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).