The fruit of good and evil and the mind as a process

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Bulletcatcher, Dec 9, 2019.

  1. Bulletcatcher

    Bulletcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2019
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    8
    The fruit of evil can be interpreted in two distinct ways:

    1. Eating it shows evil intend in yourself (in the form of disobedience to god, but I would regard the nature of the victim as secondary for the following argumentation) - and he punishes you with death?

    2. Eating it shows that you desire to have all the knowledge of the world (as the good and the evil encompasses all the things that the world contains.) This phrase and idea is examplified by other ancient texts like for example: "I [wish to] know everything, the good and the evil." (Odyssey 20:309–310). Somehow this attempt automatically kills you, just as the attempt to eat to much would kill you.

    This explanations that the desire is evil but that the punishment is automatic and not gods revenge are both compatible.

    Knowing all the world would require knowing yourself. Only in this moment you could decide if the universe is evil, or if you want to see it evil, because you are evil. But to know yourself, you must first kill yourself ! The mind is a process and the evil in itself could literally escape you in real time as long as it is running.

    So any attempt to analyze minds for their moral content must first freeze them -it does not matter if you freeze your mind or that of others - evil could just jump into the next mind that is still moving. And we did that, we literally did freeze brains to cut them and build the concepts of modern brain science. But we do this in a logical sense too:

    If you take concepts such as neurotransmitters, and images of psychopaths brain and so on this are all frozen ways to picture the mind. Now you might say "But girl I can watch a real time simulation of the brain as a process!".

    Great idea! Here it is, and I love it: panta rhei

    Unluckily concepts like "neurotransmitters" "brain" "neurons" which you need to understand what you are watching there are concepts of the mind that where once defined (hence are through that definition frozen in time). You might change/refine them in the light of furture research, but usually in a step wise fashion (unfreeze them and than freeze them again in a new definition).

    You never picture this concepts themselves as a flow (or is the concept of a neuron somehow vaguely changing inside your logic all the time? If yes that might not make you exactly friends with people who are fans of classical logic. But Derrida would love you).

    In short: science is analyzing and explaining a flow through frozen concepts, life through death. This sounds like grandiosity, like something that is doomed from the start. It is evil against yourself, and this is what kills you or at least the more refined parts of your mind.

    I guess that if we watch nature as frozen we would think it amoral, and it might mostly be. But there is something hidden and uncatchable by frozen logic that is evil and hitchhiking in this process (of watching nature).
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,117
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    If they eat, Digest, obtain, absorb that fruit they will become Gods like us!

    Therein lies the problem
     
  3. Bulletcatcher

    Bulletcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2019
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    8
    A good god would make us gods if that would be good for us. I explained why it is propably not good (not possible to be all knowing more exactly).
     
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    10,414
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    I'm not quite sure why they are necessarily distinct. Eating shows a desire (2) that leads one to disobey God (1) ... or indeed that we are inherently inclined to evil and thus desire what we've been told we cannot have?

    I don't accept the latter, btw.

    Well ... evil supposes certain things.

    Knowing all the world would require knowing yourself...

    But I'm not sure if we're trying to argue a metaphysical/theological principle on neurological grounds, and missing the point?
     
  5. Bulletcatcher

    Bulletcatcher New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2019
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    8
    I see an analogy between desiring the fruit of knowledge about good and evil and trying to know good and evil by brain science. But I do not want to defend the science of neurology. To the opposite. I see something false l in applying what I call this "frozen" or dead concepts to something that is alive and a flow.

    In modern brain science evil is often "lost" because you can explain it away by some brain damage (psychopathy for example). That damage seems to be a defined / frozen concept of which you can take a picture or make a mental picture in your mind that you conncet to that concept of psychopathy. But I argue that the evil is not inside such a material concept or a given picture connected concept but hiding in the flow of thoughts (of both the psychopath an the resesearcher).

    If it would be trapable at all than perhaps with another flow (by another living beeing), but not a fixed concept as evil adapts in real time to such concepts.
     

Share This Page