The Journal of Provincial Thought
jptArchive Issue 19
lilDiamond1-19Frosty12luminancelil diamond2-19Frosty12 Pigasus19Frosty12
Frosty Mug lecturers say the darndest things, and they have no endorsement from jpt. All views expressed are the lecturer's alone. We ride "for the sake of the art." ed.
Anchor Steam in Light Anchor Steam
(in light)

surreptitious mug shot by
Sister Judy the Brau Frau

Frosty Mug Lecture Series (#12)
No. 012 Professor Loose
Adam and Eve, the Story of Our Ontology

The literalist interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve leaves something to be desired, namely, making sense.  The allegorical alternative, however, opens up a veritable field of diamonds for picking up.[1]  Now we will discuss the psychological structure of the human, and the oncoming of ontology, vis-à-vis Genesis.

          The first part of the second chapter of Genesis is very strange.  It basically says that what occurred in the second and third chapters actually happened prior to the first chapter, and it is an elucidation of the first chapter.  This opens the interpretation, to be developed hereinafter, that the second and third chapters are dealing with internal psychological principles at an archetypal level and not yet the manifested physical reality that chapter one chronicles.

          In the first chapter of Genesis, God tells the male and female (they don’t get a name until the second chapter) that they may eat of every seed-yielding tree on the surface of the Earth, but there is no mention of the Tree of Life (TOL) or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TOKGAE).  It is not until the second chapter that they are told they may eat of any tree (doesn’t mention an Earth surface) except the TOKGAE. Further analysis shows that the TOL was never even mentioned to Adam and Eve.  They knew nothing about it!  As we have seen, both trees were in the same place, and possibly were the same tree.  In the first chapter there is no mention of a cultivated garden, but it is mentioned in the second chapter. 

          In addition to being thrown out of the garden, Eve was told that Adam would rule over her.  What beleaguered, backslidden husband of today can doubt that up to that time Adam was subservient to Eve, which explains things like Adam not hitting her friend the snake with a stick.  One of the pillars of Jungian psychology is that not only do we have consciousness and unconsciousness, but they are a continuum of polar opposites.  As determined by Carl Jung, the unconsciousness of a man is represented by a woman in dreams, and vice versa.  To get to the point, Adam represents the consciousness of the normal waking state (CNWS), and Eve represents the unconsciousness (UC), in a male.[2]

          Now, before there is an Eve, isn’t it interesting that here is Adam in Paradise, but he isn’t happy! Typical guy—whine, whine, whine.  Then something truly strange happens, at least according to the literal interpretation.  God figures out that Adam is lonely, so what does He do?  He brings him a bunch of farm animals.  Huh!  Farm animals?  Was this perhaps a Freudian test of His prize creation’s repressed urges?

          Some people have suggested that this refers to the domestication of animals in the beginning of our agricultural economy.  I can’t argue with this, except it still doesn’t explain why Adam domesticated farm animals when he was lonely.  Was Adam really lonely, or was God doing his talking for him, or was God’s speaking of his loneliness a projection of Adam’s?

          When we live solely in our consciousness and repress our UC, we become neurotic. Adam was left-brain oriented and capable at classification, organizing and taxonomy, as represented by his giving names to all the animals.  I’m not aware that sweety or similar terms of intimacy were involved.  As was the case then, so it is now:  we cannot live by CNWS consciousness alone.  We can’t even go for eighteen hours without some sort of sleep.  If people are deprived of sleep for 24-36 hours or more, they will dream spontaneously.

          How is Eve represented in the story?  She comes from within Adam, and that during a deep sleep! The connection between UC and dreaming should be obvious.  Also, she is formed from his internal structure (bones), which means she actually is his internal structure.  This is the structure of the Psyche.  Eve is the inner fish as represented by Venus, dolphins and mermaids in literature.  It is born out (so to speak) that being bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, Eve was the UC archetypical structure of his physical and mental reality.

          As discussed previously, our inner fish evolved long before our outer mammal, and our primate neocortex evolved much longer after that.  The “signs” are all around.  Our CNWS is very new but our UC is very old.  Our UC resides in the memory of our body and contains all the knowledge necessary to operate itself.  The UC “knows” all about blood chemistry and neurology.  However, it is only in the last 50-100 years that this knowledge has been integrated as CNWS conscious knowledge, which is primarily focused in the neocortex.

          This brings up a very important point.  Enlightenment or spirituality is not about the minimizing or repression of consciousness.  For millions of years UC reigned as the dominant thought form. In humans, however, dominant UC without integration into consciousness results in madness.  Indeed, C (Adam) must rule over UC (EVE) or to the Jungian warehouses we will go.  In other words, we will all go mad.

          Many attempts at achieving enlightenment have produced this very result.  These are the Icaruses (Icari?) or seekers of truth who attempt to fly to the sun only to have their waxen wings melt, and they fall like almost enlightened rocks.  Indeed, in the minds of many people there is a thin line between enlightenment and madness.  This is a big reason why many people don’t even try.

          Our UC must be integrated with our C or we will go mad.  As it turns out, the opposite is also true.  If the C ignores the UC then we are also heading for serious troubles.[3]  It is the grandest love affair.  Adam finds his UC animus as represented by Eve and falls in love.  As in all love affairs, equality is the goal. A relationship in which the gentleman ignores his woman and what she is trying to say will invariably end up with a Dear John letter, if not much worse.  Vice versa, of course.  In any event, ruling over the UC is one thing, repressing it is another.

          How many times have we heard of people “just snapping”?  “Oh, he was really a nice and quiet guy. I don’t get it.”  This cross-references under the subject of self-knowledge.  We have things in our UC of which we have essentially no clue.  The only way to avoid being taken by surprise from our UC is by constant self-evaluation.  This requires a great deal of self-honesty.  We may be able to realize that there is something lurking there and that we really need professional help to figure it out.  This process of self-evaluation can also be referred to as meditation and looking within.

          When we realize that we have a UC we can begin to recognize that certain emotions are conditioned reactionary responses that have been imprinted upon us.  These are the “button pushing” issues.  Most of these were imprinted on us before we even developed the CNWS of adulthood.  The fact that we have certain reactive feelings and inclinations doesn’t mean we have to act on them.  Apparently, ninety percent or more of what we are has developed by the time we are five years old.  That is downright unfair, but it is the nature of reality and the reality of nature.

          Thought is empirical power.  When UC thought-power is ignored and repressed, it builds up pressure.  It will eventually make itself known like a despised lover.  As in the examples of Job and Noah, a catharsis of enlightenment can result.[4]  In contrast, without a catharsis, a repressed UC can result in mass death and suicide.  We hear now and again these tragic news stories.  It is unfortunate that the pharmaceutical corporations have been so successful in pushing their antidepressant drugs.  The result has been a repressed UC of society and an extremely violent and chaotic one.  This situation is made much worse by the poisoning of our food supply by corporate food-destroying companies.  Additives, excessive sugar, low nutrient content, and gluten intolerance are no friends of a healthy consciousness.[5]

          Adam was made for cultivating the Garden.  Just because Adam got thrown out of it doesn’t mean that the Garden ceased to exist.  Indeed, it is said that a fiery sword blocks the way to the TOL, which was in the middle of the Garden.  It did not block the way to the Garden itself.  When Adam got thrown out he was to cultivate the ground from which he came.  Adam was quite the cultivator and became a famous gardener.  The Garden being an allegory of the mind, it is apparent the original intent was for Adam to cultivate his mind.  Having been expelled from the Garden, he was to cultivate his external reality as well.  This is another example of mind before matter.  The external manifestation of UC thought.

          The physical manifestation of archetypal UC thought is further indicated by the giving of skins for clothing.  After the screaming was over, God made garments of skins for the First Couple.  It was cold out in the thistle fields, and they were naked.  God felt sorry for them and clothed them.  What is interesting is that there is no mention of killing any animals to procure the skins.  It was not until after Noah’s flood (another story of UC catharsis) that killing and eating animals was even allowed.  In view of the idea that “the Garden” is allegorical of Archetypal reality (i.e. is mental), the obtaining of skins represents their actual physical manifestation.  The whole story of the Garden is summed in the phrase “and the man became a living soul.”  It is the second and third chapters that explained how Adam became a living soul as described in the first chapter.

          Which story does one prefer:  the Freudian farm animal story, or the Jungian archetype one?  It gets even better.  So then, who is the snake?  The UC operates in the realm of electromagnetic waves and is much faster than the C mind.[6]  The UC picks up all available information from the electromagnetic realm and passes it on to the consciousness if the consciousness will allow it.  So the snake is allegorical of the quantum world of all available knowledge in its inherent wave form.  The tree represents the Zero Point Energy Field which is the ultimate source of everything.  Eve (The UC) got the information from the snake (the quantum wave form) and she passed it off to Adam (CNWS) who manifested his UC in his physical reality.  This is the way it works.

          As far as the Trees go, they are representative of ZPEF and quantum mechanics as just stated. Both Trees were in the same place.  They both were in the middle of the garden.  They represent the mental equivalence of the dual and complementary behavior of light.  The TOL pulsates from its wave form of multidimensional thinking to the particle form of the relativistic state of literalism and linear thinking represented by the TOKGAE.

          Now a brief word about the snake.  It is written that as a result of enticing Eve to eat of the TOGAE, the snake would be punished by crawling on the ground upon its belly.  Excuse me, um, that’s what snakes already do/did.  A snake with wings is more like a dragon, and a snake with legs is more like a corporate lawyer.  Furthermore, it is said to the snake that there would be enmity between its seed and the seed of the woman.  It is also stated that the head of the snake would be crushed and the heel of the woman’s seed would be bruised.  This has long been interpreted as a prophecy of the battle between good and evil, culminating in the crucifixion of Christ.

          Let us take a step back and figure this out.  If the snake was not crawling when it was talking to Eve, what was it doing?  Was it flying or floating?  In South American mythology there is the flying snake, which is the source of knowledge and creation, called Quetzalcoatl.  In Asian culture the dragon is always chasing the Pearl of Potentiality.  In Biblical literature there is much reference to The Dragon and its equivalent to Satan.  All this further suggests that the snake is manifested physical reality.

          Manifested physical reality is based on quantum mechanical waveforms.  It is the veil of Maya, the great illusion of reality.  The false appearance of physical reality is what deceives us into losing sight of the real reality.  The great deceiver is physical reality.

          The fact that Adam and Eve were talking to the snake before the snake was crawling on the ground clearly indicates a preincarnate archetypal reality.  It was mental.  The snake was yet another clue put there by the writer to clearly indicate that this story was not meant to be literal but allegorical.  Who among us has not bruised his heel walking through this veil of Maya? Eventually we will overcome it and crush the head of quantum waveforms and see the true reality.  Hey, but it has been fun!  Thanks Mr. Snake![7]

          What makes good and evil in the first place?  Winning the lottery might be really good, but if one can’t handle wealth and becomes a drug addict and one’s whole family is destroyed, then that is bad. Losing one’s job and house is really bad, but if somehow one thereby comes to discover the true value of life, then that is good.  So what defines good and evil is entirely relativistic to our own viewpoint, our viewpoint as a particle being stuck in a body with its limitations.  This is what happens when we eat of the TOKGAE.  The TOL is also the TOKGAE but in a different perspective.[8]

          So walk right up and take your chances, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow mammal mates!  Pick the fruit and you too could be a winner!  Is it really totally random?  Is it complementary?  After eating of the TOGAE does it becomes the TOL, and vice versa?  Apparently, according to the story, after Adam and Eve ate of the TOKGAE it became the TOL.

          Basically, there are no short cuts.  The only way one can access the TOL is by experiencing the traumas of human experience by eating of the TOKGAE.  Yes, only after suffering the onslaught of flaming arrows and the slings of bony marrows of particulate human existence (Shakespeare?) can the TOL be obtained.  Is not human life itself a flaming, swirling sword that consumes us?  Is anybody willing to go there?  Well, here we are![9]

          Why would God forbid Adam to have increased multidimensional knowledge by forbidding him to eat of the TOGAE in the first place?  For thousands of years it has been assumed that Adam and Eve were punished for their evil choices.  Even advocates of extraterrestrial lore have included this idea in their nefarious plots.  Everybody has always assumed for the last several thousand years that the statement For in the day you eat of it you will surely die was an active restriction with guaranteed penalty, rather than a logical deduction of cause and effect.  This same logic prescribes that God made gravity so we could not have fun jumping off buildings!  We all know that Old Testament God doesn't like people to have fun.  This logic is rather silly.  The truth is more like, “If you play with fire and gasoline and accidentally set yourself ablaze, that is really going to suck, man!”

          Informing one of the consequences of one’s choices is not imposing an active restriction with penal retributions.  Who has not discussed “choices” and their consequences with their own children?  If one wants to grow up, one should know what the ramifications are.  There is car insurance, there are ponzi scammers, there is rent, there are taxes, etc. “Son, in the day that you move out of the house, you shall surely have to pay all these expenses.”  God is merely stating to Adam the obvious results of living in a particulate Earthbound state—“You will forget who you really are.”

          The text plainly says, “Have you eaten of the tree that you SHOULD not have eaten from?” It does not say, “Have you eaten of the tree that I forbade you to eat from, threatening to destroy your soul forever if you did?”  It is more like saying, “Have you set your self on fire again?”  Very cold weather is a good thing in the overall scheme.  However, in the day that you stick your tongue to a frozen pipe you shall surely be an idiot!  Let us start a Church on that premise.  It probably would not work.  I am absolutely certain that there is absolutely no one absolutely dumb enough to have done that.[10]  No such Church would be able to make much money.

          One of the repercussions of having knowledge is “with knowledge comes sorrow.”  When one gets a mind-blowing, paradigm-changing jolt of knowledge, we too will hear the sound of God walking through the Garden.  Does God whistle?  Does God wear bells on his shoes?  How does one hear the “Sound of God walking in the Garden”?  When we get a mind-blowing revelation, we too will feel naked because we realize that we did not know as much as we thought did.  We will have the awful feeling that everything we thought was right, is wrong.  Our life has been a lie the whole time and we were never willing to accept it.  We too will become ashamed of our nakedness.  A little dried fig leaf of some philosophy will not resonate well with the really big picture.  The whole time we will blame God for making things too darn complicated.  How much literature has been based on this subject?  “Lay your paradigms at the door, along with your guns,” says a sign at the entrance to the Cosmic Saloon.

          What a horrific experience!  It is what we as individual humans experience throughout our whole lives.  We all are our own Adam and we all are our own Eve.  As we grow from the infantile paradise we pass through terrible twos, the sucky sixes, the icky eights, only to arrive in the thistle-infested fields of the teenage years.  Then we even get thrown out of the house![11]

          We return to the question of why God forbad Adam to increase his knowledge.  The answer is, God did not forbid Adam to have knowledge, He was just pointing out the repercussions of having it.  There are indeed other serious consequences to having knowledge.  For one, it only comes by experience.  Does one really want to have the knowledge of being a warrior?  Well, step right up, and if that is the ride you want to go on we will strap you right in.  Hope the smell of burning flesh does not make you sick!  How about the smell of acres of fresh blood up to your ankles?

          God did tell Adam that there would be stiff consequences for his choice.  It is all part of growing up. When one gives up one’s teddy bear, one must face the demons alone.  Adam wanted to move out of the house.  Now he has to put up with the barking dog next door.  This is where we are.

          For thousands of years, the Church has said the entire human race is damned because Adam made a bad choice and was punished by God for it.  Personally, I think that God rejoiced when Adam made the choice and aspired to be a higher being.  What parents don't rejoice when their child starts to walk even though they know they will probably lose some heirloom china?  Adam wanted to be a farmer; now he was faced with the reality of weeds and poor soil fertility.  Who doesn't go to business school and then find “thistles” in every corner of the “real world”?  For thousand of years, this commonplace discussion has been turned against us for the purpose of manufacturing guilt and generating church income.

          It is also worth noting that Adam didn’t say a word until after he ate of the TOKAE.  Back when Adam was lonely, God did his talking for him.  When he was at the TOKAE with Eve, he did not say, “Honey, we should not be here.”  The first time we heard Adam actually say anything was when he was blaming God for the situation, and then he barked and wailed like a snake-bit hound!  At least he found his voice!  Did eating of the TOKAE make Adam a bit feisty?  Was his faculty of reason greatly improved?  He pointed out the obvious fact that it was the woman, whom God made to be with him, who made him eat it.

          It has been assumed for thousands of years that Adam was merely justifying himself.  The fact is, his perception and logic were perfect, and he was correct!  God did not deny it.  In fact, God followed Adam’s pointing finger and asked Eve if Adam’s accusation was true.  Of course, Eve said, “The snake done it!” God also followed this line of logic and went to the snake, but didn’t ask a question. Why wouldn’t God ask the snake if it did what they said, and ask why it did it? The answer is obvious, but has never been asked for 2000 and more years!  The snake could have said only one thing:  “Because YOU made me a SNAKE!”  It says so in the very first sentence of the chapter:  Of all the beasts of the field the serpent was the most subtle that the Lord God had made.  What could be more obvious?

          The other very important point I would like to make is that the snake was described as being “subtle,” not EVIL!  This is a quantum leap difference!  Yet for all these thousands of years, poor snakes have been accused of being evil and have been burned and stomped on.  What is the most subtle creature of all?  Is it hard physical matter?  A rock is not very subtle; we can trip over it and break our leg.  A camouflaged insect is pretty subtle, but then it will bite, sting, or stink if it is discovered.  Atoms are kind of subtle, but they still make their “point.”  Subatomic particles are pretty much the same.  If we want to talk about subtle, we are talking about something that looks like one thing but could be another.  Even worse, it is something that actually could be anything.  Now that is pretty darn subtle!  Snakes are one of the most camouflaged and mesmerizing creatures, and make a great allegory for the concept discussed. The reality of the allegory is quantum fluctuations.  It is the transition from the ZPEF to manifested physical reality.  It can be anything we think it is.  It is the most subtle beast of “the field,” indeed, in an electromagnetic “field” sense.

          Now drink and forget.

[1] The subject of much discourse heretofore.  —Commentator

[2] [1] Professor Loose:  “Allow me to digress here just to note that the term ‘subconsciousness’ is frowned on by the professional pyschotherapist people.  The terms ‘unconscious,’ ‘unconsciousness,’ and ‘collective unconsciousness’ are said to be more accurate.  I prefer the term ‘subconscious’ because that suggests a hierarchy of consciousness and a connection to other levels of mind, which is exactly why the professionals don't like it.  They all know we are just brains on a stick with no connection to anything.  But, as I said, I digress.”

[3] Voluptuous attendee in passion-red evening gown matching her flowing lips:  “How is that opposite?  It restates the same thing, doesn’t it?”
Professor Loose:  “Well, yes, as a single frosty mug of Pilsner has opposite sides.  In drinking from either side, I drink from the one mug.”  [The Professor takes a drink.]  “Or think about the Monty Python classic, Quest for the Holy Grail.  Played by the late Graham Chapman, King Arthur, accompanied by his trusty sidekick Patsy, approaches the castle and announces something like, ‘I am Arthur, King of the Britons.’  The fellow calls down, ‘’Oo’s the other one?’  to which Arthur replies, ‘I am.’  …If this illustration in any way assists you.”  

[4] Note-taking attendee with puzzled expression:  “Professor, would you please explain those Job and Noah references, the repression as well as the enlightenment, for those of us who aren’t psychic?”
Professor Loose:  “My take is that these are also stories about psychological process and activity.  Noah surviving the flood is about the aspect of the psyche that survives any major traumatic event such as being a teenager, the death of paradigms and even physical death and reincarnation.  The story of Job is really about surviving adversity when all hell breaks loose and getting a new viewpoint as a result.  I discuss both of these at length in my book.”  [Professor Loose tilts his great gourd thoughtfully, then adds:]  “When I say ‘repressed,’ I don’t mean that in the Freudian sense entirely.  Certainly, in a Freudian way, when we repress guilt, or our shadow side, or our sexuality, we will develop neuroses.  It is also very interesting that repression of our UC has also resulted in the repression of women in society.  The most UC-repressed societies are also the most repressive of their women.  This in itself is very ‘Freudian.’  It goes much deeper than that, however.  Repression is about refusing to see the connection of ourself to nature and other humans and animals and the Earth in general.

“Our repressions are the demons that we must fight.  They are the dragons we must slay.  This concept is also the basis for a whole lot of literature, from dragon slaying to Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.  What!  You did not know they were allegorical too?  Sorry!  This is self-recognition, which is confession and repentance in their real meaning.  We overcome ourselves because we recognize that we are one with the Earth, our fellow humans, and the universe.  This truth is the source of our strength and joy.  Thus, it is love (unity) that makes us triumphant.”

[5] Scotch-sipping non-attendee:  “ ‘Our food supply’?  And which supply would that be—the manna that everyman finds generously hung by Providence upon bushes in the mornings, or one’s private family-farm raisings, or perhaps the technology-intensive corporate harvests (again, private property, but the universally beneficial trade of which abundantly fills the bellies in this room and around the world)?  It is not in agrobusiness’ interest, by the way, to make its customers dopey, paranoid or violent.  And nutritional issues can be highly subject to opinion.” 
Professor Loose: “As are comments from the gallery.”

[6] Commentator:  “Professor Loose, it appears that you are drawing a distinction between the high-level organic biochemical processes of Consciousness and a more fundamental energy-physics aspect of Unconsciousness.”
Professor Loose:  “Indeed.”
Commentator:  “What is the basis for this idea, sir?  Why is the one biochemistry, the other wave physics?”
Professor Loose:  “I wouldn’t say that either C or UC is neatly exclusive of either aspect.  We are obviously physiological beings, and just as sound or radiation informs both our C and UC, so our physiology informs both C and UC; furthermore, and conversely, the C and UC induce physiological processes.  There is a continuum of stimulus/response in either case, and an integration of processes and effects.  Nevertheless, Conscious thought is substantially identified with highly ordered biochemical processes, while the Unconscious, as noted, is substantially attuned to radiation-level, or electromagnetic, stimuli.”  

[7] “The Keg Jockey”:  "First you said the snake is ‘manifested physical reality,’ on the basis of a bunch of myths.  How do you get that?  (I'm too dense for this.)  Then you said that Adam and Eve talking to the snake before the snake was crawling indicates a ‘preincarnate archetypal reality.’  But you just said it was manifested physical reality!  What am I not seeing?”
Professor Loose:  “First, it would be axiomatic that you’re ‘not seeing’ what you’re not looking at.  But let’s consider.  The snake represents the most basic level of manifested physical reality—the quantum fluctuation.  This precedes atoms, protons and even quarks.  The snake is at the level of strings in string theory (maybe we should call it snake theory!).  The snake is, in fact, the strings of string theory, the point being that there is no point.  By there being no point I mean geometrically speaking, points as infinitely small quantities do not work well in mathematics, like dividing a number by zero.  The smallest, first manifestation of substance needs to have a quantity, but a very small one.  The smallest one can get is two-dimensional; thus a line, a string, a snake.  The snake/string precedes manifested physical reality but is the basis of it, just as it precedes the preincarnate archetypal reality but is the basis of that also.  So from the first level of manifesting reality as a string, to the electromagnetic field comprising preincarnate archetypal reality, to the further development into photons, quarks and matter, the snake is the basis of all those things.  To put it simply, the snake is both.  Pretty dam subtle, that snake thing!”
Wowed attendee:  “Snake gets around!”
Johnny Cash fan:  “And around, and around, and around…”

[8] Ms. Callandro:  “I’m really, really following you now, Professor.”
Professor Loose:  “Certainly you are, my dear.  I can feel you closing in.  Should I for safety lose myself in shadows or the crowd?”

[9] Professor Loose (drawing lustily on the mug of Pilsner): “And here is my nectar.”

[10] The girl with the refreshing clove breath:  “I’ve heard of people doing that, kids especially.  My brother got his tongue stuck to a freezer basket and my Mom poured warm water on it.”
Professor Loose:  “No, I’m absolutely certain that never happened.”

[11] The girl with the refreshing clove breath, encouraged by her earlier successful bid for the Professor’s precious attention:  “Were you thrown out of the house, Professor?”
Professor Loose:  “Once or twice a month, anymore.”

Professor Loose en Gestalt
Professor Loose en Gestalt
jptArchive Issue 19
Copyright 2011- WJ Schafer & WC Smith - All Rights Reserved