How does the idea that the serpent is “a reified projection of Eve’s unconscious thoughts” play out in the Genesis text?

The idea that the serpent is an independent being comes in the introduction, where the serpent is described as the “most wily creature that the Lord God had made”.  But, this description also fits the modern psychoanalytic concept of the “unconscious”.

The serpent first speaks in an “ongoing conversation”.  Who else was Eve talking to?  Adam only is later mentioned.  She was talking to herself.

The serpent validated Eve’s “unconscious suspicions”. Then Eve converted the serpent’s comments to justification^selfs.

None of these contradict the idea that the serpent could be the reified projection of Eve’s unconscious thoughts.

After Eve ate.  The serpent no longer spoke.

When the Divine Presence arrived and guessed what is going on, Eve blamed the serpent in the same way that we would blame our own justification^selfs.  “The serpent beguiled me.” sounds very much like “Well, I thought that” followed by justification^self.

Then the Divine Presence addressed the serpent directly.  In doing so, (in this speculative interpretation), the Divine Presence acted as if “the reified projection of Eve’s unconscious thoughts” were an independent entity.

Eve’s pretense that the serpent beguiled her was enough for the Divine Presence.  Sure, she was guilty and would be punished (with a description of how Neolithic and Paleolithic women lived outside of Eden), but she was not going to be held responsible for that reified justification^self.  The serpent was on its own.

Does that not sound like “the remission of sins”?

Let me review:

Concupiscence is saying “yes” when we should say “no”.

Concupiscence encompasses actuality(potential).  It parallels anxiety(faith^UnChristian) on the plane of “doing”.

Concupiscence is a “state of being(“with Cupid”).  Technically, it substitutes finite ends for transcendent ends.  Practically, it makes finite ends feel as if they were transcendent.

“Addiction” goes with “concupiscence”.  There are two types of addictions.  One corresponds to the body.  St. Augustine’s addiction to sexual pleasure might be an example.  One corresponds to the soul.  Pelagius’ addiction to “spiritual perfection” might be an example.   Both addictions emerge from the lower plane of pride(anxiety(faith^UnChristian)).

Concupiscence has the quality of “being imprisoned by a power that is outside ourselves”, “being a puppet controlled by demonic puppeteers”, and so on.  One of the functions of grace is to help open the jailhouse door or to help cut the strings.  That typically does not happen unless somehow – at some level of conscious or unconscious awareness – the person admits that there is no way out.

Justification^self puts concupiscence into context.

Justification^self entails “lying to ourselves”.

Justification^self has the character of an “independent voice outside ourselves” that “validates what we – at some level – already know” even though we may only be “talking to ourselves”.  This is precisely the character of the serpent in the Genesis Story of Adam and Eve, especially when we interpret the serpent to be a projection of Eve’s unconscious thoughts.

To me, this idea of justification^self “outside ourselves” is a fascinating interpretation of the Genesis text.

This is the topic of the next few blogs.

How much more frightening would it be if “the serpent’s seed” existed as the reified unconscious thoughts of “her seed”?

And what would animate those reifications? A living immaterial presence like a malevolent spirit?  Or a living immaterial presence like a Zeitgeist?  Or a sublime, monstrous and beautiful Thing, supported by the lamella of an undead force, living yet not aware of life, a coagulation of cells, each of which has no idea that it belongs to a body, much less aware that God has attached a soul to this body?

When we strike its head, we are only killing ourselves.

When it strikes our heel, it is only killing itself.

Such is the mystery of justification^self.

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”.