Paradise And Instinctivity - An Interpretation Of The Myth Of Eve And Adam
When I attended a christian kindergarten, I perceived all stories told indiscriminately as fairy tales, no matter if the were Grimm's or from the bible.
The story of how Eve and Adam lost their paradise was one of those fairy tales. But rationally seen, their garden Eden was certainly not the perfect paradise. Had it been, they would have owned it, instead of having a narcissistic landlord, who imposed authoritarian rules upon them and who had the power to kick them out in the case of the lack of compliance and submission.
Putting aside the landlord part of the story, it is mainly an interesting myth of how millennia ago people imagined the ideal circumstances for a happy life. Filling gaps in my knowledge of the story with a few assumptions, experiencing the garden Eden as a paradise implies Eve and Adam as having been a happy bonded couple having sufficient propinquity. For a mismatched couple, it could logically not have been a paradise.
The essence of the happiness of Eve and Adam and their good life while residing in the garden of Eden can be explained by one decisive distinguishing factor:The definition of a paradise includes the absence of harm caused by instincts and all instincts causing harm.
The garden Eden supplied Eve and Adam with all resources for survival and freed them from any necessity to depend on others. There was no danger requiring others for protection. No competition for scarce resources brought out the worst of male instincts in Adam.
- Procreation instinct
They were childfree, they were not harmed by the consequences of the procreation instinct. They did not need to produce children for the purpose of being cared for when old.
- Sexual instinct
They either were free from sexual instincts or their needs were balanced and symmetrical. There were only the two of them, therefore their sexuality was entirely focused upon each other, without any disturbance or interference from others, not by disruptive comparisons, nor was there any alternative available to monogamy by either cheating, poligamy or ruthless dumping and replacing.
The entire garden Eden was their private home. They were able to be naked without any involuntary triggering of the instincts of or by strangers. Adam's instincts were not triggered by other women, Eve was not at risk of being objectified by triggering other men's instincts.
- Hierarchy instinct
There was nobody to compete or even fight with for a higher place in a hierarchy. Adam was free to be a nice, caring, considerate guy. He had not reason to be or to learn to be aggressive and dominant, nor had he any reason for risky behaviors.
He had no need for the hierarchy instinct. There were neither other men to deprived of resources or of women. There were no other women to be taken away from other men. Adam had no reason to be a jerk for the enhancement of his own reproductive success, both because of the absence of the procreation instinct and of the absence of targets.
- Ingroup-outgroup instinct
In the absence of any other people, there was neither an ingroup nor an outgroup. Adam was never in a situation desensitizing him become cruel and commit atrocities to outgroup members.
- Gregarious instinct
They did not need a gregarious instinct attracting them to indiscriminately interact with other people, even with those being unpleasant or harming due to having nothing in common. Without the need of exchanging of services, support and for protection, they were free to suffice to each other.
They had time to spend together and they were not too exhausted by hard labor for survival. They were in a situation to have the time to work on their relationship, to communicate, to create intellectual and emotional intimacy.
They were fully sensitive and perceptive to influence each other's behavior and treatment, because they were not deformed by instinct driven and desensitized persons as disruptive role models.
It is very interesting to notice, that the myth of Eve and Adam in the garden of Eden clearly but implicitly describes a paradise free from instincts, yet to this very day, the damage caused by instincts is never explicitly recognized. Whatever harm is caused by instincts is excused as if the instincts were not only the true human nature, but as if there was nothing wrong with being determined by instincts.
It is overdue to redefine human nature by the primacy of cognition, and to start recognizing instincts as an obsolete nuisance, which needs to be controlled, whenever it causes harm to others.
This is a copy from my ERCP blog: