In Parallel Darkness, Manifestations of Free Creative Acts in the World
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Human nature, at least, provides some sense of an ability to make a choice, whether illusory, delusory, or reality. The feeling and sense of making a free choice constrained by one’s fleshy robot container capacities. Then over some unmarked period of time, individual human beings can construct worldlines of time in their lives comprised of multiplicities of bifurcated choices. Each of which collapses into that which they have decided and, thusly, enacted in their lives. We’re each of us stuck with our worldlines, our individual histories, ‘decided,’ in part, by our individual choices in reaction and proaction to the situations in each moment. Our identities, as such, may be considered, in some sense a free creation if this feeling and sense if real rather than illusory or delusory. In spite of the ontological status of ourselves as beings in the world knowing about our existences and our knowingness, is this act of free creation incorporated into this development of this “I” walking about in these fleshy robot containers, vessels?
Dr. Christian Sorensen: I think that freedom, as such, needs of consciousness for existing, at the same time that both are identical under one main aspect, since respectively, it is the fact according to which the individual can flex on himself, that is to say, that’s able to reflectively look into its inside as a subject, that manages to take knowledge of its internal states, and therefore, by realizing what’s going on inside, triggers an emotional and cognitive response, which is the instance where freedom arises, as a capacity for choosing in between options, and consequently deciding towards an action. Nevertheless in my opinion, simultaneously, consciousness and freedom, structurally speaking, have the same identity, since both, are based in what I will name as the parallelism of the darkness of worlds, in other words, they would be held by the unconscious and ruled with the predestination, which as such, besides been inaccessible for discursive knowledge, due to their principles of functioning, they will always be deterministic, and in consequence existentially constricting and limiting of the individual in its subjectivity.
Jacobsen: Is this act of free creation delusory, illusory, or real? In short, do we have freedom of the will?
Sorensen: In my opinion the act of freedom, is at the same time illusory, delusory and realistic, since on the one hand, the individual actually depends to some degree on its cognitive abilities and will, and on the other side, it’s affected by means of the pressure exerted through the surrounding circumstances. In fact, although the individual is capable of deciding between options, its decisions are not made autonomously, since from my point of view, there is a sub-world, governed by irrational forces, which besides not respecting not even formal logical principles of identity and non contradiction, are not knowable, and therefore they’re unmodifiable and not controllable. Concerning the above, at the same time, there is what I am going to denominate as pre-existential history, that like the unconscious, is full of obscure motifs, which in themselves, constitute what for me is a phylogenetic predestination, due to the reason that although the individual is able to decide, and in consequence, in some manner build its personal destiny, simultaneously, there is another sort of path, which is previous to existence and somehow is strange to anyone, because even if there are no personal decisions on the horizon, they bury the ghostly teeth of their gears in those of individuality, just as the key does with the lock, in order to make them turn in the direction of their will. The aforementioned, leads individual destiny, unless by chance both coincide, to stumble upon itself time after time. In this sense, it is possible that freedom of will exists, as long as in place of being understood, as something equivalent to the absence of ties, with which the inescapably of determination is always present in one way or another, it is conceived instead, through what I will name as the bonds of quality, which should be intrinsically linked, with the immanence of the unconscious phylogenetic predestination. What I mean with the last, is that if the self makes peace with the infra world of shadows, and therefore comes to have a feeling of ego in sintony with them, then it would be factible to open a space between destiny and predestination, in order that the aforementioned enables first of all, individual correction, and secondarily induce afterwards, the crystallization of a transpersonal evolution heritable in time.
Jacobsen: Insofar as we have the imaginary, as delineated before, in regards to freedom of the will, what is the state of gender in this act of free creation? What are not just the categories of limitation, but the constrained bounds for the free play, the area of feeling as if and sensing like freedom of the will is at play in the construction of personal identity?
Sorensen: I think that in the context of identity development, and particularly of gender identity, there are three sequential instances that I will denominate, as the antecedent of the real, the current of imaginary, and the consequent of the real. The last would mean, that between the two instances of the real, respectively, the phylogenetic unconscious predestination, and the individual act of freedom, represented by the choice of options, there is an imaginary space, which within itself, is where the development of gender identity takes place. In this manner, from a self-centered experiential descriptive perspective, regarding subjectivity, it would be possible to conclude, that individuals assume with property and with the feeling of belonging, the identity of gender, while at the same time, believe in the autonomy of will, nevertheless don’t realise from my point of view, the presence of the obvious, which is nothing less than the futurity of an illusion. Therefore, on the one hand, psychologically speaking, gender identity, is always constructed speculatively, which in practical words would mean, that when the world of others tells him that he is, and he responds that I am, along the virtuality of life, is when it is easily allowed to fall into the mirage of delirium of freedom, especially if the world of realness and even of spirituality, facilitates the deduction according to which, it confirms the freedom of will as an absolute of something. Nevertheless gets out of sight, the fact that predestination, in terms of pre-existence, is imperceptible for the senses, and because it has a ring of obscurity, it is believed, therefore, like something mysterious, though as a counterpart, is as objective as a reality in itself, since precedes a sort of collective, after which the individual gender identity is placed on, in terms of an intermediate space, respect to which, and due to the fact that there are two opposite realities converging, conscience is submerged in conflict and induced into confusion, because structurally speaking, is not capable, at least enough, to discern in relation to freedom, if what is believed to be real actually is, or if instead it should be treated as if, since ultimately it is not.
Jacobsen: Is this implying some form of a metaphysical act of free creation?
Sorensen: In my opinion if this, it’s understood as freedom of will, then regarding the physical and metaphysical aspects of entities, it could be seen as an act of free creation, since it would be capable to modify these properties, as consequents of the real, at the same time that makes them inheritable. Therefore, if the aforementioned is factible, then the next temporal sequences, would be followed with the current of imaginary, and the consequent of the real, which are going to take place as a whole and introduce levels of change, into the antecedents of the real, regarding the phylogenetic unconscious predestination, and in consequence from there on, by maintaining the limits within the space of imaginary, determine the identity of gender development.
Jacobsen: Thanks so much, Dr. Christian.
Sorensen: My pleasure, Mr. Jacobsen.
Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.
Scott is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. He works for science and human rights, especially women’s and children’s rights. He considers the modern scientific and technological world the foundation for the provision of the basics of human life throughout the world and the advancement of human rights as the universal movement among peoples everywhere.