Stoned Ape Theory Supporters?

I'm a huge fan of Terence McKenna's philosophies and just wondering how many
others have read his books or watched his lectures?

 

I am not as familiar with Mckenna as I would like to be. I agree with him in general; that psychedelics are powerful tools with many benefits unfortunately overlooked by large swathes of humanity.

However I find his theories concerning the role of psilocybin in human evolution to be...less than credible.

 

i love this theory. im not a religious person, but at times mushrooms are the closest thing i have. i love to think that psychedelics helped promote upper level intelligence in primates that led to the development on civilization. even if the theory holds no actual truth to it, i do believe that the use of psychedelics is helping humans evolve TODAY.

its been awhile since the last time i read up on this, does anyone have a good link to it?

 

I think if you read Food of the Gods you would quickly change your opinion, one of his best examples of how this effected the homonid was a comparison with a certain species of ant, they found a way to grow fungus and it totally shaped the way they now survive... It's very credible seeing as how every modern religion has references and ties to mushrooms.

 

I agree with Mckenna. I think psychedelics were a large part of our evolution. We need to keep up the process by eating more.

 

I know about those ants but don't see how you can compare the two. Insectoid agriculture (or whatever the word for growing fungus is) is extremely interesting but lends no evidence to the theory that ingesting magic mushrooms was a catalyst for the growth of consciousness in humans. Humanity also reached biological and evolutionary modernity before the advent of organized religion, the role of ethnobotanicals in the origin of religions has nothing to do with the biological evolution of humanity. You're talking about two vastly different timescales.

If someone wants to explain to me how they can reconcile Mckenna's theory with all the evidence against the heredity of acquired characteristics (Lamarckian evolution) I'm all ears.

 

Well I don't want to look up the specifics to this idea right at the moment, I'm exhausted.
But, there is a point that Lamarck's ideals become a little grey and that's the
point when brain size began growing rapidly and unexpectedly, instead of
following the pattern that had been going on for millions of years. This was
correlated with the time that the primate came out of trees and onto the
plains of Africa... See Terence's theory focuses more on chance and Lamarck's ideals could be almost plotted out they are so cut and dry.

 

mckenna's model has internal logical consistency and explanatory power, the end.

 

For someone who referred to himself as a psychedelic scientist in another thread, you seem to be rather ambivalent when it comes to the empirical evidence.

 

You see, something else happened when the primates came out of trees. Something much more significant than a change in their diet (whether that change included psilocybin or not): bipedal locomotion. Our brains grew to accommodate a style of movement that required more finesse. As we began to rely more on our arms, our brains had to grow to allow for the increased versatility of our fingers.

 

there is no evidence, that's my point. this is all in the realm of string theory and the like; nice to think about, 0 proof either way.

it's a nice model and i like it for its elegance.

 

Shit, my mistake man. I thought you were saying it was true. :cheers2:

 

Im sure it is, just maybe not in this universe

 

Seeing as how Terence is one of the most brilliant philosophers I'd take most of his ideals
into deep consideration and although they aren't able to be proven, there's a lot of
human links to mushrooms even today, look at modern religion

 

ok so there is a species of ants that managed to grow a fungus and built their lives around it. Is the relation to the evolution of mankind according to the stoned ape theory real or merely perceived? Different species of ants found various ways of surviving by adopting certain ways of gathering foods. Does it prove anything fact that these ants ended up with this fungus?

 

They sure did but the point is that allegedly after the consumption of mushroom became
tradition humans started living in civilizations instead of being nomadic, they
gained self-reflection and started wearing clothes.. The deeper you go the more
relevant the theory is, I just wanted a good discussion on it honestly..

Not to say I fully support his theories but he is a brilliant man and I really love the
concept.

 

I think it has validity, Ive been reading The Archaic Revival, and his theories are out there, but they all feel very familiar, like Ive thought them before, and Terence phrases them so beautifully. Even if you don't believe that the Mushroom is a sentient form of extraterrestrial hyper-intelligence, that they've shaped human consciousness/ spirituality in some way is practically irrefutable once you've read one of his papers.

-the strategy of early human omnivores was to eat every plant they found, and vomit what was inedible
-mushrooms were plentiful in the much wetter Sahara than we know today, growing in close relation with ungulate herbivores, which humans have lived in symbiosis with for some time.
-the visual enhancement and sexual arousal of psilocybin would be sufficient to cause early humans to seek out the mushroom
-early humans may have identified the 'ego' as a autonomous entity or god, warning them in times of danger, guiding their actions. Psilocybin may have catalyzed the integration of the 'Other' into the Self.

Ancient religions may give us clues as well, the cow reverence of the Hindus, for example. The mushroom would have been seen as another product of the cow, along with milk, meat and manure (I just realize all those things start with M, hmm). At the Tassili Plateau in Algeria, huge glyphs depict mushroom shamans date before 6000 b.c. the idea is that mushrooms mystery cults existed in many ancient cultures, if not all, before they were suppressed by Christian barbarians. The shamanic magic became demonized, shamans ostricized and portrayed as witches.

These are just some ideas gleaned from his books, but you really have to read it to get the whole picture. What I like most about this idea is that taking psychedelics is not just a byproduct of being human, its actually mandatory for reaching self-actuallization; you are not a complete human until youve experienced the mushrooms unique brand of ecstasy. Its your responsibility as a conscious human being to be as psychedelic as possible.

 

Trust me i absolutely ove the theory too, i'm just questioning the validity of it

 

what about it are you skeptical about specifically?

 

First of all no one said the theory was true, just that it was interesting. Kinda makes you think though. Anyone that has ever taken mushrooms feels like they were privy to some kind of special knowledge. Imagine how it must have felt to early humans.