Skip to content

Dr. Christian Sorensen: Onto-Phylogenetic Longitudinal Analysis

2022-04-27

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2019/09/17

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla ice cream.” 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 Douglas Jacobsen: I want to split this particular series of questions into two parts to segment the ideas between the genetic and the environmental. The middle grounds or other grounds exist with the epigenetic and the biological as a combination of the three aforementioned. While not focusing on the normal areas of emphasis for the categorizations, as I note the conversations in formal and informal resources focus on sex more than or rather than gender, the emphasis here is gender, as in “multifactorial vectors.” Taking genetic first, gender is a plural entity with wide boundaries, at present, and potentially much wider boundaries in the future, especially with some obvious observations as to the orientations and views of the newer media, younger generations, and rejection of much traditionalism now. Genetics impacts both neurological – thus, mental and behavioural – and anatomical realities. The structures in each moment comprising a human being influences its trajectory of development, its next point. I understand segmenting is messy because of the mixed nature of everything into one organism. However, I think this angle of analysis, as a thought experiment, can be fruitful too. Why would the expression of gender be written into the possibility space of our genetic lineage in the first place? By which I mean, why would this be ‘designed,’ by the pressures of ancestral environments, or selected by various natural selective mechanisms as a survival advantage rather than not? It seems imaginable that such a case could exist, in which genetics do not leave open the room for higher-order psychological phenomena inherent in the idea of gender as opposed to sexes and intersexes, and eunuchs.

Dr. Christian Sorensen: I think that for understanding the relationship, and the order of determinations between genetics and gender, it is necessary to carry out a longitudinal analysis in an onto-phylogenetic sense by means of three cuts of analysis, that I will name as the psycho-phenotypic determination on the genetic, the genetic determination on the psychophenotypic, and the latency. That is to say respectively, there would be a first period in which certain somatic and psychological characteristics, that would have been developed selectively and adaptively from environmental evolutionary forces, could have gave rise to genetic mutations, which in the second phase, are transmitted to the following genetic affiliations and manifested as somatic and psychological fixed characteristics, since by doing so, they pass to a third latency period, through which they stabilize and generalize themselves even more. The third stage, remains as such, until new evolutionary forces obligates to enter into a new period of natural selection, where psychological and physical more adaptives characteristics, are capable to induce generationally transmissible genetic modifications, which ultimately are shareables within a common population gene pool.

Jacobsen: Evolution is a hodgepodge. It’s a mess, but it makes cool stuff. How do you think the genetic blueprint, template, or twisty base sets up the ground rules for gender?

Sorensen: I think that evolutionarily speaking, there is a circularity between genetics and gender, where what occurs, is a mutual interrelation or interaction, in which there is a determinism that also comes from both sides, but in an alternate and uniderectional sense. In other words, at the moment that one of them exercises determinism over the other, the last cannot exert almost any influence regarding the former, and in turn, since it does not have enough degrees of freedom or the autonomy in order to open up to another manifestations other than the predetermined ones, it is closed in relation to its possibilities of expression.

Jacobsen: How much of a leash do genetics seem to place on the dog of gender?

Sorensen: I think that the order of factors do matter in this equation, since it depends on which part of the deterministic cycle, one with respect to the other is actually situated. Therefore when the genetic is the one that determines, I think that the leash is something real-real because it is so short, that it reaches the limit of the dog’s collar, nevertheless when it is the gender in terms of new adaptive psycho-phenotypic characteristics, who exerts mutation pressure on genetics, then these are the ones who determine the last. In consequence, the leash would convert into something that’s real-imaginary, which despite has not modified its lengh, and it is fastened to the collar, at the other end there is nothing to hold it, therefore its length is only a sort of phantom limb for the dog.

Jacobsen: How much should considerations of genetic influences on neurological structure be on gender, as it’s a psychological construct recursively oriented towards the self, the self in relation to the world, and the self in relation to other perceived selves as an “I”?

Sorensen: I think that gender, is an imaginary construct, that is formed through a specular relationship with the world and with others that are perceived as and I, therefore when it comes to gender, it is possible to affirm, that this, is the outcome of what I will denominate as the stage of the mirror. In this sense, I think that the genetic influences on neurobiological structures, in stricter terms and in relation to gender, what they determine is rather a predisposition more than something else, in consequence, it is the relationship with the mirror, in interdependence with their predisposed bio-structures what lastly crystallizes the gender as a psychological constellation.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Christian.

Sorensen: See you… Scott.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: