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.

What do the previous blogs have in common?

Concupiscence removes the mystical moment by pretending that “it” is the mystical moment.

When Cupid’s arrow pierces my embodied, or even disembodied, heart, nothing will make that wounded heart flutter other than the fulfillment that craving.  Fulfillment is a finite end substituting for a transcendent end.  The liquid rush of the heart’s flutter fills anxiety’s thirst.

When the craving for capital – let us call it “money” – is satisfied through the exploitation of others or by lowering costs through pollution and environmental degradation, the means justifies the ends.

What is money but a means for accomplishing an end?   But some Capitalists see capital accumulation as an end in itself.

A finite end is placed in the earthen hollow of a transcendent end.

For those who do not sympathize with associating “concupiscence” with “wanton shopping, economic oppression, environmental degradation, or totalitarian power”, well, what about sex?

When it came to sex, St. Augustine – if you will excuse the pun – rose above all.  Augustine pinned the tail of lust, I mean, the “tale” of lust, onto the donkey of “concupiscence”.

Horniness can make a jackass of anyone.  I mean this in terms of ontology.  What if the creative act in which God forms the soul is somehow linked to this heaving and hoeing that is the concupiscent fruit of horniness?  Talk about sullied.  A woman may just as well give birth to a donkey.

Or maybe we can turn the table around, and see the donkey – the jackass – giving birth to the babe.  Now, that bumping and grinding, that unencumbered exhibition of “concupiscence”, is redeemed by a mystical moment – the moment of conception – where one of tens of billions of sperm – and one alone – penetrates the membrane of the egg.  It could just as well have taken place in heaven.  To be alive is like winning the lottery.

Now, put a thin, pliable, yet impenetrable barrier between the egg and those sperm.  Now, there is only “concupiscence”.  The mystical moment has been removed.

Now, we will hum the notes of a Progressive interlude.

Is Capitalism Exhibit A for socially structured concupiscence?  Does Marx’s “surplus value” equate to “a craving for capital”?  Are developing nations, like Peru and China, co-dependents of the social “concupiscence” of the United States of America?  Does social “concupiscence” destroy the environment?  Does it steal life from the future?

Peters stated, in most Progressive terms, that denial lies at the heart of concupiscence.

What do we deny?  We reject our own limits and that rejection is expressed through the consumption of someone else’s life giving power.

To make a long story short: Capitalism sucks.

Ironically, Peters’ critique projects the arrogance of Progressivism onto the straw man of Capitalism.  Progressives deny limits for the central government.  The central government grows by consuming someone else’s life giving powers.

When that long story is made short, we won’t be so smug about it: Progressivism sucks capital.

So what does “capital” mean?

Traditionally, “concupiscence” (“con” = “with”; “cupere”=”to desire”; “scence”=”a state of being”) was associated with impulsive acts that relieved anxiety.

There is a little “Cupid” in “concupiscence”.   And, it makes “scence” that, if your “state of being” is “with Cupid”, then your may find your heart pierced with “an arrow of desire”.

What do you crave?  Certainly, you do not crave to overcome your craving.  Or maybe you do.  All you need to do is get rid of that nasty body and become a disembodied mind.  What could a disembodied being possibly crave?  Hmmm.  Do I detect a problem here?

Cupid’s arrows can pierce both embodied and disembodied hearts.