[leskey]

Hi, futrethink.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---The idea/knowledge, that there is something outside of what is known within the Garden, could be what the fruit of the tree gave to Adam & Eve. What do you think?

I'll offer an opinion, for what it's worth, but first, are you saying that the ACT of eating the "forbidden fruit," made A&E become aware of all that was outside the garden? That there was more?

Yes, that's part of it.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---I think the thought that ‘love’ is the root cause of ‘evil’, on that level of perception, could be what Tina might be thinking about, though.

That 'love' is the root cause of 'evil' is a possibility. A&E were united by love. That BOTH A&E ate the fruit, was MUTUALLY destructive and could be interpreted as a 'folie a deux,' or 'evil.' They both equally deserved their fate: the end of the easy life

Looking at it from the Judaeo/Christian perspective, God created Man in his own image (love?). His instruction to Mankind to love one another is the greatest recipe for the survival of Mankind. So in order for there to be any Existence, there has to be love; the downside being that all else, including evil, comes from it. I guess from any Human perspective, without love there is nothing.

If I've assumed anything incorrectly, I'll happily discuss the options.

You might have cracked it, futrethink!

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---So being separate and being aware that they were separate, even as they were still one with the unity/oneness caused them to feel sin or that it was wrong?

I think "separate" nails it. Because to separate, there must be definition. And definition requires the use of "not" (or the negative). In logic, this relates to the Law of Non-contradiction. For our everyday use, a bird is not Hoover Dam, Hoover Dam is not a grasshopper, a grasshopper is not evil, and evil is not love. If you live in potatoland with MJA and ironically do "not" accept the existence of "not", then there is no separation and everything is equal. A bird is Hoover Dam, Hoover Dam is a grasshopper, a grasshopper is evil, evil is love, and love is a potato. Deny the existence of "not", and suddenly you are in Potatoland where positive is negative, up is down, love is hate, happy is sad, and potatoes = potatoes = potatoes (as KiGs would say).

Ultimately the root of all evil is allowing it to exist. And allowing it requires defining it which requires the use of "not". If you do not allow separation, evil cannot exist.

Welcome to potatology!

[melanie]

Originally Posted by JAK I think "separate" nails it. Because to separate, there must be definition. And definition requires the use of "not" (or the negative). In logic, this relates to the Law of Non-contradiction. For our everyday use, a bird is not Hoover Dam, Hoover Dam is not a grasshopper, a grasshopper is not evil, and evil is not love. If you live in potatoland with MJA and ironically do "not" accept the existence of "not", then there is no separation and everything is equal. A bird is Hoover Dam, Hoover Dam is a grasshopper, a grasshopper is evil, evil is love, and love is a potato. Deny the existence of "not", and suddenly you are in Potatoland where positive is negative, up is down, love is hate, happy is sad, and potatoes = potatoes = potatoes (as KiGs would say). Ultimately the root of all evil is allowing it to exist. And allowing it requires defining it which requires the use of "not". If you do not allow separation, evil cannot exist. Welcome to potatology!

You are quite right with your paradox theory JAK.
You can't have one without the other.
But however relatively speaking,
It is but two sides of the same coin.
And although .. One side cannot see the other side.
Both are in essence ONE.

All 'things' are already known in this conception.
They are temporal 'appearances' on the screen of eternal awareness.
Pure Awareness....No concept in mind. No Distinction.
It is the assumed 'separate entity' 'mis-identification' the 'phantom' that assumes distinction where there is none.


MJA is absolutely correct in his = analogy. For in this dream
All is already known [one with the knowing] [conception]
I can understand MJA and where he is coming from, with his = concept.
No-thing has any reality they are just 'appearances' 'appearing' on the eternal screen of awareness, 'appearing' to no-one.
IT's All ...[ONE TASTE] .. there are no distinctions,except as conceived.
It's all .. One Taste happening all at once in the eternal NOW.

From the assumed 'individual' perspective,
Time and space and every-'thing' else can be interpreted as......
Same potatoes, but a different day.
All Illusion, because they are all i-deas already known by consciousness.
This reality is all a mental construct ..All 'things' are in Consciousness.
Consciousness in not in 'things'

melanie.

[futrethink]

---leskey.

You might have cracked it, futrethink!

---Actually, I wasn’t the one to bring the specific concept of ‘love’, up in this thread. It was Profpat, when he posted, “Surely it’s not love” in a previous post.
---I accept it, as a degree of the objective concept that love, like, most wanted, least hated, chosen and other synonym-like concepts describe, on a level of perception above interaction for the root cause and as a part of the pattern for how a choice is made.

I guess from any Human perspective, without love there is nothing.

---Any perspective that involves choice creates evil.
---I hope that I am stating this correctly, “Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself”. I already mentioned it to Profpat in post 1029, that that only works for the betterment of ‘good’ in society, if you are not a sado-masochist. A further explanation is found in post 1031
---Everything that an individual does that is ‘good’or ‘evil’ in reality, is for love of self, in all forms. This includes even what ‘God’ does.

I'll offer an opinion, for what it's worth, but first, are you saying that the ACT of eating the "forbidden fruit," made A&E become aware of all that was outside the garden?

---It could be the act or it could have been the fruit passing knowledge, just, as nutrients may be passed. Therein lies an unknown variable, within the world of an almost omnipotent being and It’s ability to do anything within existence.

[futrethink]

Jak.

Law of Non-contradiction

---That law only works within a certain perception.
--- I am hoping that you are just keeping it within that certain perception and not applying it to all of the reality that is infinite, but only within certain finite limits. Please, don’t bring “impossible and nonexistent” paradoxes into this.

[leskey]

JAK, you have a very good point about the use of "not." To use "not" is an admission that there is a positive/better state which is presently elusive: that some action over time/distance has separated us from that positive (and perfect? because I believe much of what we do, or seek to control, is motivated by a drive to achieve perfection ) state of existence.

Futrethink, I do remember Profpat stating "Surely it's not love." With the emphasis on "not," the interpretation of his meaning changes from perhaps one of bored cynicism, to a very accurate answer to the thread question. (Not bad from a self-confessed "cold mashed" "potato brain").

If I could just hark back to the "metaphorical" story of Adam and Eve. For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether this is a factual story in the sense that it is what actually happened. What does matter and what has been drawn out of some of the discussion, is that after examination, there is a lot more meaning (Truth, truths) to the story.

As I've stated in other posts I believe that every race, culture and creed holds a little piece of the truth. Others at TOE can also see that there is something dysfunctional is our "separateness" (perfect description BTW JAK).

The empirical amongst us admit that the physical realm is based upon the same miniscule, separate particles working together (in a chemical/mechanical way) to produce inceasingly sophisticated states of existence and life. At the pinaccle of life is humankind. From humankind, the next step is through "the veil" into the metaphysical realm.

Is it possible, then, that humankind has the task in the metaphysical realm of organising that which is unique and separate into some OTHER, HIGHER state of existence and life - that this is WHY good and evil even matter?

[Drifter]

Hi leskey,

I think all the mystics and messengers of god have tried to tell us of a higher consciousness, a higher self, a soul, that nothing that really something we as human beings have such a time with getting our minds around that is our essential essence of being, or real 'identity'. It pervades the realms of what we are currently aware of as existence and non-existence.

I liken them [the messengers] to an utterly trustworthy parental figure/spirit visiting their as yet unborn child in the womb [this reality]. Basically saying to that child, there are certain things you will develop in here that you will need in the physical realm where you are going. i.e. Seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, and smelling.
If they are not developed 'here . . .now" you will be handicapped or less developed in the next realm, metaphysical [Reality].

my two sense,
D.

Originally Posted by leskey JAK, you have a very good point about the use of "not." To use "not" is an admission that there is a positive/better state which is presently elusive: that some action over time/distance has separated us from that positive (and perfect? because I believe much of what we do, or seek to control, is motivated by a drive to achieve perfection ) state of existence. Futrethink, I do remember Profpat stating "Surely it's not love." With the emphasis on "not," the interpretation of his meaning changes from perhaps one of bored cynicism, to a very accurate answer to the thread question. (Not bad from a self-confessed "cold mashed" "potato brain"). If I could just hark back to the "metaphorical" story of Adam and Eve. For the purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether this is a factual story in the sense that it is what actually happened. What does matter and what has been drawn out of some of the discussion, is that after examination, there is a lot more meaning (Truth, truths) to the story. As I've stated in other posts I believe that every race, culture and creed holds a little piece of the truth. Others at TOE can also see that there is something dysfunctional is our "separateness" (perfect description BTW JAK). The empirical amongst us admit that the physical realm is based upon the same miniscule, separate particles working together (in a chemical/mechanical way) to produce inceasingly sophisticated states of existence and life. At the pinaccle of life is humankind. From humankind, the next step is through "the veil" into the metaphysical realm. Is it possible, then, that humankind has the task in the metaphysical realm of organising that which is unique and separate into some OTHER, HIGHER state of existence and life - that this is WHY good and evil even matter?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink Jak. ---That law only works within a certain perception. --- I am hoping that you are just keeping it within that certain perception and not applying it to all of the reality that is infinite, but only within certain finite limits. Please, don’t bring “impossible and nonexistent” paradoxes into this.

Hi, Futrethink. I'm not a fan of "impossible", and "nonexistent" is not popular in my vocabulary.

Meanwhile, your reference to framework "keeping it within that certain perception" is of great interest, and I'd like to learn more. I'm starting another thread under the philosophy/logic area: 3 Laws of Difference. I'd like to discuss your ideas there. Please have a look and share your insights. Thanks!

[mkirkpatrick]

Self-first-ness is the cause of all conflicts.




regards michael.

[Profpat]

“To thine own self be true…..”

Most of us are familiar with the above quote taking from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, but how many of us know this verse: “And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou can not then be false to any man.” Unless we can be true to ourselves first, we cannot be true to others.