Re: Pascal's Wager

Zenarchy (
Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:52:17 -0800

Mike Lorrey wrote:
>Well, if God made man in His image, as western religions state, then being
>extropian is merely attempting to fulfill one's potential to be God, isn't
>The old story of being evicted from Eden is a problem in being seen as
>ignorance over knowledge, but only because most westerners equate a lotus
>paradise as the ultimate acheivement (socialist weakness). Eden was an
>incubator. As soom as man demonstrated his ability, he was given a real
>that challenged his abilities..he was given the universe. That is

Yet another interpretation of The Garden of Eden fable: Notice that the Bible names the tree, the fruit of which Adam and Eve should not eat,
"the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Now, moralists obstinately persist in calling it "the tree of knowledge" despite that anyone can look it up and find the correct and full name. "The knowledge of good and evil" equates readily to the modern term "morality" -- a word which, btw, does not appear in the Bible. So, now we have: "Thou shalt not eat the fruit from the tree of morality." But wait! Where does that leave the moralists?

A further analysis of the fable reveals that the "fruit" of the tree of morality correlates to what one might call "judgment" since moralism results in judging events, things, and people. Looking at the story in this perspective, one might conclude that a modernized instruction to Adam and Eve would take the form: "Whatever you do, don't partake of judgmentalism. Leave judgment to me."

In fact, to the extent that the New Testament displaces the Old, we do find this transition in perspective takes place. The New Testament says, "Judge not, that you be not judged."
This sounds reminiscent of the commandment not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

As an aside, note that the serpent tempted Eve, telling her she could become as a god if she ate the fruit (i.e., assumed the role of judge). But her earlier divine instruction contained the clause, /on the day that you eat from that tree, you shall surely die/.
The guile of the serpent resides in its ugliness: Having judged the serpent as ugly, one has already taken the bait.

The exquisite beauty of the fable reveals itself when one notes that Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day that they ate the fruit (i.e., when they judged that their nakedness required covering). Instead, they had to leave The Garden. This reminds us that the story must remain a highly metaphoric parable, and no one should take it literally. The "death" of Adam and Eve meant that they no longer had the cosmic consciousness, the Samadhi, the hyper-awareness, the superlative sentience, the immanent innocence that non-judgmental cognition affords. I further extrapolate that the tragic myth offers a clear warning against dualism and its consequences.

"to fulfill one's potential to be God" although sounding grandly delusional to some, actually falls short of the aspiration held by anyone who would return to The Gardern.
As a certified slacker and the laziest person I know (I'd display my certification, but I don't feel up to it <g>), I really don't want the job. Please let someone else handle judgment day. Better yet, let "God" do it. Politicians, judges, theologists, priestcrafters, feminists, psychologists, moralists, social reformers, ethicists, and legislators (to name a few) obviously don't feel this way about it, and constantly hound the general public concerning matters of good and evil. But don't get me wrong. I don't intend to judge the judgmental rascals. I'll leave that to the incomprehensible singularity of unapproachably robust complex adaptive super-systems from which no one can jump (a.k.a. extropic existence).