Saint Anselm, as we have seen, begins his reflections on soteriology—the theology of salvation—by addressing the question: What is sin? This he identifies as the affront to the honor of God. He then goes on to inquire: What is required to satisfy the offended honor of God. This move from apologetics to theology is known as St. Anselm’s “theory of satisfaction.”
It is my claim that grace, in a nontheistic ontology, should be understand primarily in terms of this "resistant availability."
I need to precisely define suffering. I have used the word “suffering” as synonymous with a more general, ontological passibility. However, in order to make sense of sin, I will hereafter use the term “suffering” only to refer to that kind of passibility that is unique to human beings. x is a uniquely human affair and it is rooted in the uniquely human experience of suffering.

What is unique about human suffering? While all beings (alive or not, sensible or not) are subject to the double-bind of resistant availability, only human beings appear to be aware of this bind and experience it as such.. “flesh”... the human capacity for auto-affection, the human capacity to not only feel but to feel ourselves feeling.