Self-fullfilling prophecy. “I’ve heard that eating brains/pituitary glands provides a sexual rush” (whatever the heck that is–an erection? an ejaculation?) “So I tried it and it does.” Of course, since the overwhelming connection of all sexual stimuli is mental, psyching oneself up to be stimulated is a good way to perceive stimulation.
DDG, I do not think that the intent of the statements relating sexual drive and intelligence were intended to indicate a re-inforcement loop. I suspect that he simply meant that the smarter one is, to begin with, the more effect (mental) sexual stimulation has on a person. Maerth. as an already developed, intelligent modern Homo sapiens sapiens would, therefore, feel the rush more keenly than an earlier individual. (Against which I still posit my wish fullfillment hypothesis.)
Of course, he immediately earns my scorn with seriously ignorant claims that Columbus discovered that the world was round. In addition, Socrates did feel that humanity was at the peak, Copernicus was not viewed as a heretic (except by a very few anti-scientific Protestant Reformers) and Galileo would never have gotten in trouble if he had not insisted that his science (embraced by church astronomers) should replace theology. So, basically, he has Darwin to look to and demonstrates a fair amount of ignorance in making the claim.
Much more likely, of course, is that Maerth is agreeing with the firmly noted paleontological record of increasing brain size that was described long before his “investigations,” but for which he is now inventing odd (and difficult to test) hypotheses as explanations.
(His “evidence” for seizures and brains swelling out of crania are–what?)
Regarding the eating of brains and pituitary glands: several societies, today, treat primate brains as delicacies. (They generally stick to smaller monkeys, rather than the great apes, of course.) In Maerth’s cosmos, what has been the effect of this diet on those who partake of it? Are they increasing sexual potency? sexual stamina? sexual desire? Are they continuing to increase or are they now diminishing their inherited intelligence by concentrating on “lesser” species for their diet? If they are having no effect, how does this non-event fit into Maerth’s theory?
I remember reading in Joseph Campbell’s Primitive Mythology how early proto-humans cannibalized each other’s brains. He made some dark suggestions about this primal crime lurking in the back of the collective unconsciousness, or something like that.
In Jean Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear, the Neanderthal shamans get together, sacrifice a young man to a cave bear, and retreat into the deepest recesses of a cave to pass his freshly killed skull around and partake of Holy Communion. For shamans only.
In the novel Shadows on the Aegean by J. Suzanne Franks (descending into ever deeper levels of schlock here), she posits the origin of the Greek gods as rulers of the Minoan civilization on the volcanic island of Thera before the Big One blew up. They attained their godlike powers by ritual human brain cannibalism (like the shaman confraternity in Clan of the Cave Bear). Unfortunately they didn’t know about prion infection or Kreutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. (Like Mad Cow Disease.) The result was the fall of their civilization as they ate their brains into spongiform encephalitic dementia.
Remember the film Quest for Fire? The hungry travelers find some meat in someone’s campfire ashes? Then they notice the human skull in there. And puke.
As far as eating brain giving you a sexual rush- I have heard it from a few sources besides him. And I do not think it is that hard to believe. Think about it, the brain has all these hormones and chemicals…when eating fresh brains it is very possible that the hormones and chemicals have an effect on you. Think of it like a drug.
As for the increase in intelligence…you are right. There is no proof for that. And keep in mind that he never says you become smarter when you eat brain. It is not like, “hey Ed knows a lot of physics, I have a physics test tomorrow, if I eat his brain then I’ll pass the test easily.” He sees the increase in intelligence as occuring over almost a million years (his time frame for eating brains seems to be 1 million years ago to 50,000 years ago).
He talks about the increase in intelligence as increasing the sexual rush only when he talks about why the cannibal apes stopped wandering around killing and raping monkey populations and started killing and raping their own kind.
As for citation…I don’t even own the book. (It is hard to find) I’ve read it twice. And while he offers a good deal of citation, he definitely doesn’t cite enough…not nearly enough to make this all scientific.
Another interesting posit by Mr. Maerth. The whole one rib Adam and Eve thing. He believes that civilization started somewhere around modern day Israel, where a female Asian Ape and male African Ape (the african ape, he says, has one more set of ribs than the asian variety) were both wandering the outskirts of their respective lands, bumped into eachother, and procreated. Usually, he says, this sort of interspecies breeding doesn’t work. But it is known to work sometimes. The result was a freak who was ostracized from both communities. Maerth believes that this freak was the one who was forced into cannabalizing an ape and raping females.
and he gets way sillier than that, too.
so don’t take it too seriously.
We take everything seriously here, in Great Debates. This is a website specifically devoted to Fighting Ignorance. See the Home Page? We also run a fairly busy sideline in debunking Urban Legends and Urban Folklore. Part of the Fight Against Ignorance involves calling people on their unsubstantiated statements, especially when those statements sound like Urban Legends.
When we ask for a “cite”, what we want is not, “I have heard it from a few sources besides him”, or, “there’s sillier stuff than that in the book”. Neither do we want you to quote from the book, since the book in question is obviously way out there in Urban Folklore territory, so it doesn’t matter whether you own a copy of it or not.
What we want, nay, what we require, is for you to post a link (an URL) to a website that backs up your statements, that proves your point.
These statements, here:
[ul]
[li]Consuming a pituitary gland causes a sexual rush. [/li][li]Gorilla brain is a delicacy.[/li][li]Consuming a gorilla brain causes a sexual rush. [/li][/ul]
Tom~ has already kindly pointed out that some societies do in fact consume monkey brains, and I’m not quibbling with that, but you said specifically “gorilla”. A “gorilla” is not a “monkey”. Gorillas are large, protected, endangered species. Monkeys are everywhere. I find it hard to visualize any society that could get away with considering gorilla brain as a delicacy without the WWF and PETA & Co. finding out about it and screaming bloody murder, like they do with tiger penises, etc.
The pituitary gland is smaller than a pea–I don’t find anything on the Web that says that this tiny gland could cause a sexual rush, especially when ingested, i.e. dropped into the seething, churning acid pit that is the human stomach.
I have no doubt that consuming practically any food substance, from Godiva chocolates to gorilla brain, could give you a sexual rush. If you think it’s erotic, then it will be. The brain is the biggest sex organ of all. However, what we need is some kind of proof that gorilla brain is in fact an aphrodisiac–and on a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance, mere anecdotal evidence does not suffice.
You posted these statements as “facts”. I’m here to say they are not “facts”. I’m asking you for a link to a website that proves that they are indeed “facts”. If you can do that–if you can post a link to a reputable scientific website that backs up your statements, then I will sheepishly apologize and you will have scored points.
However, if you can’t back them up with a cite, then according to the Code of the SDMB, it is incumbent upon you to post a “my bad”, with or without a " :o " smilie.
That’s how it works, babe. Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board.
I did a search, JFTHOI and “found nothing”. There was this site with some interesting facts on Lust in the Animal World, but nothing on gorilla brains.
Yesterday on Book TV, David Horowitz quoted one of his professors as saying:
Funny, because I liken him to Graham Hancock- criticized in his own time (and likely ever after) for presenting unproven fringe theories as legitimate findings. Alex Chiu seems to have the same playbook, but chose Edison, Tesla, and Einstein as the alleged ‘once scorned now exalted.’
Not that I put any stock in this nonsense, but I seem to recall a legitimate scientifically conducted experiment where an annelid was able to gain a very simple learned ability through eating another annelid that had previously learned the behavior. It will take a bit to find a cite, but I’ll look into it.
DeadAngel: Just a quick clarification: evolution is an observable phenomenon. It is Selection as the driving force behind this change that is the crux of Darwin’s theory.
I remember from my high school biology that flatworms (platyhelminthes, not annelids) that had never previously run a maze that ate other flatworms that had learned that maze subsequently knew how to run that maze.
Yeah, it was planaria. And also, if you cut a planaria in half along the shorter axis; that is, you seperate him into a head and a tail, and then both parts regenerate into a new planaria, then both parts will remember how to run the maze, even though the original brain was only in one part!
Which, besides being cool, just goes to show that planaria memory ain’t quite like ours
Ok, wait a second… was this a quotation from the book, or is this true? If true, can I get a cite for that? It sounds like a hell of a lot more interesting story than the typical “they didn’t like the idea of a heliocentric solar system” bit.
It also plays merry hell with Kuhn’s theories, something that I never say no to.
Yes, you are correct. That will teach me to spout off before checking my facts. The first such experiment was conducted by Yerkes and it was later duplicated by McConnell and Ungar (among other). However, while several aspects of cellular memory were reproducible, the transfer through ingestion seems not to have been adequately reproduced.
If anything, this fact serves to illustrate how unlikely it is that primates in the habit of eating brains would experience an increase in “brain size and capability for memory.” There isn’t enough support for a ingestion of cellular memory model, nor is there evidence to suggest that the ingestion of brain matter would trigger changes in the brain chemistry of the contemporary primate or subsequent progeny.
I’m also unclear on why ingesting brains precipitates a decrease in body hair, but that premise is fairly ancillary, as we are too busy scoffing at the primary hypothesis.
From what I heard, this was later shown not to be the case. It turned out that the researechers weren’t properly cleaning the maze inbetween runs. The flatworms knew how to run the maze because they were following the invisible slime trails left behind by the earlier batch of flatworms. When you properly clean the maze before each test, the effect goes away.
This is my version of the events that can be argued. (Meaning others interpret the events differently.) This site provides information supporting my view.
Doing scans on “galileo” with Username “tomndebb” in both Great Debates and General Questions will turn up more cites (and contrary opinion). Look for older threads, as more recent threads will have only brief mentions of the subject.
As this is not relevant to the current thread, we should probably not take this any further, here. [ /hijack ]
More relevant than you’d think, because this thread had got me thinking about Thomas Kuhn’s structures of scientific revolutions and the conflict between scientific paradigms (along with the revolutionary and historical nature of the changes between paradigms). As one of Kuhn’s key examples was that of Galileo’s conflict with the church, any criticism of that example would put Kuhn’s hypothesis in doubt, and reaffirm that idea that changes of dominant scientific ideas are due to experimental and logical reasons. As opposed to, say, historical accidents, competing philosophies and power relationships.
alright, this is a reply to duck duck goose’s post. I don’t know how to reply to individual messages within a strain, so I suppose this will do.
despite his condescending attitude (or perhaps ignited by it) I did some searching, and this is what I can tell you:
A. Stating “gorilla brains” was sloppy on my part. I meant monkey, and I often times use those words interchangeably. Since the cannibalizing apes were Great Apes and were cannibalizing, it follows that Maerth intended to posit that they were eating Great Ape brains.
But, in modern times, monkey brains are much more popular than gorilla brains.
There are dozens of websites talking about the eating of monkey brain, including: www.iohk.com, www.naxent.com, www.planetark.com, and hey- even Cecil did an article on it. March 9, 2001. He says “…I’ve heard enough similar stories to make me think this [eating of monkey brains] is legit.”
In Gabon, scientists believe an Ebola outbreak was caused by eating meat from “infected apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas.” (www.planetark.org. daily news story Jan 1, 2002)
So gorillas are eaten, no mention of the brain, but…
MONKEY BRAINS:
-some believe eating them makes you smarter
-some believe it cures headaches.
-There is a chinese term called “Yi Shin Bu Shin”- namely, you eat an organ of an animal, then it is good for the counterpart of your organ. Much like Demarckianism. (www.iohk.com) A theory that sounds preposterous and has no scientific backing of course…
-monkey brain is eaten fresh, like Maerth says, but the reasons I’ve heard is that it becomes stinky after time.
-eating monkey is really big in China, where Maerth lived while he wrote the aforementioned book. His is the only evidence I’ve found saying that monkey brains give you a sexual rush. Here is the exact quote:
“About 20 hours of such a repast there is a feeling of warmth in the brain, like a gentle pressure. After about 28 hours the body is flooded by vitality, with increased sexual impulses.”
Yes, this is the only source I could find. But, I have not yet searched about primitive cannibalistic cultures (some presently exist today in New Guinea, etc.), several of which Maerth visited while researching.
He reports that Cannibalism is a ritual to them now, not like it was back when we were cannibal late apes. Two opposing tribes start a big battle. Whoever the warriors kill they get to take home. The one who killed the victim gets to eat the pituitary gland. Other parts of the brain (less important ones I assume) are passed out to the women. The heart is given to young warriors to give them courage. Children nibble on the feet and hands to increase their dexterity. After the feast, there is a lovemaking ceremony, where the warrior takes a woman (or two) and has sex with her.
I will check and see if there is anything written about these cannibal rituals to see if this is true.
About aphrodisiacs in general: Dr. Cynthia Mervis Watson says this of aphrodisiacs: "in the case of aphrodisiacs it is entirely possible that as long as your brain thinks that any given substance or ritual will work, it will trigger appropriate chemical responses and your body will experience all the physical signs of arousal. (www.tantra-sex.com/aphrodisiacs.html)
B. Is it even possible for eating brains to cause a sexual rush?
Supposedly a book called “Three Pound Universe” documents an experiment where a scientist injects acetylcholine, a natural chemical neurotransmitter, into the septal area- the patients reported intense pleasure, including multiple sexual orgasms lasting as long as 30 minutes. (www.hedweb.com/hedethic/orgasmic.htm)
Yes, that is injecting, not eating. But…
ever hear of spongiform encephalopathy? Of course, you say?
Well, in trying to figure out why cows that ate their own brains got this disease, a theory called the prion theory was put forward and is generally accepted. Shit, I forgot to write down the link on the internet, but if it is disputed Ill look again. But, prions may be able to pass the blood/brain barrier and stimulate the production of various proteins in the Central Nervous Systems.
these are a couple of the chemicals found in the pituitary gland:
ACTH- stimulates adrenal glands
TSH- stimulates thyroid gland
FSH- stimulates the ovaries and testes
LH- stimulates the ovaries or testes
oxytin- contracts the uterus during chiildburth and stimulates milk production. (www.umm.edu/enodcrin/pitgland.htm)
Duck Duck Goose, I do not understand your denial to accept this as a possibility. You mention the seething hot acidic stomach and how strange it would seem that ingesting something would cause any sort of effect. What do you think about psylocibin, or LSD (much smaller than a pea), or nightshade, or poppy seeds, or any number of thousands and thousands edible foods that cause physiogical/psychedelic/ecstatic effects.
I think we’ll have to wait a while for proof, as this is unchartered territory. So, in that respect, I shouldn’t have used “fact” as a word. Allow me to rephrase: “I find it highly likely, based on the evidence that I’ve seen, that eating brain causes a sexual rush.”
A personal aside: phrasing everything like that reminds me too much of ineffectual intellectualism. yes, everything is relative. yes, facts are way too black and white for this grey world. But…I think occasional flippant words and hyperboles like “THis Ice Cream is the best!” make life a lot easier. Really, I don’t want to say (although I mean it) “In my humble opinion, considering the fact that I am very hungry, and possibly because I haven’t eaten sweets in a couple weeks, I feel that this ice cream tastes better than any previous ice cream.”
I definitely don’t feel it warrants the opening of a condescending atmosphere.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Colinito67 * I think we’ll have to wait a while for proof, as this is unchartered territory. So, in that respect, I shouldn’t have used “fact” as a word. Allow me to rephrase: “I find it highly likely, based on the evidence that I’ve seen, that eating brain causes a sexual rush.”[?QUOTE]
What evidence? I could use the doctor you quote as “evidence” that eating brussel sprouts causes a sexual rush.
**
Looking at any of the fun foldouts that come with my Paxil or other pills, I can find FACTS. These are things that have been verified by repeated testing in line with the scientific method. EG Paxil is useful in the treatment of anxiety disorders. That is a fact. It has been tested. The results can be duplicated independently.
So far, we have the word of one author that monkey brains (BTW-BIG difference there. Gorrilas, like ourselves are apes. the Monkey, while still a relative, is a monkey. Further, while chimps rank closest to us genetically, gorillas are quite a bit closer to us than monkeys. This is Great Debates. Monkey is a specific term, with a specific scientific meaning. So is gorillla. So is ape. So is great ape. They are not interchangable.) cause a sexual rush. This is, as yet, an OPINION. You have not demonstrated it to be supported by facts.
Further. how is the memory of any of this supposed to have passed to us? In your posts, you state that Maerth holds brain-eating to be the basis for the garden of Eden myth. Yet what he, and you, seem to be describing are proto-humans. How are members of Homo Sapiens (or technically, Homo Sapiens Sapiens) supposed to remember the actions of Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
Other things needing proof-
-That brain eating causes the brain to enlarge. We know that spongiform encephalitis will do this. But Maerth describes a beneficial growth that increases inteligence.
-That such growth continues to the point that it causes seizures and death. This reminds me of the disproven theory that Sabretooth Tigers became extinct because their fangs continued to grow until they prevented eating.
Again, this forum is the province of facts and evidence. If you put forth something as a fact, expect to be called on it.
Looking at any of the fun foldouts that come with my Paxil or other pills, I can find FACTS. These are things that have been verified by repeated testing in line with the scientific method. EG Paxil is useful in the treatment of anxiety disorders. That is a fact. It has been tested. The results can be duplicated independently.
This is Great Debates. Monkey is a specific term, with a specific scientific meaning. So is gorillla. So is ape. So is great ape. They are not interchangable.) cause a sexual rush. This is, as yet, an OPINION. You have not demonstrated it to be supported by facts.
First off, let me apologize for the angry tone of my last post. In a philosophy forum especially, it is definitely not useful, and most likely a hindrance. And yes, I agree, wording (especially within these confines) should be concise.
About facts, yes there are facts…but it gets harder when you talk about theories that, because of utilitarian or skeptical reasons, haven’t been researched or proven yet. I mean, how do you prove there is a galaxy if you have never heard of outer space?
Further. how is the memory of any of this supposed to have passed to us? In your posts, you state that Maerth holds brain-eating to be the basis for the garden of Eden myth. Yet what he, and you, seem to be describing are proto-humans. How are members of Homo Sapiens (or technically, Homo Sapiens Sapiens) supposed to remember the actions of Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus?
Okay, let me take a second to repeat: I don’t believe in this theory, nor was I ever positing it true. Duck Duck Goose called me out on the one thing I did posit as true: the fact that fresh brain produces a sexual rush (which I have been swayed to believing). I originally posted it as an interesting theory. Something cool to think about. I never have tried to prove it as true. But yes, voice whatever skepticisms you have…and I will try to answer for Maerth as best I can considering I don’t have his text in front of me.
To answer your above question, I have to explain another thesis of his. He believes that all animals (besides humans) have telepathic ability. This varies in degree and strength depending on the need of the species, but he claims it exists. He cites several examples. One is: Birds who migrate will not fly to their southern nest if the nest has been burned down while they were north. They instinctively know not to go there. Second: Try sending 4 humans out to complete a semi-complex task without any vocal/body language…it is very hard. Yet billions of ants can work harmoniously and complete complex tasks without thses things.
So, he believes there was a time period when humans were both really smart (like we are now, he says our brain size and capacity hasn’t changed much since 50, 000 years ago) and we had our innate telepathic abilities. We were basically demi-gods. The seizures (or encephalopathy) caused us to lose our telepathic powers (back to the Tower of Babel), and since then we cannot remember the hour of our birth. But he postulates that there was a time when we understood our whole history, from phytoplankton or however we began on…
Other things needing proof-
-That brain eating causes the brain to enlarge. We know that spongiform encephalitis will do this. But Maerth describes a beneficial growth that increases inteligence.
Maerth actually sees the eating of brain as very bad. He doesn’t see intelligence as bad, but thinks we gained our intelligence too quickly to handle it. If we hadn’t eaten brain, he argues, we’d eventually become just as smart as we are now, but naturally it would take millions of years longer. Anyways, he doesn’t see the growth as beneficial at all. It is the cause of our condition today.
-That such growth continues to the point that it causes seizures and death. This reminds me of the disproven theory that Sabretooth Tigers became extinct because their fangs continued to grow until they prevented eating.
Well, first let me disprove your analogy. There is no reason for Sabretooth [lions] to grow teeth to the point which they can’t eat, evolutionarily speaking. It doesn’t allow them to procreate any better than before, and if they couldn’t eat they wouldn’t live to the age of procreation, so those lions with long teeth would die out and those with normal teeth would continue to live. There is an obvious advantage to eating brain, as far as “gettin’ some” is concerned. Especially considering Maerth sees eating brain and the sexual rush/rape as hand in hand.
Side note: Maerth, an archeologist before he came up with this theory, claims to have found skulls with holes poked in it (to ease the pressure the brain was putting on the skull) and sees the skull elongation techniques (like we see in some ancient Egyptians) as similar in cause.
Although I think this thread is pretty much dead, I’m still open to answering any other skepticisms. I promise I won’t get mad.
And to reiterate: What I like about Maerth is his mindset…I believe we are psychotic apes (and I will argue this ad infinitum), and not that we are necessarily de-evolutionary, but that we are increasingly more dangerous and volatile as time goes on.
Sorry if I sounded condescending, that was not my intention. You were unfortunately coming across as someone who didn’t really have a clue as to what the SDMB was all about–we get them in here occasionally. They stumble in, usually from the link on bored.com, they wander around for a few days, they start “hey, man, isn’t this cool” threads a few times, and eventually get discouraged when nobody takes them seriously, and they leave.
So, good for you! You went and looked some stuff up, that’s the true Doper spirit. You may be a keeper after all.
But do you see what I’m getting at? We’re promoting a spirit of healthy skepticism here at the SDMB. and especially in Great Debates, not a spirit of “hey, man, isn’t this cool”. This spirit of healthy skepticism is the whole point of the SDMB. It’s why most of us are here.
My “denial to accept this as a possibility” (that eating a pituitary gland could act as an aphrodisiac) is because this aren’t any scientific proofs for the fact that eating a pituitary gland acts as an aphrodisiac, so in the absence of any scientific proof, I “deny to accept it as a possibility”. Show me some proof, and I’ll accept it as a possibility.
All that stuff about the chemicals that the pituitary contains may be true, but the fact remains that there’s no evidence that ingesting any of those chemicals will give you a sexual rush.
And yes, you’rel right, there’s a difference between “injecting” and “eating”–and bringing up a cite that talks about injecting chemicals is totally irrelevant. My point about the stomach’s acid is that stomach acid is quite capable of simply digesting many organic chemicals, like the chemicals that are found in the pituitary, before they even get into the bloodstream. This is precisely why many medications are given as injections, rather than by mouth. Things like vaccinations spring to mind–your stomach would simply digest that dose of measles vaccine.
And yes, I’ve heard of prions and BSE, but again, there’s no evidence, no proof, that (a) the pituitary contains prions which are (b) attached to aphrodisiac chemicals, which could (c) pass through your stomach and into your bloodstream and (d) give you a sexual rush.
And, sorry, but bringing up the injection of acetylcholine, which isn’t even produced by the pituitary (it’s produced by the brain itself), and so is not one of the possibly aphrodisiac chemicals that we’re talking about here, is doubly irrelevant. It’s as if I had said, “Bring me a cite about swallowing diet pills”, and you brought me a cite about injecting heroin. They’re not connected at all.
We’re not interested in merely shooting the breeze, speculating about interesting theories–that’s what MPSIMS is for. Here in Great Debates, we’re skeptics–we’re interested in facts. So far all you’ve got is a theory.
Northern Hemisphere birds who migrate, like robins and geese, don’t have “southern nests”. North American robins and geese only have nests in the summer, when they’re in the north. In the winter, when they’re in the south, they don’t have nests.
It’s possible he’s talking about Southern Hemisphere migratory birds, in which case I suppose it would mean that he’s saying that they won’t return to their breeding nest (their “southern” nest) if it has been “burned down” while they were wintering in the north.
Generally speaking, birds build new nests every year, except for some species like ospreys, which return to the same nest sites every year. However, this statement is still just silly, because there’s no evidence for it, for certain species of birds “knowing” somehow, while they were still on their wintering grounds, that their nest site on their breeding grounds had been destroyed. It’s much more likely that this is the sequence of events:
Birdwatcher notices osprey nest has been destroyed over the winter.
Birdwatcher doesn’t see any ospreys come back to the nest site at all in the spring. The logical reason for this would be that the ospreys came back while the birdwatcher wasn’t there, looked the place over, saw that the nest was destroyed, and quietly went somewhere else to build a new nest.
Birdwatcher draws the mistaken conclusion that the ospreys must have “known” that the nest had been destroyed while they were on their wintering grounds.
How about the musicians in a symphony orchestra? They all sit there staring at their music stands, playing steadily, and they manage to complete an extremely complex task (the correct performance of a symphony) without any vocal or body language cues.
It has been known for years–decades, even–how ants communicate, and it isn’t by mental telepathy. Sorry, Mearth…
I’m sorry, Colinito, but I have to say that Mearth is coming across as somewhat of a fruitcake. You’re not obligated to continue as his apologist, you know–you can throw in the towel any time and say, “Aw, the heck with Mearth and his theories, I’m outta here”. Just because you started a thread doesn’t obligate you to stay married to it, forever and ever, amen. You can bail any time and nobody will think the worse of you–seriously. It isn’t like you’re required to have some kind of “closure”, before you can abandon a thread. People bail from their own threads all the time, it’s not that big a deal.
'Cause you’re right, there’s not a whole lot to talk about here, IMO.
Originally posted in the “Original Sin” thread, my entry for the Crackpot Hall of Fame:
Animal behavior is ruled entirely by instinct, which is perfect obedience to the will of God since (you might say) He programmed the ‘software’. But when humans evolved the capicity for free will, we became capable of sin.
Here’s where it gets wierd: A young Mesopotamian couple ran away from their tribal village, found a nice little medow, shed their clothes, and proceeded to frolic (and/or cavort). Running out of food, they found these mushrooms growing at the foot of a tree. Instinctively, one is wary of eating mushrooms just as one is wary of snakes. Certain foods are ‘forbidden’ to certain animals because they’re poisonous. But Amanda and Steve were able to override this concern, saying “what the heck” and gobbled 'em up.
As luck would have it, they turned out not to be poisonous toadstools but psychedelic shrooms, dude. Saying your “eyes were opened” and that you “knew good and evil” is a good summation of a psychedelic drug trip, and you also become extremely self-conscious, i.e. paranoid.
This incident was remembered and incorporated into the cultural mythology with the usual distortions.
That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it until I come down.
