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.

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.