The Garden of Eden and its interpretations

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

JJ Wrote:
Here's the crux though. Does the "externally" accepted definition (ie. wiki) negate the subjective interpretation (let's say Neo & Evinnra's), which provides some sort of compass directing us in our own subjective life philosophy?
I don't like externally accepted definitions. :( The "concept" is the key. I'm like Louis Carrol when it comes to "words". A word only means what I believe it to mean. So if I claim to be a ga-ga, no one can say I'm not.

As for logical positivism, I can only subjectively interpret what it means from my experience. If that isn't the accepted definition, I can't help that. Does it mean I'm wrong, yes...when it comes to the actual words.

Kind of like the word "myth". Is it a lie? A misunderstood concept? or a metaphor?
If I say it's a metaphor, am I wrong?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

All information, as far as I'm concerned, is x number of times removed from its source. "Empirical" reality cannot be directly known. It is filtered through biological systems, designed to receive some of the information available, and processed into an image in the brain.

Even though we agree that 'red' is 'red' we will never know another's experience of 'redness'. Empirically it's a wavelength of reflected light. You don't 'see' the ball. Just because you can determine its position in space doesn't mean you are directly experiencing the ball.

So what is it you see? What is it you touch? What is it you hear?

A subjective image.

The miracle is that we can agree on as much as we do, and shape these experiences in sounds (air molecules crashing into one another at specific frequencies!) that make sense.

I've a feeling that our common experience is as functional as Newtonian physics: It works good enough down to a certain decimal point. Then things get interesting. That's where the impulse lives. That's where science stops.

There is only our subjective experience.

So what happened in the Garden? We started naming things, categorizing. The birth of science.

That god took exception to that is a curious thing...
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Clemsy wrote:
There is only our subjective experience.

So what happened in the Garden? We started naming things, categorizing. The birth of science.

That god took exception to that is a curious thing...
Perhaps I remember it wrongly, but I seem to recall the Bible stating that God instructed Adam and Eve to name things and make good use of everything in his kingdom. I also recall asking Father Tompa - when I was little girl - why is it that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge; is it because God didn’t want his creation to learn? Father Tompa’s answer was that it was the willfulness of Eve and the unfaithfulness of Adam that compelled God to throw the first couple out of Eden. Funny, it seems most marriages end today for precisely the same reason . :roll:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I think you're right, Evinnra. He did tell them to name things. Maybe it wasn't the apple at all... maybe it was a set up from the start:

"Let's see, that's a rock, that's a fern, you're a naked man... naked man... AAAAHHH!!!!"

Or maybe the apple gave us adjectives? :lol:
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I've a feeling that our common experience is as functional as Newtonian physics: It works good enough down to a certain decimal point. Then things get interesting. That's where the impulse lives. That's where science stops. -Clemsy
Yes...and quite often where 'dogma' begins!
I don't like externally accepted definitions. -Neo
This is a significant distinction among us human-types, isn't it? Each of us needs something different from the 'definable world'. There are many who need things to be as clearly defined and explained as is possible. This provides some sense of stability in the chaos. I see it, personally, as a form of denial, but my view does not negate that persons need for a structured, definable universe. I have often noted in my classes that many students get very upset when the parameters of the class change due to unforeseen circumstances..."there should be X points for an A"..."The syllabus does not say that"...etc. I think this type represents the majority of Western culture, which does coincide with the popularity of Christianity; which offers a permanent soul that will, if properly prepared, transcend this earthly existence and live on in "heaven". It is a nice structured gameplan...Do X and Y and get to Z. Simple.

Then there is the view which accepts that nothing is permanent. This is a potentially dangerous path because it offers no 'safety net'. We come to accept that the entire universe and our conditioned sense of self are temporary manifestations that have no true beginning or end. Just a blip on the radar, so to speak. Ironically, many in the West see this as being narcissistic and without any real moral guidance because there is no real difference between "good" and "evil". But it is in the application of the label of good or evil that differentiates and ultimately places us in conflict with our true nature and the true nature of those we co-exist with. To accept that all is interconnected is far away from narcissism. So...such a model may look like.. Z-X+Y = 42? The question mark being the key.

However, there are limitations, right?
The "concept" is the key. I'm like Louis Carrol when it comes to "words". A word only means what I believe it to mean. So if I claim to be a ga-ga, no one can say I'm not. -Neo
We do need some sort of accord in 'meaning' in order to co-exist. If everyone decides that a word only means what we want it to mean then we have no consensus, and ultimately division...which always leads to conflict (it seems). If a person believes that killing others means "compassion" because they are releasing someone from the suffering of existence, it has, what I believe to be, a universally negative aspect. This equates to hijacking meaning in order to serve a selfish, sociopathic, and narcissistic end.

If we are to co-exist with minimal conflict, we do need (IMHO) to attempt to come to consensus on certain meanings. The difficulty is trying to pin down definitions within the arena of philosophy and spirituality, which are, after all, realms of subjective experience. It is ok to call a circle a circle and a square a square...and it is also ok to say that there is a level of subjectivity when it comes to other more "philosophical" realms.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

We do need some sort of accord in 'meaning' in order to co-exist. If everyone decides that a word only means what we want it to mean then we have no consensus, and ultimately division...which always leads to conflict (it seems). -JJ
I think this sums up half of the disagreements on this website. :wink:
If a person believes that killing others means "compassion" because they are releasing someone from the suffering of existence, it has, what I believe to be, a universally negative aspect. This equates to hijacking meaning in order to serve a selfish, sociopathic, and narcissistic end.
I'm sure there are plenty of criminals out there who use a similar thought process to justify their crimes. Or on a larger scale "It doesn't matter how many millions of people are killed, as long as social order is brought to the world, it's justified."
The difficulty is trying to pin down definitions within the arena of philosophy and spirituality, which are, after all, realms of subjective experience.
Concepts are the key. A rose is a rose. I still don't like the fact that by official definition I'm a "mystic". It's not like I go around shooting lightning bolts and fireballs at people. :roll:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Yes, Clemsy, that is one way of putting it: the apple gave us adjectives. In my view eating the apple meant that Eve removed her self from the value system of God, which act is separation as it is already. When husband and wife can’t get along with each other it is invariably the departure from holding the same values that causes the rift. (For instance: that expensive leather handbag on sale has no value for one and that weeping and sorrowful brunette/blond aching to be consoled has no value for the other.)

But if I saw Neo shooting lightening bolts from his eyes and there were at least two other people around who saw him doing it exactly as I saw it, I would have to take it for an empirical fact that he is shooting lightning bolts from his eyes, although it is not an act that can be normally expected from a human being . In other words, I hold that the verifiability of ‘facts’ lies in the availability of independent observers testifying for the existence of these facts. We are out of Eden and the very act of perceiving those shadows on the wall need a system of verification if we don’t want to ‘lose our footing’. (The ‘Art of War’ says loosely something like this: once one’s footing is lost everything is lost.) I wonder if our ‘footing’ was predetermined by God before we were thrown out of Eden? For now I tend to think that it was not predetermined, since otherwise Eve wouldn't have been 'moved' to take the apple. Right?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I still don't like the fact that by official definition I'm a "mystic". It's not like I go around shooting lightning bolts and fireballs at people. -Neo
I had a Dungeons and Dragons character (my highest level one) that could do that! I wasn't so accommodating back then! :wink: Of coarse, his ego was his downfall. C'est La Vie!
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

For now I tend to think that it was not predetermined, since otherwise Eve wouldn't have been 'moved' to take the apple. Right?
Oh, I consider the whole story a fine example of mythic reversal psychologically designed to make the goddess look bad. All the elements have a different impulse elsewhere. The snake wrapped about the tree is certainly central.

I like Emil's interpretation, myself, from back on page one:
But the character named "God" in the Eden story never was seen as a character in a story in the first place, by the orthodox, institutional authority, anyway. Thus that character became our God, and the "mythological" structure built upon Him, carried the weight of truth for hundreds of years. Many squabbles and wars marked those years, for sure, but that structure preserved a continuity that served many generations -- creating a sense of unity and permanence amidst times of great change.

That structure has crumbled by the 21st century, and more than one person feels a justifiable anger at having been told that the character named "God" in the Eden story is God as if there could be no other understanding of that most life-supporting of all life-supporting concepts. The world of "Caesar," as I said, is evident, but what of the world of "God?" What of that world that can can be reinforced, rather than refuted, by experience, reason, and the discoveries of rational science? I think that world of "God" can co-exist, reinforced, with the world of "Caesar" if the serpent of Eden is assigned that designation.

With the discovery of the serpent, we can keep the baby and refresh the bathwater. For example, I remember being told that God made me to know love and serve Him in this world and to be with Him forever in the next. I, along with the rest of the individuals growing up under the canopy of Christanity as authored, primarily, by St. Augustine, was assigned a noble purpose to life. I lived in "Caesar," for sure, and I relished that life, but I didn't live for "Caesar." I lived for, was supposed to live for, "God."

But what happens to that noble purpose when we are left only with "Caesar?" If our space explorers, both human and telescopic, haven't found any next world, maybe we can begin to consider the prospect that we can exprience God in this world, right now while we live. We don't have to throw out the baby, leaving us only with "Caesar." We can refresh the bathwater to bring the world of "God" into the 21st century and beyond. We can bring the pair of opposites into balance individually, and even collectively, if we believe, as Jung did, that "finally, even the truth can spread and not only the popular lie." The serpent awaits its chance.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Molly J
Associate
Posts: 174
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:00 am
Location: SC

Post by Molly J »

Emil still rocks. My grandson, at 5 yrs, knows he doesn't want to go to heaven, and he wants nothing to do with the "angels". His great grandma was very sick, and his Mom told him that Nana might go to be with the angels. He said he didn't want her to go there. His Mom said, "Well, where do you want her to go, then?" and that blessed fellow said, "Back to her house!"

I haven't told him a thing about JCF, I swear.

Molly J

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Og wrote:
Cindy B. wrote:Why modern science alone ultimately falls short is because it does not address that most basic human need for an existence imbued with meaningfulness...

Cindy
Why not? What is it lacking that prevents it from attaining this goal? How does one go about finding meaningfulness? Your brain is a hypothesis testing machine. Whatever process you take to finding meaningfulness is necessarily a scientific one. It may be full of your subjective experience being cast upon your current experience of reality, but it'll be a hypothesis driven approach (just as all human behaviors are).

The point is that there is no bit of truth that science can't approach. By design. How does one find meaningfulness if not through trial and error and learning? THAT is the scientific process.
Og
If we have free will, this is a meaningful stance/argument.
If we have no free will, then I'm not so sure?

If we have no free will, then "meaning" can only come on board, so to speak. From a confluence of events. Then there is no 'intrinsic or inherent" I that can look for that meaning ... we are all one so to speak?

edit

I just read the thread since the beginning of June ... wow you guys are one tough crowd.

I was wondering whether one of the debaters with Og would like to (or would be kind enough to) precis the reasons for Og's stance on free will? Clemsy or Neo would you either of you two step up to the plate?

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Well, I discovered this concept of "no free will" is attributed to Darwin. The main issue (as far as I can tell) is that man is an animal the "appears" to have "freewill" (or in you're terms romansh "thinks he has").

So I think maybe the real question is:

Is man something more than animal? Is the human psyche different from an animals?

Of course, I speak for more than a few of us who want to say "well no duh!" However, is there a convincing argument that points to the opposite? :?:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Neoplato wrote:Well, I discovered this concept of "no free will" is attributed to Darwin. The main issue (as far as I can tell) is that man is an animal the "appears" to have "freewill" (or in you're terms romansh "thinks he has").

So I think maybe the real question is:

Is man something more than animal? Is the human psyche different from an animals?

Of course, I speak for more than a few of us who want to say "well no duh!" However, is there a convincing argument that points to the opposite? :?:
I have not read Darwin ... but the concept of no free will predates Darwin by at least two millenia ... a dualistic dance free will ... yes and no.

Man more than an humble archaea? ... We are both at the pinnacle of ~4 Gy of evolution (maybe more).

Are we different ... it depends on our perspective?

I still ask the question do we understand Og's point of view? Only when we understand it can we say yea or nay!. I lived fifty or more years happy and certain in my dualistic and free will world. Og's simple question about regression of causes demolished my certitude. For that I am thankful.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Romansh,
I still ask the question do we understand Og's point of view?
Sure. I think. :wink: Og's universe is one of cause and effect. All outcomes, including human behavior, are predictable. (Og is that correct?) There is no corner of existence which science can't define to a nicety. I'd have to read over the thread again, but I also recall there being an issue with subjective consciousness.

No problem with a lot of this for the most part. However, with human behavior and subjective consciousness things, as far as I'm concerned, get a bit muddy.

Much of any behavior is a matter of cause and effect. However I'm just not convinced that there isn't more to the equation. Since I'm language oriented and not science oriented I'm caused to look at things by analogy. The universe is not deterministic. It's probabilistic. Complexity allows for a number of probable outcomes the prediction of which is uncertain.

Science is not about uncertain predictions.

From within this uncertainty, methinks, arises art.

Og may be absolutely correct. The complexity of which I speak may be just a finely woven net from which, eventually, we will be able to absolutely predict the outcomes of human behavior. However, my nature, for whatever cause, has always been profoundly uncomfortable with paradigms that are locked up tight.

I like my circles broken, like the JCF logo.

My intuition guides my way. Whether my intuition is pushed by firing neurons or vice versa or some third undetermined, or unknowable, possibility...???

That's why I keep saying, "There's always the next level."

Given the proper conditions magical things happen. Take two substances of defined qualities and combine them with the result being a third substance with new qualities completely different from the original two.

Science can tell us that it does happen. Maybe it can say how.

But it will never say why.

I'm really into why.

But here I've spent most of this post explaining my mind, not Og's. Sometimes my keyboard just runs away with me.

Now that is predictable.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. »

Clemsy wrote:My intuition guides my way. Whether my intuition is pushed by firing neurons or vice versa or some third undetermined, or unknowable, possibility...???
My take--regardless of the nuts and bolts, whether a staunch materialist, idealist, or somewhere in between, experientially there's no difference to be discerned. So, ultimately, when it comes to living and creating a meaningful life, all that is beside the point...

***

As for the notions of free will and determinism, my take on these is that neither exists as absolutes. We are free to choose within certain bounds, from the level of nature and our place in it through every intervening level up through the cultural.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung

Locked