By the time we get to Rousseau and Kant, the Enlightenment is well on its way to symbolizing the post-Latin Age Europe.  Each pointed to some aspect of past debates on Original Sin.

Rousseau proposed a substitute to Fall itself.  What went wrong?  He identified the Fall as the adoption of the cultural value of “private property” at the start of Civilization.

Kant proposed an ethical substitute for Sanctifying Grace.  The categorical imperative relied on Reason and stated that “you should act as if ‘the maxim from which you act’ were to become, through your will, universal law.” (At the same time, Kant’s categorical imperative justified Resistance).

From the previous blog, I can put each into a box.

Rousseau proposed an anthropology.  (The Anthropology belongs to the same category as the imagination, since one can imagine this pre-civilized condition but one has never encountered it.)

Kant proposed a Doctrine of Reason and Resistance.  (For Reason, consider the actor not committing an act, such as jaywalking, because, if jaywalking became a universal law, many people would get injured.  For Resistance, consider the actor adopting a cause, such as “not owning private property”, then forcing that stance on others, because it is consistent with the maxim that this “act” should become universal law.)

After the previous blog, Wiley’s treatment of history should be a pleasure to read.

However, maybe I should point out that the previous blog suggests a mind-boggling range of causalities between the nested worlds of symbol(index(icon), ordering(participating(imagining)) “normal context”(situation(“whatever happened”)) and so forth.  Here are three:

Changes in any one category alter the other two categories.

The law of unintended consequences applies only to the situation.

The presence of unintended consequences alters the imagination (before the normal context is altered).

Also, the previous blog allows a nested image of Modernity:

Doctrines of Reason & Resistance(Society(Anthropology)

The Renaissance re-centering of the imagination from a theocentric to an anthropocentric worldview empowered cryptotheological Doctrines of Reason and Resistance (that found full expression in the Enlightenment traditions) which, in turn, contextualized the emergence of the “Society” of Industry and Science characteristic of Modernity.

In Chapter 5, Wiley began the second half of her book, which focused on the last 500 years.

Remember that terms “Renaissance”, “Enlightenment” and “Modernity” are labels in an anthropocentric rather than a theocentric symbolic order, will these labels change in the future.  Who knows?

Each of these periods mark an increasing erasure of the prior Latin Age, with its theocentric symbols, its feudal power structures, and its Biblical and Augustinian imagination.  Allow me to give a series of idiosyncratic snapshots:

In the Renaissance, “kingdoms” replaced feudal arrangements, the Church fissured into the Catholics and the Protestants, and wealth from trade began to enrich Europe.   This was the time of the Council of Trent.

In the Renaissance, people began to imagine a world different from the static world of “society as body”.  This is seen in the new art of perspective and illusion.  At this time, most everyone still believed that Genesis portrayed literal events, but some skeptics imagined that these stories could be mythological.   Theology was in the air.

In the Enlightenment, people began to symbolize images from the Renaissance plus the new situation of nation states plus the new situation of scientific discoveries. The Story of Adam and Eve was no longer regarded as literally true.  Skepticism gave way to the deification of Reason.  Religion was regarded as irrational.  The Genesis text was irrational.  Yet, the findings of the Council of Trent remained like a fortress.  Theology was in retreat.

In Modernity, people began to construct societies based on the symbols of the Enlightenment.  The great Religions of Reason were born: Communism (International Socialism based on the Reasoning of Marx); Fascism (National Socialism based on the Reasoning of … um … Marx); and later, Progressivism (Incremental Socialism … need I say the Reasoning?).   In the European colonies, the great Religions of Resistance were also born.

These Religions of Reason and Resistancewere formulated through – what I call -“cryptotheologies”.  Cryptotheologies claim that they are not “religious”, because they speak of “No Supernatural Being”.  Yet, their central claim is: By faith (in Reason) alone, you shall live.

The Religions of Reason and Resistance claimed the victories of Science as their own.

One of those victories was a new theory of origins: evolution.  The Evolutionary Sciences appeared to show that the Stories of the Fall were not historically true.  Genesis was mere fable.  There is no connection between these stories and the Real.

Furthermore, the languages of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, Sociology and Psychology cannot admit God or anything Religious into their symbolic orders.  This provided more fodder for the cryptotheologies of Reason and Resistance.

The Story of the Fall is bogus.  Original Sin is irrelevant.  Long live Reason and Resistance.

Humans in civilizations know they are depraved.  They are always trying to turn back, to recapture the Lebenswelt in which we evolved, by formulating systems that will allow us to “Be Born Again”.  These formulations offer the promise of a return to a world where we all belong, where we all believe, where uncertainty and risk is shared by all, where each gets according to her needs, where each gives according to her abilities, where each person knows what to do and why she is here, where everyone’s voice has importance, where differences are perceived as commonalities, and so on and so on.

Luther’s descriptions of Original Sin, to me, amazingly capture the “sensibilities” of modern ideologues.  Some of these ideologues did not grasp for sovereign power, forming communities that were separatist and later, trapped in the time in which they were formed, like the Amish and the Hippies.  Some of these ideologues grasped for sovereign power, in order to facilitate the Baptism – the Baptism of Blood – of new social orders.

The Modern Era invented new ways of talking.  As a result, almost all cultures and civilizations have been Born Again, either by withdrawal or by blood.   In this way, Modernism itself re-enacts this weird parallel between the transition to speech-alone talk and the concept of Original Sin.

Luther’s definitions even capture the topsy-turvy character of Modernity.   For example, the situation of “acts of unbelief” has mutated.  In Progressivism, the phrase “the Constitution is a Dead Letter”, is “an act of unbelief” in a symbolic framework where “the Constitution is a Living Document”.

Various Modernisms detached Luther’s variation of Original Sin from its moorings in Christianity and, in doing so, literally brought his definitions to life.  All aspects of his formalism have been re-interpreted in the vain attempt to return to the Source.

Luther’s variation on Original Sin was:

Need to be Born Again(acts of unbelief(flawed faculties “of nature”)

It is almost as if Luther’s voice was the voice of Eve as depicted in An Archaeology of the Fall.

Luther’s variation makes sense because – after the loss of the Paleolithic Lebenswelt, there is no turning back.  An intellect and will honed by evolution within the framework of hand-talk – where words mean what they refer to – now operates in the framework of speech-alone talk – where reference comes from the placement of the word in a system of differences.  Now, reference is always constructed.  Yet, we feel that words refer to what already exists.  From this perspective, our intellect and will are “mechanically” flawed.

“Concupiscence” consists in “acts of unbelief” (in a sinful world constructed on symbolic orders of our own choosing) situating “human faculties that are ‘of nature’” (that have no clue because they are constantly operating as if the Lebenswelt of hand-speech talk were still pertinent).

In short, humanity is totally depraved.

We are always trying to turn back, to recapture the Lebenswelt in which we evolved, by formulating systems that will allows us to “Be Born Again”.  These formulations offer the promise of a return to a world where we all belong, where we all believe, where uncertainty and risk is shared by all, where each gets according to her needs, where each gives according to her abilities, where each person knows what to do and why she is here, where everyone’s voice has importance, where differences are perceived as commonalities, and so on and so on.

Does that not sound modern?

Luther’s descriptions Original Sin, to me, amazingly capture the “sensibilities” of modern ideologues.  Some of these ideologues did not grasp for sovereign power, forming communities that were separatist and later, trapped in the time in which they were formed, like the Amish and the Hippies.  Some of these ideologues grasped for sovereign power, in order to facilitate the Baptism – the Baptism of Blood – of the new social order.

The modern era encompasses the invention of new ways of talking.  As a result, almost all cultures and civilizations have been Born Again, either by withdrawal or by blood.   In this way, Modernism itself re-enacts this weird parallel between the transition to speech-alone talk and the concept of Original Sin.

Luther’s definitions even capture the topsy turvy character of Modernity .   For example, the idea of “acts of unbelief” has mutated into “acts of exploitation” among other variations.

Various Modernisms detached Luther’s variation of Original Sin from its moorings in Christianity and, in doing so, literally brought his definitions to life.  All aspects of his formalism have been re-interpreted in vain attempts to return to the Source.

Luther’s variation on Original Sin was:

Need to be Born Again(acts of unbelief(flawed faculties “of nature”)

Modernism converted this to, among other variants:

Need for Proletarians to Unite so Society may be Born Again(acts of exploitation(flawed nature of the exploitative bourgeoisie)

The Council of Trent’s variation makes sense because – after the loss of the Paleolithic Lebenswelt – humans can only experience disorientation and alienation in the Lebenswelt of unconstrained complexity.  By definition, “we know no what we do” because we do not even realize that we are creating symbolic orders – “languages” – all the time, without constraint.  We cannot predict the consequences of the social constructions that arise from these “languages”.

So we must rely on Sanctifying Grace – particularly the orientation that comes from the Revelation of God that is the Bible – plus the inspiration that comes from the Sacraments as Living Expressions of that Revealed God – in order to transform our actions to be in accord with His Will.  Yet, these actions are not prescribed.  We are free to create.  We are encouraged to create.

In sum, we need an orientation in order to properly (and generatively) mould our intellects and wills.

Each of the two variations listed in the previous blog make sense from the perspective of An Archaeology of the Fall.  I will discuss each in turn in the next blogs.

The Protestant Reformation bears a striking resemblance to the Tower of Babel.  A single monstrously diverse Church had grown like the Wind in between the Earth (the traditions of Monasticism, the Guilds, Feudalism among others) and the Sky (the ancient Druid, Jewish and Roman (and later Greek) fantasies, legends and ideals).  Then, the Edifice that it had built, or tried to build, began to be undermined by a confounding of the “languages of theology”.   Then all hell broke loose.

Two formalisms of Original Sin emerged, which I present as nested:

The Council of Trent reaffirmed Anselm and Aquinas:

Loss of Sanctifying Grace(acts of disobedience and injustice(human faculties “of nature”)

The Tradition of Luther proposed a variation:

Need to be Born Again(acts of unbelief(flawed faculties “of nature”)

Once “acts of unbelief” fills the slot of actuality, then it becomes clear that the human faculties “of nature” are flawed.  The intellect and will have been so occluded by the Fall that they cannot see through the fog.  (Translation: Those bishops selling indulgences in order to build a fancier Renaissance Style Cathedral than the other dioceses did not have the smarts or the love-of-Christ to see through their own charade: See “Tower of Babel” above).

Once “acts of unbelief” fills the slot of actuality, it also becomes clear that whatever puts these acts into context has to be powerful and capable of acting as a crutch for a mechanically flawed intellect and will.  Otherwise, we are fated to follow our acts of unbelief to our own destruction.

What was required of God to save humanity?

Today we call it: “Being born again.”

With Martin Luther, the Sacrament of Baptism took on a whole new role.

Enter Martin Luther (d 1545).

Recall, the Scholastic picture of the Fall after Jesus was:

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

And the Fall before Jesus was:

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

It appears to me that Martin Luther changed the formula by replacing “acts of disobedience and injustice” with “acts of unbelief”.

The existential evidence of unbelief in the early 1500s must have been palpable.  For example, if it were not for the Reformation, the standardization of selling indulgences plus advantages of the newly invented printing press could have produced the world’s first fiat currency.

How much is that apple?  Five days off in purgatory.  What, last week it was three.

Luther’s case would have been irrefutable if the currency were in indulgences, complete with phrases like “In God We Trust”.  Savor the irony of that.