the hard-headed labor in the world won’t suffice to fuse the broken pieces back together again, either. The system will have to be reinvented – and for this, it will need to rely upon the creativity and the freedom of the people who are a part of it. Individuals who are able to attain their own kind of personal fulfillment can build a prosperous society. The individual is not the enemy of the State, but rather its most crucial building block. Any society that chooses to turn a blind eye to this truth is bound to find itself living on borrowed time.

26Mar 2013

Fantasy Book Series That Would Make Great TV Shows

Jason Carr ⋅ 2 Comments

Recently, HBO’s Game of Thrones—based on George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire book series—has proven that there is a large audience out there, hungry for television adaptations of mammoth fantasy epics. In the past, genre fans met film versions of their favorite books with a mix of excitement and trepidation, eager to see how the stories would be translated to the screen but wary about how much plot would have to be cut to fit them into a standard film running time. Even years after each new Harry Potter movie opened, fans still hold debates over the various editing choices the filmmakers made in abridging J. K. Rowling’s massive tomes.

Now, however, the financial and creative success of Game of Thrones will likely pave the way for other fantasy book series to make their way to the screen, albeit the small one, without having to sacrifice scope or depth. Here are a small number of sci-fi and fantasy books that could make fantastic TV shows.

David Eddings’ The Belgariad and The Malloreon

Like A Song of Ice and Fire, Eddings’ 10-book series is a sweeping fantasy epic that involves a huge cast of characters and is set across a broad landscape of numerous countries and societies. A film could never bring justice to the amount of rich detail in the world of Eddings’ books. There are simply too many characters to cover and adventures to depict. The television series format, however, would give this story about a boy destined to be king, his band of compatriots, and the magical, immortal sorcerers who raise him the room to breathe that it so desperately needs. Eddings’ famous sense of humor, which permeates his work and often keeps it from descending into darkness, could also play beautifully on screen, the epic events juxtaposed with lighter moments of comedy from a cast of very distinctive characters.

James Clemens’ The Banned and the Banished

What makes James Clemens’ 5-book series so thrilling is that it often feels like you’re reading 5 or 6 series at once. Clemens is a master at splitting up his parties of adventurers into smaller groups and sending each one off into completely different places with vastly divergent landscapes, cultures, and mythologies. A film could never capture even a quarter of this enormous tale, but, as a television show, it could work much as Game of Thrones does, cutting back and forth between all of the various characters and plots. It could arguably be even more exciting. One scene, we’d be watching a horror story with gigantic, terrifying spider creatures, then a fantasy quest in an enchanted forest, and then a tale set at sea, involving mermaids. All of the pieces, however, would eventually come together into one satisfying whole, which could lend itself to phenomenal serialized television storytelling.

Roger Z. Zelazny’s The Chronicles of Amber

A glorious mix of science fiction and fantasy, this 10-book series is exactly the sort of story that could thrive on a large-budgeted pay-cable station such as HBO. Like all of the earlier stories, it’s set in many different places at once. Unlike the others, however, these places represent various dimensions and times. Therefore, it would likely appeal to fans of mind-bending sci-fi series such as Fringe. Meanwhile, like Game of Thrones, it revolves around a complex battle for a throne among various rivals, along with all of the ensuing court intrigue, backstabbing, and politics that one would come to expect from this sort of epic story.

Gail Carriger’s The Parasol Protectorate

Unlike the aforementioned stories, Gail Carriger’s comedic, supernatural, steampunk, mystery series isn’t epic fantasy. Regardless, this so-called “urbane fantasy,” as Carriger calls it, would make an absolutely smashing television show. Filled with all sorts of outlandish characters and chock full of adventure, it could make for a show as funny as it is suspenseful. An even better mash-up of Jane Austen and horror than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, The Parasol Protectorate is set in an alternate version of Victorian London where vampires and werewolves have been completely assimilated into society. It also features an unusual mythology that flips the usual vampire and werewolf legends on their heads in that people don’t lose their souls upon becoming one or the other. People who become vampires and werewolves actually have more soul, which is how they are able to live on after death or dismemberment. The series’ strong heroine, Alexia Tarrabotti, on the other hand, is a human being born with no soul, her special power being the ablity to revert vampires and werewolves back to their original, human forms when she touches them. This could make a fun, fresh, hilarious show, particularly if the series’ world can be depicted with as much love and meticulous detail as it is in the books.

These are only four of the hundreds of series out there just ripe for a television adaptation. As great as Game of Thrones is, perhaps its greatest legacy will ultimately be opening the door for other novels to eventually make their way to our TV screens. What are some books that you think would make it as a successful TV series?

21Mar 2013

How Modern Physics Resonates with Ancient Mysticism

Jason Carr ⋅ 1 Comment

Modern science has always been shadowed by an underlying paradox. Its methods have no basis upon which to define consciousness itself, and yet they are dependent upon human consciousness to provide them with all of the “laws” that they work within the context of. In other words, the scientific method can only assert that various things seem to be true insofar as our own perception goes. This is why new findings are constantly replacing old “truths” in its search for objective certainty. It cannot grapple with what sensory perception actually is (outside of the physical organs that perform it), and yet it must rely upon the evidence provided by the five senses as its only verification of truth.

In its quest to get move closer to the roots of its own methods, and to contend with the mystery of consciousness itself, modern quantum physics has made certain landmark discoveries that echo statements that many mystics and seers have made about the nature of reality since ancient times. The disparity between the scientific and the philosophical approaches to consciousness may not be as wide as humanity has long believed.

Within the workings of quantum theory, atomic and subatomic particles can behave in ways that are utterly contradictory according to our typical understanding of physical reality. Under certain experimental conditions an atom can take more than one path simultaneously, or exist in two places at once. Other experiments have demonstrated that the same principles can apply to larger (i.e., visible) objects as well. These findings mirror the mystical understanding that we exist in more dimensions than just the one that our physical senses perceive.

Mysticism perceives a relationship between the “outer” world of form and an “inner” dimension that creates it and imbues it with life and consciousness. The macrocosm mirrors the microcosm: “As above, so below.” Another central tenet is the idea that we create our own reality as our thoughts and feelings are made manifest.

In the world of modern science, old “laws” are constantly being supplanted by new discoveries. This in itself is a seeming paradox. How can old principles be proved false when we have effectively utilized them for countless inventions and innovations? Breakthroughs in quantum physics have suggested a solution to this apparent contradiction: The scientific method finds what it seeks. When physicists seek to measure electrons as waves then they inevitably see waves. When they go looking for particles they find particles.

It is always easy for us to find “evidence” to support our beliefs because our beliefs generate the “proof” to begin with. Thoughts and expectations have been shown to affect scientific inquiries. In the mystical understanding of reality, form follows thought and focus determines reality. Ancient wisdom is asserting itself in the most modern of technological settings, proving that all our manipulations in the outer world can never divorce us from our dependence upon the inner one. Such developments may serve to heal the age-old rift between psychology and philosophy; between scientific objectivity and inner certainty; between reason and intuition.

19Mar 2013

Origins of Human Teamwork Found in Chimpanzees

Jason Carr ⋅ 2 Comments

Image Credit: Oregonlive.com

Teamwork has been fundamental in humanity’s greatest achievements but scientists have found that working together has its evolutionary roots in our nearest primate relatives – chimpanzees.

A series of trials by scientists found that chimpanzees not only coordinate actions with each other but also understand the need to help a partner perform their role to achieve a common goal.

Pairs of chimpanzees were given tools to get grapes out of a box. They had to work together with a tool each to get the food out. Scientists found that the chimpanzees would solve the problem together, even swapping tools, to pull the food out.

The study (cited below), published in Biology Letters, by scientists from Warwick Business School, UK, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, sought to find out if there were any evolutionary roots to humans’ ability to cooperate and coordinate actions.

Dr Alicia Melis, Assistant Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School, said: “We want to find out where humans’ ability to cooperate and work together has come from and whether it is unique to us.

“Many animal species cooperate to achieve mutually beneficial goals like defending their territories or hunting prey. However, the level of intentional coordination underlying these group actions is often unclear, and success could be due to independent but simultaneous actions towards the same goal.

“This study provides the first evidence that one of our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzees, not only intentionally coordinate actions with each other but that they even understand the necessity to help a partner performing her role in order to achieve the common goal.

“These are skills shared by both chimpanzees and humans, so such skills may have been present in their common ancestor before humans evolved their own complex forms of collaboration”

The study, revealed in a paper entitled Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task, looked at 12 chimpanzees at Sweetwaters Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Kenya, which provides lifelong refuge to orphaned chimpanzees, who have been illegally traded as pets or saved from the ‘bushmeat’ trade.

The chimpanzees were put into pairs, with one needed at the back and one at the front of a sealed plastic box. Through a hole the chimpanzee at the back had to push the grapes onto a platform using a rake. The chimpanzee at the front then had to use a thick stick and push it through a hole to tilt the platform so the grapes would fall to the floor and both could pick them up to eat.

One chimpanzee was handed both tools and they had to decide which tool to pass to the partner. Ten out of 12 individuals solved the task figuring out that they had to give one of the tools to their partner and in 73 per cent of the trials the chimpanzees chose the correct tool.

Dr Melis said: “There were great individual differences regarding how quickly they started transferring tools to their partner. However, after transferring a tool once, they subsequently transferred tools in 97 per cent of the trials and successfully worked together to get the grapes in 86 per cent of the trials.

“This study provides the first evidence that chimpanzees can pay attention to the partner’s actions in a collaborative task, and shows they know their partner not only has to be there but perform a specific role if they are to succeed. It shows they can work strategically together just like humans do, working out that they not only need to work together but what roles each chimpanzee has to do in order to succeed.

“Although chimpanzees are generally very competitive when trying to gain access to food and would rather work alone and monopolize all the food rewards, this study shows that they are willing and able to strategically support the partner performing their role when their own success is dependent on the partner’s.”

Source: University of Warwick

Reference:

Melis, A., & Tomasello, M. (2013). Chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes) strategic helping in a collaborative task Biology Letters, 9 (2), 20130009-20130009 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0009

04Mar 2013

When Technological Progress Stirs Up Anxiety

Jason Carr ⋅ 1 Comment

In many sci-fi movies and novels, human beings create technology in the hopes of simplifying and enriching their lives and instead it ends up ruling them. The “man subsumed by the machine” motif has been appeared in Star Wars, Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, Frank Herbert’s Dune and many other places. Such stories speak to the underlying anxiety that we can feel when reflecting upon our own inventions. Can we learn to trust all this technology that we’re so often reliant upon?

Nowadays many people strongly depend upon things like search engines, social networking technology, digital publishing and so many other marvels of the computer age even though they may not actually understand how such things work. They may not even grasp the basic principles behind many of them.

Some apt statements about the psychological and spiritual ramifications of technology were made by the late great mythologist Joseph Campbell. Campbell pointed out that our culture’s technological progress has outstripped our ability to cope with it on a feeling level. We place our fate in technology’s hands, but do we really understand the bargain we’ve made? Do we know where technology is leading us? Can we sense how it might possibly be changing us?

Getting to the bottom of any form of anxiety typically involves finding and examining the beliefs that may be fueling it. This approach can also work for addressing “techie anxiety”. Here’s a few of the underlying realities that can make people feel uneasy about progress in the modern day:

History has taught us to question the motives of those who invent and manufacture technology. An obvious example of this is the phenomenon of splitting the atom, which led to one of the greatest horrors of the modern world: Nuclear weapons.
It is easy to blame technology for the rapine of the natural world. Of course, the real issue is our own personal choices, and the uses to which we put our technological knowledge. But we need only look at our litany of modern ecological ills to see the devastation that “progress” can wreak.
It all seems to be developing too fast and we feel unable to keep up with it. It’s been estimated that technological progress is occurring 20,000 times faster now than it did in 1900.

The idea that we are ruled by our environment – whether it’s natural or machine-made – is actually a myth. The technology that dominates our culture is merely a reflection of our values, our beliefs and even our fears. It serves as a mirror for us. If we treat it as such, we do not need to feel that it dominates us. It can remain a tool to be used, not to be used by.

25Feb 2013

Understanding Your Personality Type

Jason Carr ⋅ 1 Comment

Many schools of modern psychology have recognized four basic personality types, with various sub-groupings being comprised of mixtures of these basic traits. The main four are like the “primary colors” of the social palette. Although people can oftentimes find labels confining, an understanding of these basic personality types – and their distinctive approaches to life – may help you to understand how you see yourself and others, as well as your place in relation to the world.

The idea of personality types is not a modern concept. The ancient Greeks, for example, recognized that humanity’s approach to life and problem solving tended to fall within four key categories, and this idea may have originated even earlier. Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung made an extensive study of personality types, and many of his deductions have survived into modern psychological practice.

While labels can oftentimes be restrictive – and fail to honor the uniqueness of each person – some understanding of the basic personality types can help you to interact with others and make decisions with a greater degree of self-awareness. While most of us will share in the qualities of each group to some degree, you may find yourself resonating strongly with one in particular as you read its description. You could think of this as your primary stance in life, the way in which you see yourself in relation to the world.

Choleric people are drivers and doers. This type is the prototypical extravert. People in this category tend to be driven, organized and disciplined in the pursuit of their goals. Decisiveness is the dominant fact of their nature, and they back this up with a strong will. The shadow aspect of their will can express itself as stubbornness, arrogance and lack of consideration for the perceptions and feelings of others.

Sanguine (also known as expressive) people are filled with spontaneous, creative energy. This type makes for a good entertainer as well as a fun and energetic friend. The shadow side of the sanguine can be very self-centered, caught up in its own world. This can express itself in an overall lack of organization, and the inability – or unwillingness – to reciprocate in personal relationships.

Phlegmatic (also known as amiable) people are peacekeepers. They dislike conflict and strive to promote harmony. They tend to be good listeners. Amiable people can be counted on; they consistently pull through even when the going gets tough. On the downside, they may have problems communicating or setting limits because they’re so averse to confrontation. They may avoid certain responsibilities – particularly those involving decision making – for this reason.

Analytical people are neat and organized. They live their lives according to high personal standards. Their approach to life’s various challenges is typically persistent and thorough, and it proceeds according to a well thought out plan. They are good problem solvers for this reason. On the downside, the analytical tendency towards high standards can become overly rigid and demanding. Such people can become pessimistic or easily hurt when the world doesn’t live up to their expectations. The original word for this personality type was melancholy, but this is not so often used nowadays because of people’s tendency to associate that word with despondency.

Understanding which personality type you resonate with most strongly can help you to interpret your interactions with other people better. It helps you to perceive the various conflicts in life as less a matter of right or wrong and more a matter of people’s different values. This awareness can serve you well when making major life decisions – for example, those involving career choices or the pursuit of an intimate partnership.

Wanna find out what your personality type is? Take a free, confidential assessment here. Once you’re done, let me know if the results align with what you perceive as your personality. I’m especially interested in hearing about anything you might disagree with or results that you find surprising.

16Feb 2013

Witch Persecutions and the Perils of Shadow Projection

Jason Carr ⋅ 1 Comment

Image Credit: Hjoranna/Deviant Art

The history of our race is highlighted by many bright peaks and shadowy valleys. We have seen lofty heights and despairing lows. Occasionally there have been black gulfs almost too horrible to contemplate. The Holocaust in Nazi Germany is assured a permanent place on this list. Another black splotch upon the tapestry of human history is the rampant and mindless persecution of alleged witches, which cast its cruel shadow over many parts of Europe and the New World over a span of nearly three centuries (roughly 1450 to 1750). Oh, and let’s not forget 2013…

This former atrocity culminated in the rise of the Inquisition, which spread its influence into great portions of France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany and eventually Colonial America – most famously, during the witch “trials” in Salem, Massachusetts. Neighbor could not trust neighbor during those times, as hearsay and gossip was sufficient to cast suspicion upon an alleged witch. Once suspicion was established, the victim was almost never “found” innocent.

Credit: Shutterstock

Such proceedings bore little resemblance to anything that we would consider a justice system. The burden of proof lay upon the accused, and it was a no-win situation. Typically, the available means through which victims could “prove” their innocence were fatal anyway, such as by drowning (because only witches could float) or bearing Inquisitorial torture unto death.

At the sickening peak of its influence, the Inquisition was big business, too. Many of its victims were wealthy landowners whose properties were forfeit to the Catholic Church after their conviction. The persecution of witches also profited those who built the stakes as well as the innkeepers who housed all the people who came to watch the burnings.

The witch hunts are but one example – albeit a very dramatic one – of the tendency that human beings have to project the darker side of their nature upon specific individuals. These individuals are then obliged to play out the role of scapegoats. Psychologically speaking, there isn’t much difference between the way in which alleged witches were demonized centuries ago and the ways in which minority groups – racial, political, or sexual – can be demonized in our day.

The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung coined the term shadow to denote those aspects of the unconscious that a person fears and/or finds repugnant. The shadow is something inside ourselves that we don’t want to be aware of – so we project it upon others instead. In Jungian psychology, this is the true root of all hatred. The object of hatred always resembles something that lies, unrecognized, within the hater.

Persecution in any form will only disappear from our world when enough people resolve to take personal responsibility for their inner reality and face what is within them without projecting it upon others. The people in power during the reign of the Inquisition hated many aspects of human nature that the official religious beliefs of the time had made taboo, such as sexuality, personal spiritual revelation and a sacred sense of nature. Such hatred, spawned by ignorance and projection, led them to become a malignant force themselves. Philosophies that encourage us to see the worst in human nature must always bring about such results.

Reference:

Reeves, K. (2000). Racism and projection of the shadow. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37 (1), 80-88 DOI: 10.1037/h0087844

Woolf, A. (2000). Witchcraft or Mycotoxin? The Salem Witch Trials Clinical Toxicology, 38 (4), 457-460 DOI: 10.1081/CLT-100100958

06Feb 2013

The History and Basic Principles of Archetypal Psychology

Jason Carr ⋅ 4 Comments

The basic philosophy behind archetypal psychology was inspired by Carl Jung’s concept of the archetypes: Primordial symbols, appearing predominantly within our dreams, which are the common heritage of all mankind. The concept of archetypes implies that there are sources of health, healing, strength and wisdom within the psyche that are accessible to all of us. Archetypal psychology seeks to open up connections to this deeper source, believing that the true cures for a wide array of mental and emotional problems can be found there.

In the modern day, archetypal psychology has evolved into a particular therapeutic approach that focuses on patients’ dreams. It weds elements of broader spiritual belief with more conventional psychological approaches. The term was first coined by psychologist James Hillman, who expanded upon the dream explorations of others who had come before him – particularly Jung.

Carl Jung was one of the first psychiatrists to shift the focus of therapy to a patient’s inner life. Up until that point, the field of psychology had largely been dependent upon the established social order as its basis of measuring mental health. Basically, a person was viewed as normally functional to the extent to which he or she had been able to adapt to the status quo. Jung put forth the idea that the inner life in itself – particularly, as it expresses itself through our nightly dreams – is the true measure of psychological health.

R.D. Laing took Jung’s skepticism of the “wisdom of the status quo” a step further by posing this question: What if neuroticism is actually built in to the social structure, and supported by it? In that case, the therapeutic process must lead a person away from accepted social norms and towards the wisdom and knowledge of his or her own inner life.

This became one of the central principles of archetypal psychology. The outside world is not used as a reference point to measure a patient’s state of well-being. It is the dream that is looked upon as the true authority with regards to a person’s inner condition. The core of practice, therefore, revolves around trying to ascertain what a dream is communicating and then relaying this to a patient in terms that he or she can understand.

Around this core practice, numerous schools have evolved. Each one of them approaches the mystery and wisdom of the dream in a different way. Some stress the intellectual understanding of dream symbols and their meaning. Others focus on a patient’s emotional reality, and pay particular attention to the feeling responses that dreams evoke. In all cases, however, dreams are relied upon as the most trustworthy reflection of a person’s inner challenges and strengths. The world within is seen as not only the source of all of our difficulties but also the solution to them.

Reference:

James Hollis (2010). The Archetypal Imagination Journal of Analytical Psychology, 55 (2), 302-303 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5922.2010.01842_3.x

Hunt H (1992). Dreams of Freud and Jung: reciprocal relationships between social relations and archetypal/transpersonal imagination. Psychiatry, 55 (1), 28-47 PMID: 1557468

Goss P (2006). Discontinuities in the male psyche: waiting, deadness and disembodiment. Archetypal and clinical approaches. The Journal of analytical psychology, 51 (5), 681-99 PMID: 17064336

09Jan 2013

Mind Over Evolution: An Alternative Vision of Humanity

Jason Carr ⋅ 7 Comments

consciousness

Part of the reason why fierce debates rage around the origins of man – in the conflicts between Creationism and Darwinism that we see within many schools, for example – is because our beliefs about where we came from can strongly influence our sense of identity and our feelings of self-worth. It’s impossible to separate our self-image from our life philosophies in that regard. The stories we cling to will paint our inner pictures of who we are, where we come from and what our race can achieve.

Unfortunately, the stories that we’ve inherited in our culture paint a fairly unflattering picture that does little to inspire us to discover and express our true potential in this world.

Science spins its own version of reality. If you believe that the sky is blue because of the chemical composition of the gases that exist up there, and the way that light refracts off of them, then that’s all you’ll ever see. You won’t perceive the unfathomable mystery of it all. What is the true nature of light, or gases, or the color blue? Questions like these are beyond our ken. The theory of evolution teaches us that it’s useless to ask such questions anyhow, though. This theory, which forms the backbone of so much scientific thought and of our very definitions of humanity, maintains that matter came first and consciousness emerged later – almost as an afterthought; and certainly by accident.

consciousness (1) What if the mind formed matter? What if consciousness preceded everything else, and created form? Our scientific indoctrination has convinced us that reality works the other way around, but we’ve been offered little actual proof of this. What is obvious, however, is that the belief that consciousness always comes first would do much more to uphold the beauty, grace and potential of our natures than does the belief that our existence was the random result of accidental evolution.

We would do well to adopt stories that inspire us and offer us a new vision of what humanity can aspire to. When trying to grasp the nature of our reality as human beings, and drawing upon the resources that civilization offers us, we’ve thus far been essentially left with a choice between atonement (the predominant religious thinking of the West), accepting that the world we exist in is illusory (the predominant religious thinking of the East), or the theory of evolution. Typically, we are never taught or encouraged to believe that we are, ourselves, divine.

None of the arguments that uphold a notion of a barren and sterile universe can hold water. Most children know better than to believe in those wet-blanket descriptions of reality. Sadly, though, they eventually learn to accept them. How could they not, when our cultural beliefs make their survival virtually dependent upon it?

Love has to come from somewhere. But within the world’s established religions, love always has its conditions; and within the world of science, love can be explained away in terms of neurological transmissions and chemical interactions. It seems that our race, by and large, is willing to accept practically any belief except for one that maintains that what we are is something miraculous.

Most scientists or religious scholars would dispute that we are miraculous, by virtue of being conscious beings. Could it be that consciousness came first; that we did not become humans by accident? What if consciousness created our world in order to express all that it is, and to become better acquainted with itself? If this is true, how might it change the idea that consciousness will arise in machines once we’ve reverse-engineered the brain?