Was stoning adulterers "pro-social" behaviour?
No, which is the reason I made the distinction between 'thinking' if was good and acceptable behavior in contrast to the moral standards we hold in today's world.
Is "pro-social" behaviour is reactive towards anti-social behaviour, and thus dependent upon it?
Dependent on anti social behavior? I don't think so. Neither depend upon the other, but we have adopted certain laws in order to help keep anti social behavior in check.
In this case, the one doing the labeling. Does labeling something "dimly lit" or "dark" cause harm? Does it spring from or lead to greed, hate or delusion?
No, but that's the beside the point. You suggested that the point where dark begins and light ends could be measured, you suggested that one could measure the point where hot becomes cold, but this isn't the case. Think about a straight thermometer and how it works. On the top portion you have heat represented and on the bottom cold, yet you cannot separate the heat from cold as they belong together. Cold is simply an absence of heat. The less heat present the colder it becomes.
I apply this same principle to "good and evil". There are many shades of grey area between the two extremes, thus you cannot pinpoint where good ends and evil begins, as they too belong together. Evil is simply the absence of good. Darkness is the absence of light, but if you prefer viewing good to be the absence of evil, then I suppose that will work as well. I prefer viewing it the way I have presented, hoowever.
I would disagree. Your arrangement excludes
wu wei. {See below}
Was eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a "pro social" or an "anti social" act? The Taoist solution would be
wu wei.
In the Tao Te Ching 38 that was posted recently in this thread, you can see different manifestations and degradations of so-called "pro-social behaviours" as a result of losing the Tao and the virtues, eventually ending up in a "police state."
Wei wu wei is "action without action." After all, the Tao that can be "tao'd" is not the true Tao. (See Tao Te Ching 1)
I'm not a student of Tao philosophy. What I've been attempting to convey is more of a hermetic type philosophy. As for Eve eating the fruit, I don't think it was pro social or anti social. I do however think that what came after was anti social. As you should know by now, I don't think they gained any wisdom at all, nor do I believe evil came into existence by eating from the tree.
I do however believe it was the beginning of a new way of life for them, one in which they would begin to lean on their own understanding of things, their own idea of wisdom. Over time, humanity became extremely anti social, cruel, deceitful, greedy, power hungry, etc.
This thread is about the knowledge of good and evil and the forbidden tree. I suggested that there was no tree able to impart wisdom or the knowledge of evil, but rather it was all in their heads. Kinda like how teenagers start thinking for themselves and often times think they are more wise than their parents. I liken it to be a story about us coming of age when we leave home to make it our own and apart from our parents.
Anyway, I am enjoying the exchange, seattlegal!
