|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2023 11:02:24 GMT -5
It's odd because the story should be viewed as the birth of thought, consciousness, awareness of self... in short, what makes us human... just as the other stories of a trickster bringing light, fire, consciousness, awareness, to man are.
Why is man different than the other animals he sees all about? (And bypassing the silliness, there is a difference.) What caused it? What spark? What trigger? What switch turned? All cultures throughout time have the same questions and all have their stories to try explain it. The Garden of Eden, its antecedent, rather, was as one such story. Prior to that trickster, that wily serpent, Adam and Eve were the same as the other animals within the garden, without self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection, or thought. Wandering sheep with flowers in their hair and idiot grins upon their face.
But, the story got turned on its head by desert moralists intent on using guilt as a lever; no celebration, just condemnation, YOU ARE THE FAULT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T LISTEN (so listen to me now). But the original story is still there to be seen if you look. And I say, thank you serpent!
But, if you desire the Garden, a frontal lobotomy will get you there (or a den suffused with clouds of opium).
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 10, 2023 11:47:26 GMT -5
It's a coming-of-age story. That cranky old misogynist Augustine invented Original Sin centuries after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 10, 2023 11:58:37 GMT -5
Epaul, here's an answer. Philosopher/psychologist/physician William James expressed the view that what religious people have in common is the conviction that there is an unseen order in all things, and that the supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves to that order.
Genesis contains a creation myth of a religious people. In the Garden of Eden story, Adam and Eve ceased to live in harmony with God's order. They accordingly lost the supreme good. It's a sad story.
If instead you think that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are more important than living in harmony with the underlying order--or that there is no underlying order--you will value what Adam and Eve gained more than you will value what they lost. So it's a happy story.
I'm religious and you aren't so it isn't surprising that we see this one differently.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 10, 2023 15:44:51 GMT -5
Epaul, here's an answer. Philosopher/psychologist/physician William James expressed the view that what religious people have in common is the conviction that there is an unseen order in all things, and that the supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves to that order. Genesis contains a creation myth of a religious people. In the Garden of Eden story, Adam and Eve ceased to live in harmony with God's order. They accordingly lost the supreme good. It's a sad story. If instead you think that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are more important than living in harmony with the underlying order--or that there is no underlying order--you will value what Adam and Eve gained more than you will value what they lost. So it's a happy story. I'm religious and you aren't so it isn't surprising that we see this one differently. I would strongly disagree that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are in any way in conflict with living in harmony with the underlying order. In fact, I would posit that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are the only way to discover the underlying order and how to live in harmony with it.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 10, 2023 15:53:31 GMT -5
"I would strongly disagree that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are in any way in conflict with living in harmony with the underlying order. In fact, I would posit that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are the only way to discover the underlying order and how to live in harmony with it."
I think that knowledge, reflection and thought are good things. I don't think any of the things you identify are inherently in conflict with living in harmony with the underlying order. But I also don't think they're the supreme good, which was what James was discussing. They're also not the only way to discover the underlying order, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2023 16:08:01 GMT -5
Oh, that James. He does like to stir things up.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2023 16:13:14 GMT -5
William James expressed the view that what religious people have in common is the conviction that there is an unseen order in all things, and that the supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves to that order. Problem #1: The "conviction that there is an unseen order in all things" is also present in conventional Western science, particularly if "unseen" means "not accessible to unaided human senses but accessible to instrumentation of various kinds and confirmable by careful measurement and analysis." Problem #2: There's a kind of categorial swap that occurs between the "is" of an orderly universe and the "ought" of somehow constructing a moral way of life that accords with it. Does the "is" of the material natural order of the world indicate an intention? Because any moral "ought" implies intention, or at least something morally normative on the other side of the proposition "You ought to do/not do X because Y." If Y is a material process (for example, the law of gravity), there is no moral dimension--though one ought not to step off the edge of a cliff because of the consequences of landing. Morality requires intention. On the other hand, the natural-law arguments about sexual conduct offered by the Catholic Church insist that the state of nature is a sign of divine intention that has moral force: Don't have sex that denies the possibility of conception because human reproductive machinery indicates God's will. There are all manner of non-religious approaches to moral conduct that take into account the unseen and seen order of all things without projecting moral intention onto the material world. But do look down before taking a step. Gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the (natural) law.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 10, 2023 16:28:04 GMT -5
"I would strongly disagree that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are in any way in conflict with living in harmony with the underlying order. In fact, I would posit that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection and thought are the only way to discover the underlying order and how to live in harmony with it." I think that knowledge, reflection and thought are good things. I don't think any of the things you identify are inherently in conflict with living in harmony with the underlying order. But I also don't think they're the supreme good, which was what James was discussing. They're also not the only way to discover the underlying order, IMO. I love thread drift. We're discussing this in a buffalo thread ... I read parts of James, at your suggestion, a number of years back, particularly his chapter on mysticism. I found him very thoughtful and informative.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 10, 2023 16:34:58 GMT -5
"I love thread drift. We're discussing this in a buffalo thread ..."
Isn't this the dinner thread?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Nov 10, 2023 16:37:05 GMT -5
Perhaps "frayed" is the appropriate adjective.
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2023 16:37:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John B on Nov 10, 2023 17:03:18 GMT -5
Oh, that James. He does like to stir things up. Are we talking William James or our James?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 10, 2023 17:03:50 GMT -5
"Problem #1: The 'conviction that there is an unseen order in all things' is also present in conventional Western science, particularly if 'unseen' means 'not accessible to unaided human senses but accessible to instrumentation of various kinds and confirmable by careful measurement and analysis.'"
I don't see why you call that a problem. To say that religious people share a conviction doesn't imply that others can't reach the same conclusion. They're welcome to grab a beer and pull up a chair.
The order that I've perceived can't be detected or measured by any instruments that I know of. They're doing some amazing things with silicon chips, though, so maybe that'll come. Many other people have perceived an order that, by their accounts, seems to be the same one I've perceived. All things considered, I'm left with the conviction that it's real.
"Problem #2: There's a kind of categorial swap that occurs between the 'is' of an orderly universe and the 'ought' of somehow constructing a moral way of life that accords with it. Does the 'is' of the material natural order of the world indicate an intention? Because any moral 'ought' implies intention, or at least something morally normative on the other side of the proposition 'You ought to do/not do X because Y.' If Y is a material process (for example, the law of gravity), there is no moral dimension--though one ought not to step off the edge of a cliff because of the consequences of landing. Morality requires intention."
The order itself doesn't indicate any particular intention with regard to how I should live. The intention comes from me. Many years ago I first perceived an order in the universe. In short order I realized that, in light of that discovery, I needed to change the way I lived. Self-centeredness, self-absorption and skirt-chasing didn't strike a harmonious chord with the order I'd perceived. One of them must have been a half-step off.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2023 18:52:14 GMT -5
Oh, that James. He does like to stir things up. Are we talking William James or our James? I thought Don was referring to our James. I'm now having doubts. But, James is a wide-ranging fellow.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2023 18:58:21 GMT -5
Whichever James it was, I did like that spooky book he wrote about those spooky kids, "The Turn of the Screw".
|
|
|
Post by james on Nov 10, 2023 19:45:02 GMT -5
Better to be mistakenly thought the author of that than those 'Fifty Shades' books. I'd just like to clear up any potential confusion on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 10, 2023 20:23:15 GMT -5
Is that the James Don is talking about? Wow! Go figure!. Kind of proud of him. Wow! Go figure!
(sounds like Russell has been reading that guy, as well. Not as much of a surprise, but, still... What a forum!)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 11, 2023 8:07:39 GMT -5
For those of us who believe there will ultimately be a restoration to the way things were meant to be (and there aren't very many of us ... and of the few there are, there's little consensus about even that -- though we're pretty much in agreement that it isn't "heaven".) It's a curious cultural development that though our Intellectuals and Institutions would have it be otherwise, a huge majority of humankind still believes in creation of some kind. At the same time, there's little agreement -- among those who believe the universe was created -- in what that creation was for, much less how it came about. And then the temptation is to discuss creationists vs materialists ... when MOST creationists don't like to be thought of as "creationists" because Intellectuals and Institutions have at least successfully cast belief in a creation as something you'd better keep under your hat if you want to be thought of in this world as anything more than a dullard (not to mention a "hater", or "bigot"). But most creationists are materialists -- that is: Most creationists have developed their world view that everything but the prime mover can ultimately be explained materially. The world of belief doesn't divide neatly between "faith" and "science". In fact, faith isn't how you believe (in) something. Faith is a response that shows what you believe (in). So, in that way "faith" and "science" aren't even categorical opposites. I like Don's answers that lean toward "and" and away from the false dichotomy of "either/or". But to get back to folks like me who believe there will ultimately be a restoration to the way things were meant to be, some of the things I've observed: 1. Disliking a narrative doesn't make it untrue. Evaluating a narrative on the merits of its reasonability probably should cause doubt in a given narrative. Our ability to reason is distorted (and I think most people accept that), but reason itself is ... reasonable. 2. Bliss isn't bliss. Maybe a world of euphoria is possible, and might even sound good to some folks. But from my perspective, I've observed that there is very little joy to be experienced in life that isn't so by contrast to its alternative. Rest is about as wonderful as life gets, but it isn't possible without toil in the first place. Satisfying hunger is perhaps the most universal pleasure available to man, but without hunger in the first place, it isn't possible. And gluttony creates its own hell. Additionally, I find great pleasure in measured entropy. I love antiques with patina (far more than I love brand-spanking new). I like my jeans broken in. I value a timelessness in the art I admire far more than I value the novel (I do value the novel, though I realize it's often as an new interpretation of the old). All this to say: Heaven would be hell to me. Everything forever new strikes me as vapid. No seasons strikes me as boring. Everything new all the time strikes me as the same thing as nothing new, ever. Ever again. A world in which The Creator is the only one creating? ...that would be hellish. Would I like to experience a world wherein entropy is slowed down? ...where my favorite guitar (or blue jeans) gets just the right amount of broken in and then stays that way longer? Would I like for Autumn to last a year or so at a time? Would I like to be able to enjoy the fleeting for longer periods (of course I would or I wouldn't be trying to capture either in art or writing). Yes. Leave paradise up to me. You'll enjoy my paradise far more than the ones a god might come up with. I promise. But I suspect that self-awareness, knowledge, choice, reflection, or thought were already there without the Serpent stepping in and presenting a way to distort each one of them. So, in the current distortion: Self-awareness flips to narcissism. Knowledge and choice are sought in the pleasure of vice (and its promise of a heaven on earth -- of pleasure without pain) rather than virtue. Reflection and thought are directed toward the preservation of self and away from acceptance of a creator (and the humbling to a narrative greater than one's own).
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Nov 11, 2023 8:22:20 GMT -5
Didn’t Ralph Kramden belong to a lodge called The Mystic Buffaloes?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 11, 2023 9:35:02 GMT -5
"All this to say: Heaven would be hell to me."
Then I think you can trust that the human idea of heaven is not what will happen to us. God will get it right.
|
|