Adam and Eve tried to justify^self when that brutal Father-figure suddenly appeared and asked: What the hell is going on here?  Adam blamed Eve.  Eve blamed the serpent.  The serpent was left speechless.

Their finite end was to “avoid responsibility”.  Yet, at that moment of confession, “avoiding responsibility” took on the quality of transcendence.  Everything hinged on that goal, just like everything hinges on getting that next concupiscent fix.  If the kind and understanding Father-figure had just said: “Oh, then it is not your fault.”, then what would have happened?  What was the transcendent end of Paradise?

Did the serpent know?  Or was the serpent simply elevating its own finite ends (of the pleasure of spoiling God’s Paradise) to its own transcendent end (of rebellion)?

The serpent appears even weirder if we imagine that it was “the projection of Eve’s unconscious thoughts”.  At the moment that Eve disengaged, it lost its voice, yet it remained in all its scaly actuality.  Was it the embodiment of Eve’s concupiscence, crawling, belly upon the ground, like some sort of animated limbic system and brainstem or some sort of bureaucratic memento from Hell?  Or was it the embodiment of Eve’s justification^self?

Did the serpent not justify Eve’s own unconscious thoughts?

Was there not a moment of justification^self before Eve ate the forbidden fruit?

And did God not curse the serpent first and foremost?

Upon your belly you shall go.

I will put enmity between her seed and your seed.

Her seed will bruise your head and you shall strike their heels.

“Concupiscence” encompasses both the realm of possibility and the realm of actuality.  I depicted it as “the state of being(with Cupid)”.  “The state of being” belongs to the realm of actuality.  “With Cupid” belongs to the realm of possibility. In the plane of “doing”, “with Cupid” makes “the state of being” possible.

So what puts concupiscence into context?

In Chapter 6, Peters discussed “self-justification”, which I will write, justification^self.  After all, “self” is a species of justification.

Peters laid this step out according to the following logic:

We are mortal and concupiscence will not give us immortality.

We know the difference between good and evil and we suspect that good is eternal.

So how can we justify our concupiscence?

Well, the only way is to lie to ourselves.

We have to claim that the finite ends that come with concupiscence somehow, somehow, somehow are transcendent.

If we succeed, we justify^self.

Pelagius, on the other hand, could not repent of his addiction of the soul.  He loved being “regarded as perfect” and thought of his accolades as fully justified.  He could not even fathom why anyone would disagree with his teachings.  Everyone could become perfect, just like Pelagius himself, in seven easy steps.

Here, in a nutshell, one can see why addictions of the soul are so difficult to “cure”.  Concupiscence of the soul is readily “justified” by the “self” or – to coin another term: justified^self.

Whether the craving is for celebrity, status, positional power, accolades, masochistic abuse, mental brilliance, wit, revenge or sainthood, the emotional payoff addicts as much as any sensual pleasure or pain.  Craving always fixes on finite ends.  Such is the way of being with Cupid, the infatuating child of Venus, the Goddess of Love, who can justify anything she desires.

Augustine was addicted by way of the body.  Pelagius was addicted by way of the soul.  The former addiction may be more forgiving than the latter.

Pride(anxiety(faith^UnChristian) may set the stage for being with Cupid by way of the body, but pride may be broken on the self-annihilating wheel of physical addiction.  Attempts to justify one’s addiction are often not sufficient to maintain the turning of the wheel.  But self-justification is a powerful assist as long as the wheel turns.

Concupiscence parallels anxiety(faith^UnChristian).  The former is on the plane of “doing”.  The latter is on the plane of “setting the stage for doing”.

Perhaps another way to depict “concupiscence” is “state of being(with Cupid)” on the plane of “doing”.  Here, “state of being” would match “anxiety” as undeniably emotional and soma-oriented.  “With Cupid” would match “faith^UnChristian”.  Cupid’s arrow places a finite desire in the place where a transcendent longing should be.  Cupid’s arrow tells you to say “yes” when you should say “no”.

When Augustine asked for grace, he had to swallow his pride.  He could not justify his addiction.  He repented.

So, if concupiscence is so alluring, leading us to become addicted to finite ends and to act as if they are transcendent, how do we get out of this state of being with Cupid?   This “state of being with Cupid” often feels like a prison, with demonic guards who “force” us to say “yes” when we should say “no”.  This “state of being with Cupid” makes one feel that she is a puppet and that someone from hell is pulling the strings.

Peters mentions “grace”.  God overcomes our addictions.  But usually that comes after the person has “hit bottom” and has no choice but to ask God for help.

Here Peters skirts one of the profound insights of Lacan (a French Psychoanalyst who wrote in the 1930s to 1970s): Some knowledge cannot be obtained unless one has committed an error.  The grace sought to recover from addiction may lead to a providential moment where “the one who committed an error” gains an insight that could not have been obtained directly.   The experience of the error itself plus the humiliation of asking for God’s help sets the stage for discovery.

Even though Augustine seems old hat to us today, what he discovered was nothing short of revolutionary.  His theory of Original Sin became the “go to” explanation for over a thousand years.

Today, his formulation acts as a gargoyle keeping cerebral celebrities at bay.  Like Pelagius, they are affronted by it and scandalized by it.  They ridicule it.   They want to put a bag over its head and pretend its not there.  They refuse to enter any Church ornamented with the abysmal gargoyle of “Augustine’s definition of Original Sin”.

What they cannot do is explain it.  They have no method of explanation capable of showing how Augustine made sense.

“Concupiscence” is saying “yes” when we should have said “no”.

To some, that sounds like “addiction”.  To others, it is the way they live.  To still others, it’s the way “the one they love” lives.

Peters discussed this in the section “addiction and grace”.  In addiction, our bodies become attuned to the finite end that pretends to be a transcendent end.  Whatever it is, we need it.  And always, we need more and more as the body adapts.  The same goes for the soul.  The only feature that is different is the nature of the finite end.

St. Augustine was once addicted to sex.  He knew the yearning.  No doubt, his youthful Manichean machismo was seductive and led to his ruin (that is, his becoming a Christian philosopher.  Think of it from the Manichean perspective.).  His former addiction of the body gave him insight into recognizing Pelagius’ addiction of the soul.

Pelagius was addicted to “being regarded as perfect”.  What British monk wouldn’t be, given enough adoration?  Pelagius was a “celebrity”.  He knew all the right people.  He said all the right things.  But unlike Augustine, whose celebrity was originally founded on his potency rather than potential, Pelagius never repented.  He was fully justified; I mean, self-justified.

Pelagius would never be caught writing something as humiliating as The Confessions.

Pelagius was the golden calf.

Yes, concupiscence is fun.  It comes in every form, shape, and color.  It is glamorous, entertaining and attractive.  Even at its most reptilian, it is alluring.

Concupiscence confirms our pride.  Yes, everything that I thought was true.  So perhaps it is not shocking when, after the fall, I want to blame anyone else but me.

In the section, “Eve and Evil”, Peters discussed the old timey theologians who blamed the human condition on Eve.  Or, as Sirach 25:24 said, sin has its beginning in a woman.  Or maybe, in a woman who said “yes” when she should have said “no”.

At the same time, one can turn the trope around to blame the Christian opportunity for salvation on Mary.  Here we have another beginning.  Here is a woman who said “yes” when she could have said “no”.

It is easy to extend this formula to men, since men have little Y’s where women have big X’s.  Just look at Adam.  What a dork.  Hand him the forbidden fruit and he will chomp it, no questions asked.  Just like Eve, he said “yes” when he should have said “no”.

This is my answer to Peters’ challenge:  Formulate an inclusive concept of “sin”.

Speaking of finite ends, what about this sex drive?  Is that rush of vasculature-relaxing hormones the essence of sex?  Or is it the finite end that drives us to a transcendent means?   That film of latex turns even the most meaningful moment of erotic love into an icon of mutual masturbation.  Or maybe it turns an erotic act of mutual masturbation into a substitute for love.

In all these examples of concupiscence, the fulfilling act not only substitutes for the “real thing” but it also closes the door to the potential of the “real thing”.

Speaking of finite ends, what about this sex drive?  Is that rush of vasculature-relaxing hormones the essence of sex?  Or is it the finite end that drives us to a transcendent means?   That film of latex turns even the most meaningful moment of erotic love into an icon of mutual masturbation.  Or maybe it turns an erotic act of mutual masturbation into a substitute for love.

In all these examples of concupiscence, the fulfilling act not only substitutes for the “real thing” but it also closes the door to the potential of the “real thing”.

On the other hand, the craving to “punish the capitalist” (rather than to correct particular abusive situations) also converts a finite end into a transcendent one.

If the transcendent end is “fairness”, then why bankrupt operations that must contain costs in order to survive?  Why act as regulatory gods when the only other option for the worker is unemployment?   As the central state steals money – er, taxes greedy businesses – in order to pay for “unemployment benefits”, it puts more businesses on the margin.  It puts more businesses into the position of “needing to exploit the worker”.

Why open this contra-Pandora’s box where good intentions take flight and the last to emerge is the bill: societal bankruptcy and totalitarianism?

We are blown by the winds of “good intentions” that “make us feel wonderful about ourselves”.  But are these only the airs of finite ends.