Two accounts in Genesis 1-11 directly speak to the difference in the Lebenswelts of hand-speech and speech-alone talk.  One is the Table of Nations.  The other is the Tower of Babel.

In the Table of Nations, the orientation of the nations is situational.  It is based on the accident of descent.  All these diverse nations have a common source, Noah.  In this Table, one experiences the “local” as “universal”.

In the Tower of Babel, the orientation of the people came from the faculties of the spirit.  They decided to build a tower because they judged that they could reach the Heavens (and thereby invade that esoteric realm).  Their judgment ordered their intellects and wills. Their language helped them to experience their differences as “common”.

Once their language was confounded, they experienced their differences as alienating.  The “local” became simply “local”.  The “universal” was experienced as alienating.

Did God confound their language?  Maybe.  But the idea that “speech-alone constructs a symbolic order that can ‘lift off’ in the creation of its own referentiality” offers a complementary explanation.  The ideology used to construct the Tower altered the language itself.

In terms of nestedness:

The oneness of the people and the language made the situation possible

The situation was the act of building the Tower of Babel (no doubt, a ziggurat)

Religious ideology called for building the Tower

But, the Lebenswelt could not support the edifice.  Ideology compensated by changing the meaning of words – making them more esoteric so that complaints were always misinterpreted as a signal to continue building – until the base – the potential to be one people – that was taken for granted in the world of hand-speech talk – crumbled.

The Tower of Babel may well be the Story of What Happened to Enlil.

Sow the wind and reap the storm.

Let me now consider this “privation of sanctifying grace” proposed by Anselm and Aquinas as the retribution for the Original Transgression.

“Sanctifying grace” orients the spiritual faculties.  Without it, the spiritual faculties are disoriented.

The withdrawal of a primordial “orientation” at the time of the Fall artistically resonates with the loss of the Paleolithic Lebenswelt with the adoption of speech-alone talk (presented in An Archaeology of the Fall).

In the hand talk world, there was no question of orientation because the tradition – the Lebenswelt – of the group (village, tribe, whatever one wants to call it) was holistic.  Every aspect of the hand-talk culture oriented the individual.  Parts indicated the whole.  Hand-talkers could not articulate the precepts of Freedom and Justice, but they lived them nevertheless.  They lived them within their tradition.

Differences between groups were “explained” by traditions within the group.  Differences among individuals within groups were “explained” by traditions within the group.  The logic of difference practiced within the group may have enhanced boundaries and distinctions, but it always unified the group.  “Differences” were experienced as common. The “particular” was the “universal”.  The “local” was the “universal”.

Hand-talk traditions were both flexible and inflexible.  Cultural evolution proceeded in a fashion consistent with Stephen Gould’s Doctrine of Punctuated Equilibrium.  Change would occur when referentiality itself changed.  The tribe came across a new type of food, a new way of eating, a new way of accomplishing goals, and so forth.  Their words changed.  Their tradition changed.  Cultural traditions were always under selection pressure in regards to reproductive success.

Then, prior to the emergence of civilization, our ancestor’s Lebenswelt changed.  Once the hand- component of hand-speech talk was dropped, unconstrained complexity was potentiated.  The “local” became “local” as opposed to “universal”.  The “universal” was left to incorporate groups belonging to increasingly distinct labor and social specializations.  Each group spoke its own “language” within the umbrella of the society’s “language”.  From those languages, the participants produced diverse social constructions.

Speech-alone talking societies faced a problem: Do we hold onto the old ways of experiencing orientation consistent with the familiar ways of referentiality – or – adopt new ways of experiencing orientation consistent with the social construction?

The benefits of unconstrained complexity were obvious.  The loss of orientation was hidden.

No doubt the shamans of old resisted trends to unconstrained complexity.  In a sense, they were the first prophets.  But they could not stop the trends when conditions favored increasingly unconstrained complexity. Eventually, differences were no longer experienced as “common”.  They became alienating.  Someone had to establish order or everything would spin out of control.

The easy dismissal of Medieval Theologians by Modern Ideologues reminds us that, from the perspective of time, we are all provincials.

A stunning change occurred between Augustine and Anselm.  The Stoic and Platonic model of the (immaterial) soul falling into the (material) body by way of (spiritual – fateful) descent had been forgotten.  Now, the potential for human action consists of faculties, powers and capacities that are “of nature”.

Yet, the Stoic and Platonic model remained – like an apparition – in fantasy, legend and ideal.  St. Thomas felt its presence through both Augustine and Aristotle.  He proposed a narrative theme of humans coming from and returning to God.

At the same time, St. Thomas used Aristotle to further Anselm’s model.  Consider human purposes or “ends”.  Human faculties “of nature” are designed to achieve finite ends.  Human faculties “of spirit” are designed to achieve transcendent ends.  Our daily struggles are in-between, situating our faculties “of nature” and being contextualized by our faculties “of spirit”.  Without supernatural gifts, we can never properly achieve transcendent ends.  We fall into sin, where finite ends are substituted for infinite ends.

The Fall of Adam and Eve corresponds to a withdrawal of supernatural gifts – “sanctifying grace” – and the sacrifice of Jesus corresponds to a re-establishment of a proper relation between God and humans.

The divine presence was not lost with the Fall.  Sanctifying grace – the ability to order our spiritual faculties to proper transcendent ends – was lost.

Excuse the dramatic flourishes.  Let us first consider Anselm’s answer in terms of nestedness:

Thirdness: Jesus the Messiah re-establishes the Original Justice (through the Sacraments of the Church) that once oriented Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all humanity).

Secondness: There are two social constructions; those built by humans who turn away from God and those built by those who obey God.  The former creates injustice.  The latter keep justice.

Firstness: The intellect and will are the highest material faculties.  But, the orientation of these material faculties can only come through the spiritual faculties.

In short, Anselm pictured the Fall after Jesus as:

Saved Humanity(acts of obedience and justice(human faculties “of nature”)

And the Fall before Jesus:

Fallen Humanity(a. o. disobedience and injustice(human faculties “of nature”)

Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) considered Original Sin when feudalism reigned.  The keystones of feudalism were obedience and honor.  So the Lord was the first Lord.  Adam was the first subject of the Lord.  Adam disobeyed and so dishonored his Master.

One can almost feel the flutter as the ladies of the court looked up from their illuminated manuscripts, decorated in indigo and gold, to hear Anselm speak in that wonderful Medieval way.  One can almost smell the warning to the knights and dukes, always conniving in their service of the king: Disobey and you will be cast from the Eden that is England.

The price – the retribution – for Adam’s insult was to “no longer have the Lord as Master”.  As soon as the Eden disappeared behind the flaming sword, the descendants of Adam and Eve no longer had the supernatural gift (a faculty “of spirit”) of “Original Justice”.  This supernatural gift permitted the reason and will (the highest faculties “of nature”) to fulfill the transcendent purpose of humans: First, to obey God.  Second, keep justice.

Adam and Eve’s transgression was an act of “freedom” that covered over the true nature of “freedom”; “the absence of sin”.  In concert with Paul, Anselm concluded that “in Adam, all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

With the coming of Jesus the Messiah, freedom is restored.  His sacraments pour Sanctifying Grace into the faculties of the spirit.  Eat his flesh.  Drink his blood.  Look at those illuminations.  They tell the story in purple and gold.

Let us look at this synopsis in a nested frame:

The powers of humans that are “material” or “of nature” belong to the realm of possibility.

The powers of humans that are “not material” or “of spirit” belong to the realm of mediation, because they take what is material and turn it into a (distinctly different) actuality or “form”.

The “human exercising her faculties, powers and capacities” belongs to the realm of situation.

So the Medieval model of the human could be written as:

“Powers ‘of spirit’(exercise of powers(powers ‘of nature’))”

Remember, the Medieval could never have written their own model in this fashion, because the Peircean categories of thirdness, secondess and firstness had not been formulated.  By the time that Peirce formulated the categories, the medieval world was long gone.

Today, the Medieval world exists in the same way that the Roman world continued to exist during for Anselm; as fantasy, legend and ideal.

In the 1100 years between Augustine and the Council of Trent, the Idea of Original Sin both changed and stayed the same.  Chapter 4 covers some highlights.

Augustine wrote at the time when the Roman Empire (now officially converted to Christianity but still very much in the ancient Pagan milieu) was decentralizing.

Anselm, writing in England around 600 years later, wrote at a time when the Roman world was remembered through fantasy, legend and ideal.

Augustine wanted to protect Christianity from a host of Pagan assimilators.

Anselm just wanted to make sense of this concept of Original Sin.

The once Pagan concept of a hierarchy of natures had been internalized.  Human faculties, powers and capacities ranged from digestive to visionary.  At the low end, human natures were “material” or “of nature”.  At the high end, human natures were “not material” or “of spirit”.

The intellect and the will were faculties “of nature”.  The “capacity for justice” on the other hand, was “of spirit”.

In sum, it seems to me that many Modern Commentators interpret Augustine from their Modern point of view, not from the point of view of Augustine’s audience.  The people that Augustine called to Christ were steeped in Traditional, Magical, Stoic, Platonic, and Aristotelian thought.  Augustine should be seen as taking “what was familiar” and giving it a new twist.  It must have been exciting to hear him preach.

Ironically, the attitudes and ideas of Augustine’s audience have been lost over time, leaving no counterpoint to Augustine’s texts.  Still we can imagine.

The lack of thirdness in Augustine’s definition of concupiscence brings me to that category.

Augustine replaced “the need for an ascent of the soul” with “Original Sin”.  Original Sin has the same structure as a descent and ascent of the soul.  Yet the axis of movement is different.  Instead of moving back to the heavens, or the Celestial East, the Christian is to move towards Jesus the Messiah.  Baptism was the first Sacrament opening the vault of the body, pouring in Sanctifying Grace.  What happens after has the same self-denying characteristics of an ascent of the soul.

Augustine’s move set the stage for a new, Christian, way of looking at the “soul”.  The soul was not preexisting.  It did not descend into corrupt matter.  Instead, it was made, like pottery, by God.