Question

Could the examination of psychedelic interpretations across women and men aid understanding of biological/developmental sex differences?

Questions

on John Stewart’s Evolutionary Manifesto and his concept of ‘intentional evolution’ to propel humanity beyond current environmental/existential crises.

*

If all that came to be in humanity goes extinct, was it really for nothing if it created beauty? /// Can an individual be a ‘self-evolved intentional evolutionary’ and also refuse to procreate? What will happen if intentional evolutionaries refrain from having children and the masses continue to procreate ‘blindly via trial and error?’ /// What’s so bad about leaving no trace? Isn’t the goal of continuation selfish in some ways? Isn’t the desire to reach further into time and space another form of manifest destiny? Is it arrogant to assume human capability to advance so far beyond? /// Can anyone actually unfetter themselves from their biological past? Is that ability/inability to disconnect an illusion or encoded within us? Can it really be rewired? /// If more and more people begin to experience a mindful gap in their consciousness, some space between their embodied awareness and thoughts/reactions to others/the outside world, then won’t they become more robotic/mechanical? How will this impact human relations? Can’t this gap actually take people out of the moment and into a headspace of calculation and separation? Can’t people progress and evolve intentionally and still be completely immersed within direct sensation/reaction, even if that reaction can at times be ‘wrong’ or less than productive? Will the mindful delay in reaction further connect or disconnect humans? (If intervention in connection/disconnection is possible.)

*

on further thought… and why we should consider evolutionary history and trajectory…

Maybe the more we delude a tilt into the sheerly cultural, and ‘extract’ ourselves from our evolution/biology/environment, the more sick and disconnected we become internally and externally. And reliant on pharmaceuticals. Anyone who says ‘biological determinism’ as if it’s a bad concept is deeply disconnected from their origins, body, Earth. We were born! We are here! We have senses! We are not floating purely in culture, but deeply grounded in matter, in physical embeddedness. And what a relief. We are together in this. But right now: I’m okay with the oblivion. With some Earthly fever clearing humanity out.

Question

Is there a modern male dominion over plant medicine and healing? If so, at which moments across history can we acknowledge those shifts? Shifts in who holds the keys (the chance to accumulate knowledge and obtain/distribute medicine). Was it a violent snatch? A rape? Muhammad’s murders of Goddess worshipers and Acacia trees? The European witch trials and all the burnings? Or does it go back further than that? Is it more inherent within us—because we evolved from chimps, not bonobos? Is the current treatment of this knowledge in alignment with what plant intelligence might suggest or desire themselves? (Assuming plant ability to communicate and transmit information.) Is equality, or some middle way, in the practice/accessibility of these plants possible?

Question

What if widespread dwindling mental health has less to do with what’s going on inside individuals and more to do with what’s going on outside? And instead of varying levels of sickness, we’re witnessing varying levels of sensitivity/reaction? Is the intention to heal individuals a lost cause (albeit critical) if we do not acknowledge larger issues concerning the way we live/consume/develop as a whole?

Question

Can humans ever be/act without emotion? Is there a neutral non-emotive state? Can people ever act solely out of ‘moral duty’* sans sensations of emotion? Or do we really just discredit actions rooted in more ‘intense’ emotions like passion, but accept actions rooted from more mild/calm/passive/mindful/whatever states as stable or ‘neutral?’ Isn’t every human action tied to emotion—be it intense or mild? Is it possible to measure/observe/categorize a singular motive of an act, or are all motives inherently tied to a mix of thoughts/feelings/sensations?