---

This is a theory, not an opinion or a belief.

It is thought that the garden of Eden is where things went to shit, or a metaphor for why they did. So let's imagine for a moment that before then, things were perfect.

Consider a world where there is no notion of private property. There is no concept of "mine" - only "ours." This would of course extend to relationships also, with there being no concept of "my child," or "my lover." Instead, children would be raised and cared for by the entire community, and people would spend time with whomever they decided to in the moment. This might seem difficult to imagine but if we remove the sense of competition that is a major part of human consciousness in the modern age, and which is perhaps a direct consequence of the belief that things or people ought to be "mine," then I believe it is not too far fetched a philosophy to be shared among a community of human beings.

So imagine that in this world, where if one is hungry, they simply reached their arm up and took some fruit from one of the many trees provided by the Earth for its inhabitants to feed upon, that someone came along and laid claim to a tree and its produce. This tree is mine. Do not eat from it.

If you can put yourself in the perspective of one who observed this first ever property claim, what do you think would be your response? Before this incident, there would have been entirely no need for there to be an adversarial mindset within human consciousness, as they would have had everything they needed to survive and no reason to believe that one day they might not. So to witness a community resource be laid claim to by another, would surely invite a curiosity, that led to more questions, and ultimately to an entire new aspect of consciousness.

As an example, for me to put myself in this position and consider how I might respond, it may look something like this.

"Why does it belong to you? What happens if other people start to lay claim to more trees? Will there still be enough for me to eat for the rest of my life? Should I claim a tree for myself? What if I and another both lay claim to the same tree? Am I strong enough to fight and win? What if only those strong enough, or smart enough are able to end up with a tree? Will the others, perhaps the women, flock to those who have fruit to spare? Maybe there isn't enough trees for all of us? Should I kill some of them to make sure there is enough for me?"

The point being, if there was no notion of property before the tree of knowledge of good and evil was introduced, then the very act of telling someone they're not permitted to eat from it would spark, for the first time, a sense of competition begotten through the perceived scarcity, and a myriad of thoughts that had never been thunk before then. We can see then that the tree needn't have had a name, because through hearing that we are not allowed to eat from it, we would learn soon after of the evil we would be capable of committing to ensure we could still live comfortably. And in the process of learning evil, we also learn our capacity to overcome the temptation to act that way - and thus we also learn knowledge of good.

This would even explain why Adam and Eve hadn't noticed they were naked beforehand, but afterwards became ashamed. Because that sense of competition had now arrived which invites with it self-judgement, and questions of whether they would be good enough to "win."

Though it does say the serpent beguiled Eve, for the theory to work we would have think of the human spine as the serpent, and the thoughts that tempted Eve emanating from her own subconsciousness - just a part that hadn't yet existed until she was told she could not eat from that particular tree. (Perhaps this is why the snake was named Satan. Satan sounding like "sate in" and suggesting it is merely something that is within us and that seeks to satisfy our innermost desires to the fullest)

It's also said that the original sin brought death into the world, which again fits with the theory somewhat. For, in a world where there is no notion of property, death is unimportant, if not unnecessary. But in a world of finite resources and people claiming those resources as their own property, death is entirely necessary. For if there was no death in a world where people could own things, before long everything would belong to a few and all new people to be born would arrive in a world where there is nothing left that isn't owned by others.

These are some of the reasons why I think that its possible the tree of knowledge of good and evil could be a metaphor for the introduction of private property into society. If you have any interesting theories, please provide a link or an explanation in the comments.

---

Thanks for reading!

---

^{It would be far more fruitful for me to spend my time seeking than surviving, so if you would like to help with a donation so that I can have more time to be reading, researching, deliberating and sharing my findings, then I thank you for any contributions to my BTC address. 15ys7RiuzXRhEcsPn8cb37W1RPqnph2BX9}

---

All opinions on this blog are subject to change upon new information and fresher understandings

---

All images on this blog are free to use or created by me personally

Follow @the.seeker for more