In the search for symbolic meaning of the Genesis “fruit”

The desire to determine what the Genesis “fruit” was comes from both its mystery and the fact that it became the source of the fall – as a result of being picked and consumed by a human. Generally speaking, all the known proposals of the interpretation of “the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” can be divided into a literal interpretation, which refers to a particular natural fruit, and symbolic interpretations, in which the “fruit” is a symbol. The strictly theological proposal of understanding the “fruit” is maintained in the mainstream of moral theology, because it directs the symbolism of the “fruit” to the moral dimension of human behavior and leads to a situation of non-compliance of the prohibition, and so breaking the right given to man by God. This article is attempt to interpret the early chapters of the Book of Genesis which in hermeneutic and biblical philosophy seek deep and universal meanings of the Genesis “fruit” symbol.A questão que subjaz à expressão “fruto proibido” provavelmente atravessou os leitores do livro dos Génesis desde o seu início. O facto de se ter tornado a causa da queda original – por ter sido apanhado e consumido – marcou a interpretação do texto. As propostas de interpretação do “fruto da árvore proibida” podem ser divididas em interpretações literais e simbólicas. A leitura teológica contemporânea prefere as segundas no contexto da história bíblica da queda da humanidade, sendo o fruto identificado com o pecado original. Há que notar que esta leitura tem a marca do contexto teológico de toda a revelação cristã e da respetiva tradição. Por isso, pode ser aceite por parte daqueles que compartilham esta visão teológica das origens, da natureza humana e do destino da humanidade. A estrita proposta teológica de entender este “fruto” é mantida no horizonte principal da teologia moral, pois direciona o fruto para a dimensão moral do comportamento humano, conduzindo a uma situação de não compromisso com a proibição e, desse modo, abandonando o direito concedido por Deus à humanidade. Estes aspetos não permitem captar o nível da interpretação do “fruto”, que se refere à sua essência antropológica e axiológica (e não apenas teológica). Este artigo tenta, assim, interpretar o fruto dos primeiros capítulos dos Génesis no horizonte da filosofia cristã e da filosofia bíblica, tentando aprofundar o significado universal do símbolo genesíaco do “fruto”

Migration of nuclei in <i>Coprinus lagopus</i>

1. Four main types of interaction between paired mycelia of Coprinus lagopus have been defined in terms of the extent of nuclear migration.2. Nuclear migration was demonstrated in matings between monokaryotic mycelia with common A alleles. No extensive migration of nuclei was found in common B or common AB matings.3. The speed of nuclear migration in common A matings was slower than in compatible matings. Migration occurred to approximately the same extent in both kinds of matings.4. In heterokaryon-monokaryon matings compatible and common B heterokaryons acted only as donors. Common AB heterokaryons acted as donors and as acceptors of compatible or common A nuclei. Common A heterokaryons always acted as donors and frequently acted as acceptors of compatible or common A nuclei.5. A simple explanation is suggested for the frequently observed fact that in an incompatible di-mon mating both nuclei of the dikaryon may migrate and eventually eliminate the nuclei of the established monokaryon.</jats:p

Heterokaryon formation in <i>Coprinus lagopus</i>

1. The four possible kinds of heterokaryon of Coprinus lagopus with no, one or both mating-type factors in common (dikaryon, common A, common B and common AB) were produced. Analysis of hyphal tips of common A and common AB heterokaryons has shown that both nuclei may be present in the same hypha.2. All four heterokaryons are prototrophic when synthesized from two auxotrophic components with different requirements.3. When synthesized in this way compatible heterokaryons were stable in all tests, but the other heterokaryons showed different degrees of stability. Common B heterokaryons were the most stable and rarely gave rise to monokaryotic mycelia. Dissociation of the common A and the common AB heterokaryon into either component took place much more easily.4. Comparisons of the growth-rates of wild-type heterokaryons on complete medium show that common A heterokaryons are less vigorous, and dikaryons more vigorous than their monokaryon components. On minimal medium both compatible and common A heterokaryons are less vigorous than their wild-type monokaryon components. The possible reasons for this are discussed.5. Fruit-bodies have been obtained from both common A and common B heterokaryons. Both types showed normal segregation at the heterozygous locus (B or A), but showed in addition the segregation of new reactions at the ‘homozygous’ locus.</jats:p