It might be a strange question to ask, but ask it nonetheless. Who or what killed Einstein? What entity or force ended the life of perhaps the greatest mind of our era, that scientist whose name is synonymous with intelligence? Well, it was clearly not a butler who did it, nor, as far as we know, was it an assassin belonging to some sinister governmental agency. To put it bluntly, it was the reality process which killed the great Einstein. Now, although this deceptively simple answer may seem reminiscent of a Woody Allen joke, what I mean to convey is that all of us, regardless of age, sex, race or creed, are born out of, and are destined to die, within a massive on-going process consisting not only of the evolution of life on Earth but the evolution of the Universe also. It is this relentless, all-encompassing, and outrageously complex process within which we are all so intimately embedded which we term 'reality'. We might also call such a process Nature. Thus, another obvious way of answering my unusual question is to say that 'natural causes' killed Einstein. Which means that Nature killed him. Well, to be sure about it, Nature gave birth to him, gave him 76 years of existence and then summarily dispatched him.
Call it Nature or call it reality, either way they are but small words for one vast process which flows inexorably onward. Whatever one's preferred term, it most certainly is a process, a word whose Latin roots mean 'to advance' or 'move forwards', and there can be little doubt that reality is, at heart, a single universal process which has been running non-stop for some 15 or so billion years. Not bad. Pretty impressive in fact.
So what? you might ask. Well, what this book is concerned with is the ultimate point of this creative but fatal reality we find ourselves in. To put it bluntly once more, are we biologically woven into an accident or is reality somehow directed? This is quite some question, perhaps the most profound we can ask in our short earthly sojourn, and one we know to have crossed Einstein's mind while he lived. Consider, for example, a famous remark of his which went something like:
What Einstein meant by this sublime statement (of which there are many paraphrased versions) is that it is astonishing not only that Nature is intelligible, and not only that Nature works so well, but that Nature has somehow conspired, through a process of organic evolution, to build biological brains endowed with minds capable of understanding these things. Why? Why exactly should Nature be that way? Why should the Universe have been endowed with such a staggeringly creative capacity to construct and organise itself, even to the point of eliciting conscious human beings? Could it have been otherwise?
Whatever the case, should we believe the reality process to be essentially a mindless accident or even a series of mindless incidents, then we might conceive ourselves to be hapless mortal prisoners entrapped in the process. Or, if we instead believe reality to be purposeful and meaningful in some way then we might consider ourselves fortunate functional components of the process. Whatever you may have read let me assure you that this issue has most definitely not been settled. It is neither completely obvious that reality is a purely accidental affair, nor is it at all clear that reality is purposeful. Neither science nor religion - arguably the two dominant strands of thinking which tend to confront the fundamental nature of reality - have absolutely conclusive evidence at hand.
But if we look to science for clues - since science has enjoyed more evident practical success than religion - then clearly over the last 300 or so years since the time of Newton and the development of classical physics, science has made great headway in elucidating how reality works; not why it works but how. Because the process of reality is so obligingly intelligible and comprehensible, then we see that science has enjoyed a kind of dialogue with Nature in which information is accessed through scientific experiment. In this way, scientists like physicists, chemists, biologists, and cosmologists have acquired a wealth of information concerning the sub-atomic, chemical, biological, and astronomical aspects of reality and have subsequently built elaborate models detailing them. However, how one interprets the informational language of Nature, how one translates the objective data collated by science into a theory about the ultimate nature of reality is a subjective affair very much up for debate. Thus, our 'big question' awaits a satisfactory answer and Einstein's killer remains very much on the loose.
At heart, if we wish to know what, if anything, the reality process is really up to, we can do no more than assess all the relevant information revealed by collective science and the information or intuitive wisdom accrued via personal experience, and then attempt to form some viable theoretical overview. Absolute truths, it would seem, are all but inaccessible, and thus the true nature of Einstein's creator and killer might forever remain a mystery. But, whatever we believe about the reality process, we are, willy-nilly, most definitely all 'in it together' whether we like it or not, and it is for this terrifying or wonderful reason that I have taken it upon myself to explore by any means necessary just what it is that is driving reality, whether the driver is blind or has vision.
Before I reveal to you my particular mode of investigation, lets briefly review the status of science in relation to such a decidedly daunting issue. As it is, current scientific thought definitely veers towards a purposeless and mechanistic account of how the reality process works, an account which is, with all due respect, depressing and devoid of spirit. Although our scientific knowledge of the world reveals its microscopic and macroscopic complexity and highlights the universal mathematical precision of things like physical law, such knowledge has in effect reduced the Universe to a kind of reasonless mechanism devoid of high intelligence apart from our own. Everything from a cell to an orchid to the emergence of our species is generally reduced to a set of 'merelys'. Indeed, the more successful a scientist is in reducing whatever facet of Nature he or she is working on to 'merely this' or 'merely that', then the more warmly is their work received. To argue otherwise by, say, suggesting that Nature is purposeful in some way, is to ostracise oneself from mainstream science. Certainly it is the case that nobody will win a Nobel prize for planting purpose in Nature despite the uplifting appeal that such an intentional theory of reality would undoubtedly carry.
But is it valid to build a new and overtly optimistic theory concerning the ultimate nature of the reality process solely because our current theories are not uplifting enough? Obviously not. Such a new theory would represent whim, an artifice whose lax roots lie in an imagination galvanised into action because the consensus 'truth' about reality is perceived to be too gloomy and unpalatable. Indeed, to enthusiastically infer that the human species has some kind of special purpose in the reality process, that we are somehow at the centre of an intentional Universe, smacks of the pre-scientific beliefs confined to the pages of history books, to a time when supernatural thinking governed the minds of men. Such anthropocentric religious ideology has now been all but crushed by rational scientific thought which firmly places our kind on a mere satellite circling a mere star amongst billions. We are no more than the product of evolution, one particular species out of countless millions whose only real claim to fame is our big brains with their ability to think and direct complex behaviour.
Over a few centuries, in particular from the seminal publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859 (which can be cited as the definitive turning point in our concepts of man's place in Nature), the ideological pendulum has thus swung through 180 degrees, from a position in which humanity was the crowning glory of creation to a position in which we are but speckish organic bystanders in an essentially pointless Universal exercise of physics and DNA-orchestrated biochemistry. Life is accidental, mostly hard and then you die - a tough fact, best swallowed with a large brandy.
To revert to the ancient view in which human life, and in particular human consciousness, is considered to be somehow significant therefore seems completely out of the question, a futile move serving only to stir up false hope in a Universe that basically 'just don't give a damn'. This is especially so if our only motivation is a dislike of current scientific reasoning. Only if such a new theory were driven primarily by direct conscious experience could it possibly hope to possess validity. And not just wishy-washy conscious experience either. The experience, if it were to bear upon notions of the ultimate nature of reality, would have to be remarkably compelling and potentially accessible to all. It would have to provide incontrovertible evidence that we have some significant role to play in the reality process. But could a direct conscious experience really afford us such an insight into the 'big question'?
Well, if we keep in mind that science proceeds through verifiable experimentation in which information is gained via perceptual experience and that we depend upon our conscious experience however it should arise to build models of reality, then it would indeed appear to be a possibility. Which is to say that new forms of conscious experience might well offer us a glimpse into the biggest questions that face our mortal existence. Which brings me to the central fact permeating this book, namely that conscious experience is entirely mutable. And herein lies the hope of any new optimistic theory concerning the significance of human consciousness within the reality process.
The mutability of consciousness. What does such a concept imply? Well, first of all we should consider the fact that consciousness, whatever it is exactly, is the 'stuff' which mediates all science and, for that matter, all types of reasoning and all of our theories about the world. Consciousness can therefore be understood as the very ground of our being, the 'factor x' which makes us what we are. In order to fully engage the reader in the important point I am here trying to convey, consider the following simple thought experiment.
Imagine, if you will, that all scientists wore identical spectacles and that these spectacles determined the perceptual view of the things being scrutinised by the scientists. All the data amassed by these scientists would be related in some intimate way to the effects of their spectacles since all their perceptions will have passed through the self-same lenses. Now, it isn't pushing credulity too far to suggest that the scientists would do well at some point - possibly over their morning coffee break, or perhaps at a stage when their theories are proving to be inadequate - to reflect upon the characteristics of their shared state of 'bespectacledness'. In other words, it would be quite a breakthrough for these scientists to suddenly cease their traditional research in order to focus upon the nature of the factor mediating their research, namely, their glasses. What they would soon come to realise is that their glasses represent a subject worthy of analysis since they are, in a sense, the closest thing to them.
This imaginary situation is not unlike the real world, only this time it is our consciousness, or rather our state of consciousness, as opposed to glasses, through which we view and experience Nature. For simplicity's sake, we can call this 'normal consciousness', a kind of shared lens through which science and scientific interpretation proceeds. Thus, it is quite legitimate to reflect upon this 'lens of normal consciousness' and ask whether, perhaps, it could be altered or enhanced. In other words, one might well wonder if it is possible to improve upon the lens of normal consciousness and attain a state of mind in which the essence of Nature is more clearly discernible.
Although one cannot escape these rather odd facts about consciousness and its role in interpreting Nature, science has had little to say about it, preferring to place the human mind safely outside of the theoretical picture of reality. Put simply, the phenomenon of human consciousness is a scientifically slippery and vexing anomaly that is in stark contrast to the more empirically approachable phenomena of, say, stars and molecules. Yet, since we are conscious beings whose minds literally interface with the external world, then until we understand the nature of the 'mindstuff' carried by our brains we will not be able to fully comprehend the nature of the reality process. This must be so since, as we have just established, consciousness is itself as much a part of reality as are the things perceived by consciousness such as the aforementioned stars and molecules. Indeed, if we were not conscious beings, then we would not be in a position to seek explanations about the nature of reality in the first place. It is only because we are conscious and because we stand in a definite relationship to the reality process that we feel compelled to account for our existence. Our conscious minds long for knowledge about the Universe so that we might understand both our place within the totality of existence and the natural forces which led to our being here. Hence the enterprise of science (which means 'to know').
Now, as I will show throughout this book, the reason why consciousness is mutable is because it is mediated by chemistry. Which is to say that mutable or transformable chemical processes underlie consciousness. In effect, this means that our normal ways of thinking are arguably constrained due to the chemical hardware (or wetware as it is sometimes called in neuromantic circles) of the brain. It is therefore conceivable that certain aspects of the world with which we interface remain hidden to us because of the limitations of our everyday type of consciousness and that if we wish to grapple with the ultimate questions concerning the nature of our existence then it is surely worthwhile to attempt to seek out new forms of perception, forms for instance in which all of perceived reality is grasped at once, holistically as it were, and not in the piecemeal fashion of science which, it must be said, tends to focus upon isolated parts of the world.
Historically speaking, altered forms of perception in which an overall view of reality is immediately discerned and felt in a kind of joyous flash of insight, are the sole domain of the religious mystic, those persons who claim, rather controversially and often with alarming vigour, to have directly experienced 'ultimate truths' about reality. Since most mystics and religious visionaries have employed various techniques with which to foster their insights like fasting, yoga, meditation, perceptual isolation etc, than this again testifies to the fact that the normal human brain is somehow constrained in its mindful activity and that the chemical system which does the constraining can be overcome or be bypassed by engaging in various so-called spiritual disciplines. For most of us, such esoteric endeavours, regardless of whether or not they do actually yield valid knowledge, are perhaps a little beyond our normal way of life, and we might therefore wish to stick with less suspect non-mystical science for answers to the big questions about reality.
However, there is another more immediate route to such transcendental knowledge as it is termed in philosophy. This route involves the deliberate ingestion of naturally occurring entheogenic (psychedelic) plant and fungal alkaloids in order to access information inaccessible to the normal mind. Traditionally, this little documented enterprise is engaged in by shamans or native healers who employ such psychoactive flora in order to gain transcendental knowledge which they then use for the benefit of their culture.
To this day, aboriginal shamans in places like Amazonia and Mexico still utilise the powerful effects of indigenous entheogenic plants and fungi in order to fulfil their shamanic healing role within their native culture. So strong can the revelational effects of such plants and fungi be upon the human psyche that they generally come to be deified. Such entheogens become a sacred link to divinity, almost as if they represent an organic modem directly on-line to the Gods. This was what luminary Aldous Huxley was writing about some 40 or so years ago in his cult classic The Doors of Perception in which he poetically describes the fantastic perceptual enhancement which accompanied his ingestion of mescaline, an entheogenic alkaloid derived from the peyote cactus.
It is precisely because such entheogenic plants and fungi facilitate new forms of consciousness, and because this altered consciousness comes to experience reality in a radically new way, that convinced Huxley at least that they were genuinely useful epistemological tools (epistemology is the study of knowledge) with which to forge a deep understanding of the nature of the reality process. But, more than this, such illuminating changes in consciousness (perhaps the most illuminating) also offer us a way to understand consciousness itself, since one can analyse the subtle chemical changes accompanying the altered state of mind and then attempt to use such data to comprehend how normal consciousness works.
Thus, the virtue of investigating the perceptual effects of entheogenic agents is twofold. Firstly, through their dramatic action within the brain we might come to perceive Nature in a new and arguably more enhanced way. Secondly, we might come to understand more about the underlying chemistry which is bound up with normal conscious processes i.e. the modus operandi of entheogenic substances reveals the delicate chemical mechanisms which govern consciousness and our perceptions of reality. If through the study of entheogens we can understand more the interface between the mind and the 'world out there', then we shall know more clearly what consciousness is, how it is formed, and how it can come to experience transcendence. And if the transcendental information accessed in the altered state of consciousness has any truth value - and native shamans all testify to this - then we will be one step closer to an overall conception of what is driving reality. Only then might we apprehend Einstein's creator/killer, for then we would have begun to establish its ultimate nature. At least it sounds promising.
It is my contention throughout this book that naturally occurring entheogenic plants and fungi are indeed the key to solving the twin mysteries of consciousness and reality. Once ingested, they are intimately involved with the bridge between consciousness and the world around us. The numinous experience that they can induce, no matter how bizarre it might appear in the context of the mundane world and no matter what brain mechanism underlies it, is a real thing; it exists, potentially at any rate. As we shall see, what emerges when one investigates entheogens is that the archetypal tale of transcendence conveyed by the entheogen-using shaman results from a direct and verifiable experience.
It is on the basis of such verifiable experience that this book rests. The apparent capacity of the human mind to transcend 'normal' reality demands investigation, for it must surely be a tenable step toward reclaiming a significance for the existence of human consciousness in the Universe. However, if such an enterprise is spurious and built of no more than ephemeral imagination then it will only point to the fact that the human imagination under certain chemical circumstances is extraordinarily creative. But it is my belief that entheogenic agents unleash a form of consciousness better able to grapple with the ultimate questions about the reality process than our normal frames of perception, that they truly offer us a glimpse of some great meaning hitherto the sole domain of the shaman and the mystic, a meaning only alluded to in the conventional religions of the world.
As I see it, if we are genuinely interested in the decisive nature of reality and the decisive nature of human consciousness then we are obliged to follow all and any paths of enquiry, and I would suggest that the untrammelled path laid out by entheogenic plants and fungi is, perhaps, the last viable route to evidence that shows that human consciousness is somehow central to reality. If instead this unusual path should prove to lead nowhere then we will be led back to the commonly accepted position in which human consciousness is not deemed to be of any prime significance. This book can therefore be read as an alternative user-friendly guide to the nature of reality which, should it prove to hold truth, can be seen as very good news. Very good news indeed.
So stand by for a controversial tale of a recently (re)discovered and naturally occurring consciousness-enhancing substance native to most parts of the Earth's Temperate Zone and what this substance reveals to us about the human mind and about the creative impetus driving the reality process. Fasten your seatbelts because if I have done my job correctly you are poised for a roller coaster ride into the heart of the mystery of existence. As the chapters unfold we will be gradually climbing up to a peak, from which we will suddenly race into a series of new and exhilarating ideas about human consciousness and about the nature of the Universe. By the end of the book I hope to have shown that the reality process is essentially smart through and through and that we conscious beings do indeed have a privileged role to play in its intentional unfolding. I assure you that this will become crystal clear as the chapters progress.