That cursed apple..

[sh]

I would like to propose an interpretation of the myth of Adam and Eve.

I won't outline the whole myth here, as everyone can find it on their own.

Here goes..

The first thing Adam and Eve did once they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was notice their nakedness.

They became aware of themselves.

Next they felt they should cover their naked bodies, with leaves from some tree.

From whom did they cover themselves?

I posit that they hid themselves, from themselves.

Confusion was born.

The self-image was born.

And so Adam and Eve were condemned to walk the earth, separated from their true being.

This myth, I believe, is an allegory of how we became self-aware and in doing so lost our connection to that indescribable infinity out there.

-f

[sh]

I would also like to posit that the tree of knowledge of good and evil may have been a species of hallucinogenic plant.

Animals don't ingest hallucinogenic plants. It goes against their instincts.

And, as all of these plants are quite bitter-tasting, consuming an effective dose would require volition and self-control.

This is beyond the realm of possibility for any creature currently living on earth, except humans.

So, the myth also tells us that a serpent "tricked" Adam and Eve to consume the fruit.

Animals could easily be tricked into ingesting a hallucinogenic plant by people today, because we are intelligent; capable of trickery.

I believe the myth is telling us that an intelligent being was responsible for our "fall from grace."

The myth also makes sure to point out that the intelligent being, the trickster, was not God.

-f

[sh]

I believe as a species we are enslaved by strange forces that we can't see or smell or touch.

-f

[karlsie]

Now that's a far different take on the Adam and Eve story than any other i've heard advanced before. A hallucinogenic plant... it has a sensible application. The most unique difference between the rest of the animal kingdom and humans is physical. Apart from the animal brain within all animate creatures, we also have an extra layer of brain covering, one that governs our logic and reason, as well as serving as a moral compass. We know that this animal brain is quite clever because under the influence of certain drugs and alcohol, access to this extra layer is cut off, yet it continues to function devoid of logic and reason, only the drive to fulfill dopamine pleasures.

I've always been suspicious of the Adam and Eve story as it seemed to me a means of justifying a patriarch society by blaming women for the woeful demise of gaining conscious knowledge and the concept of sin. Somehow, i never thought of consciousness as a bad thing. As animals, innocent in their instinctual drive for survival, we would kill off undesired young, murder other encroaching humans without thought, seize our mates by force and develop an hierarchy of only the strongest and fittest. Although we exhibit all these traits, it's only the ability for logic and reason that has separated us from this barbaric animal nature and identified us as a civilization. We often behave as animals, but our consciousness tells us to behave as humans.

Why do we have that extra layer of brain? Evolution? Why haven't species that have been here far longer than ourselves, such as the shark, developed this evolutionary design? Nature is always experimenting, but if this is the case, doesn't it imply that nature has a design, a plan, an agenda? This is also to imply that nature is a living force because in order to experiment, design, plan with an agenda, there must be an existing consciousness.

No, i don't think we are enslaved by a force we can't see, smell or feel. I think we are enslaved by our desire to cater to our animal brains so we do not feel the burdens of responsibility, accountability for our actions and questions of our moral/ethical judgments. Our consciousness has given us histories and records of ancestral wisdom, has inspired us to great works of arts, filled us with the longing for an Utopia of brotherhood and stirred our hearts when we have seen great compassion in the midst of great suffering, courage among tyranny and suppression, and gentleness in the place of savagery. The force we can't see, smell or feel encourages us to do better, envision more, and live in harmony with each other. It also gives us the free will to choose between an animal existence and something higher, more refined and beautifully adaptive to nature.

[sh]

Dec 26, 2011 21:22:50 GMT -5 karlsie said:

I've always been suspicious of the Adam and Eve story as it seemed to me a means of justifying a patriarch society by blaming women for the woeful demise of gaining conscious knowledge and the concept of sin. Somehow, i never thought of consciousness as a bad thing. As animals, innocent in their instinctual drive for survival, we would kill off undesired young, murder other encroaching humans without thought, seize our mates by force and develop an hierarchy of only the strongest and fittest. Although we exhibit all these traits, it's only the ability for logic and reason that has separated us from this barbaric animal nature and identified us as a civilization. We often behave as animals, but our consciousness tells us to behave as humans.

I think we need to differentiate between consciousness and self-awareness.

IMO, to be conscious is to perceive.

But to be self-aware is to perceive as a man (or woman.)

And for the record, I don't think murder, rape, theft, etc. apply to animals, because they aren't self-aware. I believe the idea of being murdered has no meaning to them because they are one with the universe.

What I'm saying is, they wouldn't notice death. They'd just keep flowing as they always have.

We on the other hand feel offended at the idea of being raped/murdered because we feel our "selves" are important. We identify ourselves with this ape.

I tell you, our awareness can expand to the point where we are no longer human, by any stretch of the imagination. We too can flow with the universe.

-f

[sh]

And just to be clear, I believe I have seen the indescribable flow of the cosmos. I've been completely dissolved into it on more than a few occassions.

What I've seen is an enormous flux of sorts, intricate in the extreme, and like a vast endless sea, flowing eternally.

Imagine a line that extends infinitely in both directions. Now imagine that you follow the line all the way back to it's source, which is located at infinity.

I believe the flow of the universe is something like that, except where the line extends in two directions, the universe extends infinitely in every possible direction.

And all the "lines" come from the same source: infinity.

So, I believe infinity isn't just an idea but something much more incomprehensible, and aware to a staggering degree.

As such, I believe we are travellers, on our way towards infinity.

But we've forgotten, it seems. And so we believe ourselves to be men and women living on a big rock, floating in the middle of nowhere.

-f

[sh]

Of course, I'm not suggesting that we go out and welcome being raped or killed. I'd do whatever it takes to avoid them. I'll also do whatever it takes to hold on to my food, my clothes and my home.

But If I did get raped or murdered, or if my property was stolen from me, I would try to understand that it's useless to feel offended by my fate.

I think it's accurate to call an event that has already happened, fate.

And it is our fate to die. On some level, it has probably already happened. I think our lives are like the light of long gone stars.

What I'm seeing is that we don't really control our selves. Rather we are aware of what this "self," this human does. And it does as it pleases.

I believe what we really are, at our core, is something abstract; awareness.

But we are so infatuated and entangled by our self-image, that every last vestige of our attention is devoted to this beast-self, who is, for all practical purposes, already dead.

The self and it's physical world are so limited, that it seems like some kind of cage to me. But why should we be in a cage?

We, as in our perception, can break free of the self and act independently.

This part of our being doesn't know what death is. I believe awareness has always been. Before awareness, nothing could have "been."

I think that if we learn to merge with this awareness at large, during our lifetime, then we may hold on to it even after the organism has perished.

I believe life is our chance to do just that. To merge with whatever's out there, while holding onto our individuality; our memories and experiences.

Why should we die in a cage?

-f

[sh]

Karla,

Do you see how the self loses it's worth, once the idea of death is brought into the equation?

I believe for a man (or woman) there are only two truths.

The first is that we perceive. This is a hard fact. Undeniable. Undisprovable.

The second, is death. This is also a hard fact of the same kind.

I see these as two absolute truths about our existence. Everything else, as far as I can see, could turn out to be false.

-f

[sh]

Also, just for the record, I believe that these two truths and their vast implications are what we need to be teaching children in schools.

And, I think "science" should be concerned with the investigation of these two truths; wherever they might lead us.

-f

[grainnerhuad]

My belief always went to Eve being "mother of all" undertstood a great good more than Adam. That being said, I too believe it represents an awareness -also based on the now you mush surely die thing- that they were now aware of their seperate nature, while still being a part of all. Mind blowing really for them.

"And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden."- Jefferson Airplane.

[karlsie]

Sh, i accept your definition of consciousness, and even, after some mental debate, self-awareness, as there really isn't anything more obnoxious than those who are so absorbed in the admiration and pleasures of self, they completely ignore the needs or the effects they have on others. And this is also why i begin to question whether self-awareness would be a motivation for choosing moral judgment. There is a difference between selfish and selfless. The selfish person makes judgments based on individual convenience and personal advantage. The selfless person minimizes his/her own needs for the sake of attending the needs of others.

We are born selfish. In our first three years, our demands are entirely for the fulfillment of self. We demand to be fed, our thirst quenched, our clothing cleaned, entertainment be given to our growing minds. By age four, something new happens. We want the attention of our peers. We either learn how to please our peers through a socialization process, or we learn how to monopolize the attention of our peers through selfish demands. This learning process continues well into early adult lives. Even the most reticent school children gravitate toward a socialization of friends and companions by the time they are in their twenties. The degree of selfishness or selfless communication is highly dependent on those first fifteen years of socialized learning process.

Did self-awareness give us an awareness of death? I think this is highly debatable. There is substantial evidence that other species of animals have death awareness. There are many that will not take on a new mate after losing the one they had. There are dogs that have pined away to their own death at the loss of their owner. Crows gather and pine for the loss of one of its members.

It is our fear that traps us. It's not just an instinctual fear, like a mouse that has been cornered by a cat, but fear of everything; fears we will not be accepted, fears of the unknown, fears of wilderness, the environment, fear of people who are different; the fear of being alone, fear of the dark, etc. and so on. We are walking, talking phobias.

In losing these fears, we become more attuned with the Universe that does not fear, but goes through its cycles and revolutions, completely joyous in its immaculate design of multiplying, dividing, collapsing, expanding, rest (cycle of death), rebirth and renewal. We do rebirth, i believe, or renew. How much we are aware of this individual process, i strongly suspect, is highly dependent on our degree of awareness at the moment of death. If we were filled with fears, than with fears we will be born, forgetting all except that which had consumed us.

[The Late Mitchell Warren]

Well...I've read a lot about Adam & Eve, since I grew up with the intention of becoming a minister. Turns out my rampant sex drive, potty mouth and disturbed mind were just unbecoming of pulpit speeches.

Anyway, I haven't entirely decided what is "true" about Adam and Eve. I think it's entirely possible that they were real, though I don't believe in literal creationism (as in the world is only 7,000 years) But I see no reason to claim that Adam and Eve were fictional characters. Perhaps there were some exaggerations...but it's quite possible the myth we have been told is based on some partial truths.

What was the fruit of the tree in reference to? I've heard the theory that it's about knowledge, sin, higher consciousness etc. But since you've all expressed that already, I guess I'll just say that the fruit of the tree is in reference to sex.

I find it a curiosity to note that by all stated implications, Adam and Eve never had sex before they sinned and probably never experienced sexual drive. Even in later scriptures, the superstitious fear of sex and homosexuality is apparent...as if the writers were obsessed not only with the pleasure of intercourse but with de-population as a species.

Assuming that Adam and Eve were entirely fictional, then it's quite possible the story is an allegory representing the straying away from God, from core values and from simpler earthly pleasures in exchange for the world of sin: presumptuous knowledge, ego, technology, and the like.

Assuming they are real... (With perhaps distorted facts about them) hmm...that's a tough one. I'd say it's closely tied into the reality of death, and the secrets of God were never intended to know (whether by God's own choosing or the wishes of Jews and Christians) who brought us the stories.

Point #2: I think it's a somewhat shallow perspective to state that lower life forms are not capable of self-awareness. I'm not totally convinced that animals are devoid of emotions or logic beyond instinct. Perhaps they use different mediums to communicate these deep thoughts. Perhaps they have never created art because no superior species ever allowed them to.

[sh]

Karla,

How can we know that animals know they are going to die? The examples you provided show without question that animals are affected by the death of those close to them.

But are they consciously aware that they themselves are going to be terminated one day? Do they have any conception of "themselves?" Or do they simply perceive, unhindered by any notion of selfness?

and Mitch,

I don't think an idea of self is at all necessary to feel emotions. The rabbit sees the wolf and feels fear, which drives the rabbit to get the hell out of there.

The wolf on the other hand sees a rabbit and feels drawn to it, like you and I are drawn to a steak with baked potatoes.

And last but not least, Mr. rabbit sees Ms. rabbit and feels an urge to go do something to her.

None of this is under the control of a "self." The way I see, it just happens.

And one more thing, I don't think we can throw around the word "thought" as if it were some kind of universal faculty. I believe thoughts are made of words. In order to have thoughts, we need a language to construct them with.

I believe animals may see visions that bear meaning. These visions aren't born of any self's volition. They come out of nowhere, as far as I can tell.

IMO, visions are a much more advanced way of intending meaning than language is.

-f

[sh]

I'd like to point out that I haven't based my hypotheses entirely on some "mumbo jumbo" like claiming to see visions and having flown/flowed, personally, with the universe at large.

I am basing them, primarily on linguistic evidence.

The word khod (Farsi) and god are obviously the same word. Furthermore, before the monotheistic era, the idea of god was most often expressed pluralised, gods. The word for god in modern Farsi is khoda. The suffix -a or -ha in Farsi makes a word plural. Hence, khoda means "the selves."

The word for self (I, me) in the Old Persian language is adam. In Farsi the word adam means a human being, with no reference to gender. In English Adam is widely known as the name of the mythical first human being.

A human being is also called a "man" in English. In Farsi, man is reference to the self. (I, me, my)

I see this as clear evidence that the story of Adam and Eve is trying to tell us something profound and transcendental about our origins.

I also see a clear image appearing regarding the ideas of god, self and man.

-f

[karlsie]

No, i can't say that animals have a conscious knowledge that one day they are going to die, but i'm pretty sure they understand death. They understand grief. They also understand joy, as evidenced by animals playing. These, however, are emotions and emotions characterize personality. Personality is the unique finger print of self, and it's perhaps personality that makes us know without having an image of who enters our dreams at night and personalities that are preserved for countless generations.