On Genesis and the Fall

WHO TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE NAKED?

Eve, persuaded by the serpent, ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil — and shared the fruit with Adam, who was with her. Thereafter, they realized they were naked and promptly clothed themselves. Soon after, they heard the footsteps of God, ashamed of their nakedness, they hid — but as God called out, Adam answered him, telling God that he hid because he was afraid on account of his nakedness. God inquired, “Who told you that you were naked?” He asked if Adam had eaten from the tree he had warned against eating from. Adam told Him that the woman He had left with him gave him fruit, and so he had eaten it. God looked to the woman, who told Him that the serpent had deceived her.

The serpent was thereafter cursed with being at odds with both Adam and Eve, a particular enmity with Eve, that extended to the offspring of each — and being in direct combat with Adam. The woman was cursed with painful labor and being subjected to her husband. The man was cursed with reaping the foul fruits of thickets and thorns for painful toiling.

And I will put enmity

    between you and the woman,

    and between your offspring and hers;

he will crush your head,

    and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 3:15

Eve, the feminine, the subconscious and autonomic law and operation of the soul (individuated Mind), eats the fruit as persuaded so by the serpent, the antagonistic autosuggestive tendency of the Mind. Of course, Eve was always with Adam, the two are one, so Adam, consciousness, the masculine agent, eats the fruit by extension. The contents of the subconsciousness invariably rise to consciousness, and the Mind realizes it is naked. 

But what is this nakedness? Of course, if this story is a parable of the operation of reality, and more specifically, the Mind, then the events herein are the natural operations of that reality: Mind. Awareness of being, pure subjective soul, is made aware of its nakedness by its impulsion to self-define, to conceive of itself. Thereafter, pure awareness of being gives way to awareness of being something. The subject self-objectifies. Adam and Eve clothe themselves.

Why is it that the tree that sparks this revelation is the tree of knowledge of good and evil? What does that have to do with self-definition and the clothing of the soul? As the soul becomes aware of being something, and conditions and defines itself, a shadow is cast, I refer to this shadow as the negative spark. At first, the soul now, in being aware of being something, is now aware of that which it is apparently not, a shadow to the defined object. For instance, take a piece of paper, draw and shade in a circle — is the circle defined or is the white paper around it defined? That which is defined necessitates a shadow of sorts to that definition. Now, this doesn’t necessitate actual contrary natures to the definition in itself, a shadow is not a thing in itself necessarily, however, the presence of that which something is not suggests to the receptive and ignorant Mind, that there is that which is contrary to itself, ergo, Good and Evil.

The soul, by its own nature, has a suggestive impulsion towards self-definition, i.e. the subject’s nature is to self-objectify. This is to say awareness is metaphorically made aware of its lack of awareness of something particular — it’s made aware of its nakedness, so it clothes itself. Awareness will always seek to be aware of something, and that something will always be itself, therefore that something will be self-definition/objectification — the clothing. Because self-definition casts a “shadow” of that which is “not self” — the mind arouses itself to awareness of contrary natures and thereafter we are left with good and evil. This process of the subject’s self-objectification as demonstrated by the dynamic between the serpent, Eve and Adam, is analogous to eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

The punishments. The serpent is said to be cursed to odds between himself and Eve, and between his children and Eves. Eve, representing the operation of the soul, which is also responsible for self-objectification, or the birth of the son, or self-image, is in contention with its own autosuggestive tendency in that the tendency refers to Eves receptivity — given this receptivity is prone to the suggestion of contrary natures (that which is not self), it is inevitable that the souls self-image, or offspring (of itself) will suffer from the suggestion of contention and contraries, as most all suffering is rooted in. Eve is said to be cursed to painful childbearing due to her knowledge of good and evil, that which is and is not her, this is to say that her experience of her own self-image will suffer from this revelation. Likewise, Adam is cursed to reap thickets and thorns, as consciousness as we experience it is in essence our experience of our own self-definition.

A few things should be noted. While this is initially catalyzed by self-definition, due to the minds receptivity to suggestion of contraries coupled with our primordial ignorance of their true natures — this curse is not necessary nor a principle reality. It is merely a consequence of self-definition coupled with primordial Agnosis. Though self-definition cannot be escaped, as it itself is a principle reality — the nature of the subject being self-objectification, Agnosis, or primordial ignorance of the nature of things and reality at large, can be escaped, as it has no such principle reality, it is merely an attribute consequence of indefinition, ironically. It is indeed ironic, that in order to develop Gnosis, and escape ignorance of reality (the ultimate self), that self must be defined, thankfully self-definition is not only possible, but a nature intrinsic to selfhood.

The fall is a great story, it is a parable relaying the operation of the Mind as demonstrated by personified aspects thereof. This is not merely psychological parable, but parable relaying metaphysics, the nature of nature, the sacred fundaments underlying reality. To awareness of being — awareness of being something. To the subject — objectification. To the naked — clothes, but let us know well the nature of our nakedness and the garments we take on, to the ignorant — wisdom.