[PREV - CONSILIENCE_PRIZE]    [TOP]

SERPENTINE_FEARS

      
                                        January 29, 2003   

Consider the
Chapter           From "Consilience"    
"Ariadne's        by E.O. Wilson.         CONSILIENCE_PRIZE               
Thread".                                  
                         
   Wilson states that              
   Freud "guessed wrong" 
   with his theories of                     
   dreams as indications                   
   of early psychological                   
   trauma.                                   
                          
           He then presents            
           the modern theory              
           of dreams being                   
           the result of                   
           random synapse            
           firing, a sorting                
           and shuffling of                 
           experience, a    
           kind of                                      
           neurological     
           housecleaning.       I've heard this theory  
                                before in a number of   
                                popular articles, and                 
                                it sounds very nice.    
                                                        
                                                        
                                                 But then Freud's 
                                                 theory sounded   
                                                 nice also. What's  
                                                 the evidence for 
                                                 this new theory?    
                                                                    
                                                      What evidence 
                                                      could there       
                                                      possibly be?    
                                                      Wilson pretty    
                                                      much just         
                                                      presents it as
                                                      fact.              
                                                       
                                                            
                                     Wilson then suggests     
                                     that a tendency toward a  
                                     fear of snakes evolved   
                                     because of long contact 
                   This explains     with poisonous snakes of      
                   their common      different varieties.      
                   appearance in                                         
                   dreams, myth,                              
                   and folklore.          
                                          
    So Jung was                           
    substantially                         
    correct in his                        
    "collective                           
    unconscious"                          
    theory??!                             
                                          
Big news: an
evolutionary
biologist
believes in
Jungian
archetypes!
                     
       I always thought that 
       the pace of evolution  
       was too slow to expect 
       something like          
       "archetypes" to be    
       wired into human      
       consciousness.        
                             
                    Jung was a Lamarckian,                         
                    which helps explain why                        
                    *he* thought they were                         
                    plausible... if you                            
                    believe that acquired                          
                    characteristics are      But given the ubiquity
                    inherited, evolution     of snakes, how can you
                    would work faster.       rule out the notion   
                                             that this stuff is all
                                             just environmentally  
                                             learned and culturally
                                             transmitted?          
                                                                   
                                                   Perhaps it's plausible   
                                                   that this is some sort of
                                                   inherited "prepared      
                                                   learning", but how would   
                                                   you conclude that?  Maybe
                                                   some kind of careful      
                                                   cross-cultural studies?    
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                             Checking the footnotes,        
                                             I see he bases all of          
                                             this on a *single monograph*:  
                                        
                                                                   
                       "The Cult of the Serpent:
                       An Interdisciplinary     
                       Survey of Its            
                       Manifestations and       
                       Origins" by Balaji       
                       Mundkur, (1983, State    
                       University of New York   
                       Press, Albany, NY).      
                                         

       And 1983 being ten years
       pre-web, there's not a  
       lot out there about this
       monograph.  
                   
    It does tend to        
    turn up in a lot        
    of bibliographies     
    of newage junk,  
    though.          



Wilson argues that imagery of snakes may have a
biologically determined significance for human beings:

   Human beings also possess an innate aversion to
   snakes, and, as in the chimpanzee, it grows
   stronger during adolescence.  The reaction is
   not a hard-wired instinct.  It is a bias in
   development of the kind psychologists call 
   prepared learning.  Children simply learn fear
   of snakes more easily than they remain
   indifferent or learn affection for snakes.
   Before the age of five they feel no special
   anxiety.  Later they grow increasingly wary.
   then just one or two bad experiences -- a snake
   writing nearby through the grass or a
   frightening -- can make them deeply and
   permanently afraid.  The propensity is
   deep-set.  Other common fears -- of the dark,
   strangers, loud noises -- start to wane after
   seven years of age.  In contrast, the tendency
   to avoid snakes grows stronger with time.  It
   is possible to turn in the opposite direction,
   learning to handle snakes without fear or even
   to like them in some special way. [...]

   The neural pathways of snake aversion have not
   been explored.  We do not know the proximate
   cause of the phenomenon except to classify it
   as "prepared learning."  In contrast, the
   probable ultimate cause, the survival value of
   the aversion, is well understood.  Throughout
   human history a few kinds of snakes have been a
   major cause of sickness and death.  Every
   continent except Antarctica has poisonous
   snakes.   [...] 

   Snakes and dream serpents provide an example of
   how agents of nature can be translated into
   symbols of culture.  For hundreds of thousands
   of years, time enough for genetic changes in
   the brain to program the algorithms of
   prepared learning, poisonous snakes have been a
   significant source of injury and death to human
   beings.  [...]

   The tendency of the serpent to appear suddenly
   in trances and dreams, its sinuous form, and
   its power and mystery are logical ingredients
   of myth and religion. 

   Amaringoan images stretch back through the
   millennia.  Prior to the pharaonic dynasties
   the kings of Lower Egypt were crowned at Buto
   by the cobra goddess Wadjet.  In Greece there
   was Ouroboros, the serpent that continuously
   devoured itself tail-first while regenerating
   from the inside.  For gnostics and alchemists
   of later centuries this self-cannibal came to
   symbolize the eternal cycle of destruction and
   re-creation of the world.  One day in 1865
   while dozing by a fire, the German chemist
   Fredrich August Kekule von Stradonitz dreamed
   of Ouroboros and thereby conceived of the
   benzene molecule as a circle of six carbon
   atoms, each bonded to a hydrogen atom.  [...]
   In the Aztec pantheon, Quetzalcoatl, the plumed
   serpent with a human head, ruled as the god of
   the morning and evening star, and thus of death
   and resurrection.  He was the inventor of the
   calendar and patron of learning and the
   priesthood.  Tlaloc, god of rain and lightning,
   was another serpentine chimera, with humanoid
   upper lips formed from two rattlesnake heads.
   Such apparitions could have been born only in
   dreams and trances.  


--------
[NEXT - DOWN_TO_THE_BOTTOM]