the Adam & Eve story as a metaphore of the emergence of civilization

a reply to: Involutionist

Look up scientific articles on how sugar affects the brain. Once they ate the fruit their brains changed and their perception of the world around them changed. God then favors the son who offers meat. Cooked meat is what is theorized as aiding our brains complex evolution. God likes our brains and beings becoming stronger and more complex. Maybe it's just that simple? You're guess is as good as mine.........

originally posted by: KeliOnyx
The issue was Cain not giving his first and best as an offering. Think about it like this, would you want a gift from someone that grudgingly gave it to you out of obligation or from someone that gave it to you because they saw you as a blessing in their life? Countenance matters.

I think the cain and able story is pretty much one of jealousy. Consider the meaning of the word 'able'. Abel had 'better' gifts, Cain was envious and murdered him. I think its a myth/metaphor for the fact that our envy of others that may be more able than us, or have different natural gifts and abilities, can lead us to break the law, if we do not keep ourselves in check.

a reply to: gosseyn

The allegory of the story of Adam and Eve is a metaphysical explanation of the inner fall of man from the perspective of the psychic realm.

Adam, Eve, the Devil, God, Angels, Jinn, animals (serpent) are all aspects of something inside the individual which got twisted in some way that wrecked the nature of humans.


So over time we have fallen to the condition of today or this epoch of violence, ignorance and general darkness of the human condition…it is the devolution or fall of man.



The importance in the allegory is regarding each element as an aspect of the inner nature of the human: God (divine nature) Adam (Human nature) Devil (Jinn Nature at first) Angel (light nature) (animals-Serpent—Anima nature) and the Higher Adam( Mastership)

This was the( Higher Adam) individual guiding the newly created Adam in the Garden of Eden when he was being taught the science of Paradise: science of states.

This is where the fall happend!


The command to not approach a certain tree was the tree of creation. Adam wasn’t evolved enough to deal with this tree at that time...

The Trees were not really trees but states of consciousness of tremendous spiritual power, bliss and science

a reply to: ImaFungi

Jealousy is a factor no doubt. But it isn't the first issue at play in the story. It wasn't an issue of Able having "better" gifts. He gave his first and best, Cain didn't he kept the choice produce for himself and made an offering out of what was left. It's the first of many times that the theme of what is an acceptable sacrifice and what isn't, then through extension the theme of what good hospitality and charity is. At the core is what defines selfishness. Able was envious of his brothers blessings but never looked at himself or his attitude as the cause of the problem.

I think Joseph Johnsons theory is good too.

I am considering it as a metaphor, not as a literal story.

Cain offered produce. Abel offered meat.

Seems like it certainly could be expressing how eating meat benefited the body, the offering could even be the personal consumption, to the God of nature, the God of the nature of our bodies, and it was seen that abel was rewarded with the more able body, and this caused the envy. Just some attempts at philosophical interpretation.

a reply to: Involutionist

Then our disagreement is merely semantics. If for you a hunter-gatherer is someone who wakes up at some point in the day and goes to pick things to eat, then yes. But then following your logic, you would have to differentiate between different kinds of hunter-gatherers : sedentary or nomad, agricultural or actually hunters that hunt animals in the wild and gatherers that gather fruits in the forest, technological or not, highly and over specialized or not, goods are free or not, etc.. I just chose to not call us hunter-gatherers but to call us something else. It's a matter of clarification otherwise it becomes an undifferentiated haystack and it defeats our purpose of understanding it all. But if you feel what I just said is wrong, then tell me what in your opinion defines a hunter-gatherer and if you see a point in time where we will stop to be hunter-gatherers.

To ask me to quit my job and to live a hunter-gatherer life style is beyond the point. I can think against a noxious concept while accepting its temporary necessity, just like I would hate to walk with a crutch while I would accept its temporary use out of necessity. Besides, there's not much left to hunt or to gather, regardless of laws that prohibit such self-sufficiency (laws that are actually products of the merchandise fetishism).

No, what I talk about is a choice of civilization that we have to make, as a species. We have attained a level of technological prowess that let us envisage a planetary post-scarcity civilization. We have become merchandise and money fetishists so much that we don't even notice that 1) those are just concepts, 2) those concepts didn't always exist and 3) we don't need those concepts anymore.

Something to add :
I was thinking about what the fig leaves used to hide the nudity of adam&eve could symbolize, how it would integrate into the OP theory.

I had 2 ideas :
- it symbolizes the promiscuity that arises with civilization in crowded cities
- or it symbolizes a change in the roles of male and female individuals after the transition from hunter-gatherer life style into civilized life style, like if male and female were suddenly perceived as fundamentally different and even unequal.

So I did a little research and I found exactly what I was looking for :
Early men and women were equal, say scientists

Study shows that modern hunter-gatherer tribes operate on egalitarian basis, suggesting inequality was an aberration that came with the advent of agriculture

“There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. We’d argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged.”

“When only men have influence over who they are living with, the core of any community is a dense network of closely related men with the spouses on the periphery,” said Dyble. “If men and women decide, you don’t get groups of four or five brothers living together.”

The authors argue that sexual equality may have proved an evolutionary advantage for early human societies, as it would have fostered wider-ranging social networks and closer cooperation between unrelated individuals. “It gives you a far more expansive social network with a wider choice of mates, so inbreeding would be less of an issue,” said Dyble. “And you come into contact with more people and you can share innovations, which is something that humans do par excellence.”

It seems to me that there was a clear change between perceived roles of both sex after the transition, which in my opinion is well symbolized by the sudden will of adam&eve to hide their nudity. Like if they suddenly see that the other sex is fundamentally different and has to play a different role. And maybe promiscuity still has a role to play in this ? What do you think ?

If you have any other idea don't hesitate to share !

a reply to: gosseyn

Just look at the Hunter gatherer tribes of Africa the birthplace of man they believe the women is god incarnate and parallel to nature because they both give life and sustenance. They also spend most of their time naked the concepts of perversion and rape are almost inconceivable. And that's because they know they are not separate from one another or nature but one and the same. To be honest the only true children of god left were the various indigenous tribes of the world.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
It is recognizing that life is just simply happening - there is no one that needs to connect to life. The feeling (or belief) that there is a 'you' that can 'connect' implies that there can be a disconnection - it implies that there is a 'you' and 'life'.
This is aliveness and it is simply happening.
Where are 'you'? Where is 'life'? Are they separate 'things'?

The only 'cure' is to realize (not intellectualize or learn or obtain or connect) that life is just simply happening and there is no one doing it. The 'individual' is a word arising because of other words like 'before' and 'after'.

Attempting to speak your language, yes, ultimately Reality is simply all that IS. So we could just leave it at that.

However, what is clearly reflected in this world "happening" are real signs of DISCONNECT. If everyone was simply living the "happening", connected to the world as the "happening" as you say, it would not be in the state it is in. We would be doing very different things with these body-minds - we would not be acting as though we are disconnected, independent entities, and destroying this world.

So that is what I am getting at when I speak about recognizing our inherent connection in, as, and to the world or "happening", and this is the "cure" for changing one's act and for all of us to stop destroying the environment these body-minds clearly depend on.

And yes, these body-minds are DOING this destruction, and we all need to take responsibility for this. I cannot relate to a mental abstraction from life to justify no action, as you seem to advocate with your statements that no one is doing anything. Body-minds are DOING many things!

Yes, ultimately we are not the body-mind, we are Consciousness Itself, but these body-minds can be mastered by us, and must be, in order to actually transcend our apparent identification with them.

You seem to love these semantic games, and we have gone over this very matter, many many times. As I have said to you repeatedly, sometimes it is necessary to be very specific, to talk in apparent dualities, to actually get a point across.

So if I say "Please pass me the salt, Itsnowagain" - you seem compelled to always say "Who is this 'me' ? There is no such 'me'."

In the meantime, I get no salt.

The word "replenish" has always made me question the Adam and Eve story

originally posted by: bb23108

So that is what I am getting at when I speak about recognizing our inherent connection in, as, and to the world or "happening", and this is the "cure" for changing one's act and for all of us to stop destroying the environment these body-minds clearly depend on.

If you are not identified with the body why is it that you are so worried about the 'environment the body depends on'?
It seems that you are worried about not being, not existing - the end of you.

Have you not realized yet?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If you are not identified with the body why is it that you are so worried about the 'environment the body depends on'?

This is what I mean by being mentally abstracted from what is happening here. Do you really think the recognition of not being the body means we just let the world be destroyed? No, such recognition gets us off our lazy asses to do something about it - starting with oneself.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If you are not identified with the body why is it that you are so worried about the 'environment the body depends on'?

This is what I mean by being mentally abstracted from what is happening here. Do you really think the recognition of not being the body means we just let the world be destroyed? No, such recognition gets us off our lazy asses to do something about it - starting with oneself.

The mental abstraction is thinking that what is could be different. Even 'the world' is a mental abstraction - can you see or hear 'the world'?
Jesus overcame the world by realizing that it was a idea, a concept.
Experience is what there is. This experience is it.

Adam and Eve believed the whispering serpent that spoke of things outside direct experience and they were banished from paradise.

The problem with this op is that humans have yet to become civilized or make any “civilization” worthy of being called civilized.

originally posted by: bb23108
Do you really think the recognition of not being the body means we just let the world be destroyed? No, such recognition gets us off our lazy asses to do something about it - starting with oneself.

What would you suggest? What is the body (that you see when you look down) doing to save the world?

a reply to: gosseyn

No, what I talk about is a choice of civilization that we have to make, as a species. We have attained a level of technological prowess that let us envisage a planetary post-scarcity civilization. We have become merchandise and money fetishists so much that we don't even notice that 1) those are just concepts, 2) those concepts didn't always exist and 3) we don't need those concepts anymore.

Again: A Short History of Progress

en.wikipedia.org...

We have become merchandise and money fetishists so much that we don't even notice that 1) those are just concepts, 2) those concepts didn't always exist and 3) we don't need those concepts anymore.

I agree money is just an ideology -- a concept of measurement/value. A foreman telling construction workers to go home due to a lack of funds is just as ludicrous as telling them to go home because of running out of inches, yet, many give one illusion more value over the other without ever realizing it. Therefore,on one hand they unconsciously participate in the reality and denounce it philosophically in the other hand.

To ask me to quit my job and to live a hunter-gatherer life style is beyond the point. I can think against a noxious concept while accepting its temporary necessity, just like I would hate to walk with a crutch while I would accept its temporary use out of necessity.

I agree. Yet, it emphasizes your point.

You stated:

we don't need those concepts anymore.

What is the replacement?

Terrence Mckenna discusses a theory about the past where humans had no concept of "Mine". Communities would engage in orgies and raise the offspring that came from such practices as a village since no one knew who sired the child. The moment humans began to identify with their kin is when the concept of "Mine" arose. Just a theory.

McKenna's "Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution: www.lycaeum.org...

But if you feel what I just said is wrong, then tell me what in your opinion defines a hunter-gatherer and if you see a point in time where we will stop to be hunter-gatherers.

I don't feel that you are wrong. I S+F your thread from the start. I also defined in all my previous post the Hunter/Gatherer mentality still exist within our genes and is being demonstrated daily by all.

Here is what defines that mentality:

Anybody who is a daily commuter consuming/accumulating more than they need is still abiding by that mentality. Anybody who buys something strictly because of *wants* reflects that hunter/gatherer mentality.

Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don't do, now. The reform that is needed is not anti-capitalist, anti-American, or even deep environmentalist; it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle.

The great advantage we have, our best chance for avoiding the fate of past societies, is that we know about those past societies. We can see how and why they went wrong. Homo sapiens has the information to know itself for what it is: an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise.

We are now at the stage when the Easter Islanders could still have halted the senseless cutting and carving, could have gathered the last trees' seeds to plant out of reach of the rats. We have the tools and the means to share resources, clean up pollution, dispense basic health care and birth control, set economic limits in line with natural ones. If we don't do these things now, while we prosper, we will never be able to do them when times get hard. Our fate will twist out of our hands.
”
—A Short History of Progress, p 131–2

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Experience is what there is. This experience is it.

If you really want to argue ultimate matters, then your statement here is incorrect - experience is always a perception by the body-mind. It is limited to the nervous system-brain-mind mechanism, and is not what Reality actually IS. Experience/perception is an illusion of the brain-mind.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
What would you suggest?

We have had this conversation before and if yours is a serious question you are not just looking to find some "ultimate" mis-wording in, we can go into more detail via u2u.

In the meantime, as I have mentioned before, when one connects with Reality as it actually is, one's associated body-mind goes through various transformations, including being more and more infilled with the sheer Force of Life/Reality itself. Reality opens the physical body, the subtle chakras, etc., and more and more disciplines are taken on spontaneously to allow this increased Energy to be conducted throughout the body-mind. These disciplines are supportive ways to live in harmony with the whole event/environment we arise in and as. These disciplines include all aspects of life relative to diet, health, sexuality, relationships, money, service, meditation, etc. They are inherently in harmony with life because the aspirant is fully participatory in the whole event of life - not looking to go inward or even outward, but submitted to Reality itself.

Most new-age philosophers talk about various non-dual insights but don't relate to much below the head in terms of any necessary transformation. In other words, this indicates an abstraction from life - and was traditionally understood to be an error in understanding the real process, and so was called the "stench of enlightenment" in the Buddhist tradition.

People traditionally who were just talkers were not taken so seriously in these transcendental traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism, which necessarily required preliminary and supportive disciplines. In fact, until recently, such disclosure of non-dualism was not given until various requirements were met - for obvious reasons, as they often justified and resulted in, all kinds of mental abstraction, self-delusion, and non-discipline.

Anyway, enough said for now, my friend. Be well.

originally posted by: bb23108

We have had this conversation before and if yours is a serious question you are not just looking to find some "ultimate" mis-wording in, we can go into more detail via u2u.

Feel free to u2 me and let me know what you suggest.

In the meantime, as I have mentioned before, when one connects with Reality as it actually is, one's associated body-mind goes through various transformations, including being more and more infilled with the sheer Force of Life/Reality itself.

How does one connect with Reality as it actually is?
How did/do 'you' connect' to 'reality?

Most new-age philosophers talk about various non-dual insights but don't relate to much below the head in terms of any necessary transformation. In other words, this indicates an abstraction from life - and was traditionally understood to be an error in understanding the real process, and so was called the "stench of enlightenment" in the Buddhist tradition.

The body will change when wholeness is realized - no matter how much 'you do' to make the body/mind change will not make wholeness/realization happen (because you are not the body/mind).

a reply to: gosseyn


The idea of metaphor comes up in the mind because its really hard to believe it was that simple. A snake and some fruit and we lost paradise?