An Interview with Christian Sorenson on Life, Love, Psychopaths, and Sociopaths (Part Four)

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/05/22

Abstract

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. He discusses: love; meaning of life; love as part of the meaning of life; emotional version of hell; psychopaths, narcissists, and sociopaths in love; differentiation of a psychopath from a sociopath; differentiation of ordinary notions of narcissist from formal Narcissistic Personality Disorder; definition of the West; definition of the East; cultures in the East flourishing; nations mixing values; a show of love; more on “seeking death”; the “pink feeling”; more on love; mimicking of moral behaviour by psychopaths and sociopaths; a narcissistic age; Babylon and Persia; the flourishing of some nations compared to others in the 21^st century; the extreme form of love leading to hatred exemplified in some of the extreme loves of the young; secondary narcissism; nonconformity and defiant nonconformity differing from regular isolationism of an ordinary unsocial person or a similarly in-isolation genius who requires said isolation to pursue their intellectual or artistic work; something most likely missing from the brain for a complete absence of conscience; the pathology of the psychopath and the pathology and the sociopath; a primary narcissistic age; theatrical examples of the “strictly moralistics” oriented individual;  more differences between the sociopath and the psychopath; “spiritualist wisdom”; resisting the pull for the desire of ourselves; other important characteristics feed into high performance or higher probability of achievement; moral repressions; the lack of remorse as a key indicator of psychopaths; Nietzsche Ubermensch in contrast to Untermensch; the primary narcissism idea reflecting an age of infantilism as opposed to immaturity; the reasons for the higher stature given to religious figures; abuse of women by men; simple behavourial, speech, or emotional cues/proxies of psychopaths and sociopaths; delay of gratification and other mental skills; first love extensions; the roaring lion as the child; and the collapse of Nietzsche.

Keywords: Christian Sorenson, life, love, psychopaths, sociopaths.

An Interview with Christian Sorenson on Life, Love, Psychopaths, and Sociopaths (Part Four)[1]^,[2]*

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s talk more about love and life. What is love?

Christian Sorenson: I feel, that if there is no greater “show of love,” than giving until you don’t have anything else to give, and therefore to get to give what you “do not have.” Then if this is right, and to love is to “donate” something or ourselves, it could be said that love is a “gift,” in the sense of “nothing.”

2. Jacobsen: What is the meaning of life?

Sorenson: I believe, that is equivalent to the opposite of a state of perfect equilibrium that would be equal to “zero.” In turn, it is an insistent search to “return” towards an original state, that previously existed, and that is synonymous with “inert.” In this sense, it would be a “force of compulsion,” that tends to repeat, and therefore “seeks death.”

3. Jacobsen: What makes love part of the meaning of life for most?

Sorenson: I feel, it is the desire to live a “pink feeling,” that strictly speaking, seeks to complete the “ideal statue” of ourselves, “through pieces” that are “swallowed” inside, from “partial identifications” with others.

4. Jacobsen: Is an emotional version of hell quintessentially the inability to love?

Sorenson: The emotional version of hell has nothing to do with the inability to love, but rather with not “feeling loved,” and the consequences of “not being reciprocated” or even worse, “abandonment” by the loved object, which is lived as an experience of “mourning.” I think that love as such, and realistically speaking, is “conditional” on something, and therefore, it is more further from romanticism than from aggression, and if within a vital context, is “never eternal,” then it always will be intrinsically linked to “suffering.”

5. Jacobsen: What do you make of the ‘love’ of psychopaths and narcissists and sociopaths?

Sorenson: Psychopaths and narcissists, and sometimes sociopaths, dispense with love, since they only establish “symbiotic” relationships of “dependency” towards them, for “profit-utilitarian” purposes.

6. Jacobsen: What differentiates a psychopath from a sociopath?

Sorenson: The psychopath, unlike the sociopath who is “anomic,” draws attention because he appears as someone “too normal.” In this sense, the second openly and oppositionally, defies the “law,” with the clear intention of violating it and staying out of it, regardless of the damage this may cause to “others” and to “society.” The former, on the other hand, feels in a certain way that he “represents the law,” and therefore who has the right, discerns between “good” and “bad,” and therefore tries to “challenge” the established norms, by demonstrating that he is able to benefit of it, by staying within their limits, but without suffering any sanction for his conduct.

7. Jacobsen: What differentiates ordinary notions of a narcissist from formal Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

Sorenson: They differ, because “ordinary” notions, are generally related to “narcissistic traits,” that fundamentally have to do with “self-recognition” needs and to “attract the attention”of others. While in “formal” notions, what exists is the absence of “remorse” and “empathy,” the “lack of control” for violent behavior, and the inability to establish “lasting emotional” relationships.

8. Jacobsen: I live in North America. We both live in what is deemed – without current geographic considerations anymore – “the West,” as in Greek Humanism through Western European Enlightenment into North American techno-capitalist freedom culture, including offshoots in Israel – save me Tel Aviv! What defines the West?

Sorenson: It is determined by the “Judeo-Christian” religious values, ​​and the “cultural” development, that emerged from the “Greek” and “Roman” empires.

9. Jacobsen: By comparison and contrast, naturally, what defines the East?

Sorenson: In my opinion, it is mainly defined by the Babylonian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian empires.

10. Jacobsen: Why have some cultures in the East flourished when taking on the West’s values and not when sitting purely on the East’s values?

Sorenson: Due to the “anthropological” vision that they had of man, especially in relation to “liberalism,” to the development of some sciences such as “mathematics,” and because of the “cosmogonic” conception they had of the universe.

11. Jacobsen: Why have some, as Singapore, flourished, as under Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong (briefly), and currently under Lee Hsien Loong, when mixing and matching values of East and West (as represented by the United States and China) as appropriate?

Sorenson: I feel that from the point of view of historical origin, prevailing values ​​and the development achieved there is a close analogy between Singapore and Israel. Both fought to become independent from English colonialism, with founding prime ministers such as Lee Kuan Yew and Ben Gurion with stories of similar lives and coming to lead in both cases the development of high technology worldwide in addition to other achievements. Both states have the peculiarity of representing “models of democracy,” since they have managed to integrate different ethnic groups and cultures of the West and East, from the idiomatic to the religious, being the common factor that has articulated it and enabled this, the strong investment they have made in education, and strengthening citizen values ​​such as respect for the law and diversity.

12. Jacobsen: Is a show of love truly love or merely an adornment on a tree for presentation, admiration, rather than true instinct, true feeling, of the utter giving of oneself?

Sorenson: From my point of view, “instinct,” in a human context, goes beyond the “biological,” and therefore is analogous to an extremely variable “force” regarding the “object” as such, and the “behavioral process.” In this sense, “true love” is not equivalent to a “feeling,” but rather to a certain way of relating to a “particular object,” and consequently to a form of “human drive.”

13. Jacobsen: Some philosophical systems preach denial self. Others instruct self-annihilationism. Is this part of the ‘seeking death’? A differentiation of a common pathway for the meaning of lie to seek death.

Sorenson: I believe, that it is neither “one” nor the “other,” by itself but rather “both,” since in human beings, these represents two tendencies that are contrary, but coexisting. Meanwhile one of them “struggles to live,” the other “seeks death.” Therefore “one” and the “other,” leads us to live in a “continuous conflict” with ourselves, that finally to be worse, doesn’t allows to know for what reason this happens.

14. Jacobsen: Can you expand on the “pink feeling”?

Sorenson: “Pink feeling” or “pink love,” is to suppose that love is similar to a romantic idyll of “twin souls,” who “unite” for “eternity.” Or an “unconditional surrender” of oneself, in order to seek the “good of another,” when “deep down,” is neither a “feeling” nor one “altruistic oblation” for another. As well, at the same time, it is not something eternal, nor a romantic or disinterested motion towards someone. Paradoxically, with love we generally do not understand, “why our right hand, knows what the left does,” or for what reason does it “translate into violence,” rather than being an “expression of sweetness.” And lastly, why sometimes it becomes into the “other side of the coin of hatred” or vice versa. Therefore if what love means, is taken to the extreme, I feel that sometimes “true love, will end in hatred.”

15. Jacobsen: Is love fundamentally internal hope for extrinsic reciprocation, where the external reciprocation is received (or perceived as received) in like kind? If so, this may help clarify individuals who marry apartment complexes, or some such thing.

Sorenson: I would rather say, that love is an “internal ideal” to be “internally reciprocated.” In my opinion, love is “phantasmatic,” since what is “sought” generally is not real, and it is not even “fulfilled” on that plane, and therefore it is an “ideal,” because it’s always an “unsatisfied desire.” Its frustration, is “intrinsic,” due to the fact that the “object” being pursued is “a mirage,” that does “not exist.” And in consequence, is “not even real” in an imaginary dimension.Nevertheless, in turn, this is the “great surprise” of love, that thanks to the “failure” for fulfilling its desire, it “exists” and is “so longed” by everyone.

16. Jacobsen: Can psychopaths and sociopaths be moral, or only mimic that which is intrinsically moral? In this sense, a parrot can simulate human statements without corresponding comprehension, i.e., a psychopath or a sociopath can enact a moral act, which is play-acted without comprehension of the importance of the consideration and intent behind the act, and the outcome of the act.

Sorenson: In fact I would say, that what they both do is a “morality role play” or even a “staging of it” more than something else.Paying attention to some subtleties, it could be said that what differentiates them, is the way of how psychopaths, unlike sociopaths, are “strictly moralistics,” since the know perfectly norm’s meanings, nevertheless, “acted-out” hypocriticallythem in an “exemplary way.” While the second ones, in this sense are “defiantly” more opened and franks, “leaving clear” their lack of interest and “nonconformity” towards any social conventionalism. The essential point in here regarding the formers more than the last ones, is the absolute absence of real “conviction of conscience,” that is ethically aggravated by its “life motive” to “deceive” and “pervert” others.

17. Jacobsen: Do we live in an informally-defined narcissistic age?

Sorenson: In some way yes, since I consider that our age lives in what I would denominate “state of primary narcissism,” due to the fact that to a certain extent it could be classified as “infantilist.” Similar to that of the child, when as a “little beast” felt himself to be the “center” of the world, and wanted to “capture” the full attention of its mother or substitute, at the same time he intended to “devour,” without being able to “postpone” the immediacy of its needs, everything within his reach, as if “everything” and “everyone,” was “disposable,” and had to “prostrate” at his feet.

18. Jacobsen: Why Babylon and Persia as representative of the East?

Sorenson: Since in Babylon, “occult knowledge systems” were developed, who in turn promoted the emerging of certain sciences, that after its fall as an empire, they separated from each other, for passing towards Persia first and then to the East, as a part of these, and through becoming into “spiritualists wisdoms.”

19. Jacobsen: Why will some nations flourish and dominate in the 21st century compared to others?

Sorenson: Because they will be able to “integrate” existing polarities, with “emotional maturity,” overcoming all kinds of “totalitarianisms” and “fundamentalisms,” and by managing to postpone the “desire for oneself” satisfying the “desire of the other.” Reaching to understand, in a certain way, that by the exercise of “alienating ourselves,” the “cycle of life” is going to gives us back, that energy transformed into “good.”

20. Jacobsen: Is the extreme form of love leading to hatred exemplified in some of the extreme loves of the young?

Sorenson: Not only, because it also sometimes occurs in adults. When I refer to the term “extreme,” rather than wanting to say something that is of the order of “intensity,” what I intend is to allude to a “logical consequence,” in relation to what is expected of love after analyzing its parts. Therefore, hatred can arise regardless of the “depth,” with which love has been lived. However, there exists a condition whose antecedent as “necessary presence” for the manifestation of love, and in consequence probably also for hate, will be fundamental. This, is the “feeling of infatuation” which in my opinion, refers to an “experience of identification,” that is not “consciously perceived,” with part of the “object” of the loved one. And which ultimately, has a character of “appropriation,” and therefore, when it is not possible to be “possessed” is experienced as a “non-correspondence.” Lastly this may befelt as a “rejection,” and in consequence can easily trigger “aggressive feelings” that may end in “hatred.”

21. Jacobsen: What would be secondary narcissism?

Sorenson: It would properly be known as “pathological narcissism,” in contrast to the “primary” one, that would necessarily constitute part of the child’s “normal” psychological development. It’s named “secondary,” because “evolutionarily” speaking, always appears from early adulthood, and since it would derive from a “personality disorder,” that therefore, “psychodynamically” regards a “psychic structure,” which would be able to explained it.

22. Jacobsen: How does this nonconformity and defiant nonconformity differ from regular isolationism of an ordinary unsocial person or a similarly in-isolation genius who requires said isolation to pursue their intellectual or artistic work?

Sorenson: They are different, since first of all antisocials are usually “not geniuses.” Besides, the latters in general are mobilized by high “universal ethical canons.” Also they differentiate each other regarding their goals, because meanwhile one pursues an “intellectually productive matter,” the other tries to challenge and destroy “moral conventions,” that are necessary for the proper functioning of society, and in many cases are valuable and fundamental. And on the other hand, both are far from each other, due to the fact that geniuses seek isolation, as something similar to a “facilitating space” for what they search. While sociopaths, pursues it by following an “empty sense,” that doesn’t have anything else beyond the simple fact of “marginality.”

23. Jacobsen: What would most likely be missing from the brain for a complete absence of conscience?

Sorenson: I believe, it’s likely to a sort of “lobotomy” with hereditary or congenital etiology, and therefore, it may be represented bysome kind of failure, at “neurochemical conductivity,” or “anatomical neurostructures” levels, either in the frontal sector as well as the hippocampus.

24. Jacobsen: From a philosophical standpoint on the psychological condition, what best represents the pathology of the psychopath and the pathology and the sociopath?

Sorenson: In my opinion, by the concepts in Nietzsche, of “rebellion,” represented by the figure of a “roaring lion” trying to free himself from all the moral restraints imposed, in the case of the sociopaths. And that of “super-man,” in psychopaths, embodied by a “child,” who simply plays with everything, without measuring the consequences of anything regarding its acts.

25. Jacobsen: Is a primary narcissistic age one of immaturity reflected in socioemotional and intellectual age? In more precise terms, what would be the approximate emotional and intellectual age of the general population of the planet to produce such a primary narcissism?

Sorenson: “Primary narcissism” in the context of individual evolutionary development, “does not reflects” psycho-social or intellectual immaturity. Nevertheless, analogically speaking, society could be said that rather to be considered as immatured, it could be more seeing as “infantile,” since its state is of “evolutionary fixation.” Equivalent, to the most primitive or basic stage of individuals development. In this sense, from a “symbolical perspective,” what represents its maturity level, is “orality,” because is not capable of “integrating” into a “single object,” both positives and negatives aspects, regarding “mother’s images” of good and bad breasts. At the same time, “eagerly devours” everything around, with the sole purpose of satiating itself, and “aggressively bites” the object, if its perceived as “threatening,” when does not meets the expectations of needs.

26. Jacobsen: Any theatrical examples of the “strictly moralistics” oriented individual?

Sorenson: Leaving aside the examples of “moral repressions,” that obey a different nature, in my opinion the best “graphed examples,” on the one hand are the cases of pedophilia, “veiled” by supposedly “asexual clergy figures” invested with “sacred holiness.” And on the other side, the “swindlers of neck and tie,” and the men who psychologically and physically “violates women,” maintaining the “status quo” of normality and happy couples.

27. Jacobsen: I heard one casual differentiation, between the psychopath and the sociopath, is the sociopath in a bar room who is insulted and then will react and punch. Whereas, the psychopath will wait until three days later and then disrepute the individual, subsequently murdering them. It is much more impulsive in the former and calculated in the latter. Any thoughts on simple thought experiments or examples to make the point as clear as possible with a mental image?

Sorenson: Not necessarily. It is easier to find sociopaths with a base of psychopathy, than psychopaths with antisocial behaviours. One of the characteristics that stands out the most in the latter’s profile, is the importance they gives to their “self-images,” arriving almost to an obsessive concern about it, since has an outstanding importance, the fact of “projecting” it positively in order to reach a “favorable impression” of themselves on others. Linked to this last, lacks of “moral conscience,” in the sense of not having a “feeling of conviction” or conviction regarding why they choose good instead of evil, all though paradoxically “know” that they “know it.” Their “maxim,” will always be “to pass the traffic light with a yellow light,” and therefore will know better than anyone their “underlying motivations,” and the reason because they have an absence of conscience about the “existence” of some kind of “good” independent from themselves, has nothing to do with a “condition of impossibility.”

28. Jacobsen: What makes “spiritualist wisdom” spiritual and wisdom?

Sorenson: I feel, that the fact of “constituting complex knowledge” that’s capable of being “rationally explained,” on what regards not only the origin, but the functioning and destination as well of everything that exists, and therefore in what the “cycle of life” means.

29. Jacobsen: Will this resisting the pull for the desire of ourselves require more trainable skills like postponement of gratification?

Sorenson: I believe, that this “simple principle” covers everything, and in turn translates into the need to “re-do” the path backwards, from creation until now. In other words, by “returning” to our origin, as if we were “climbing” the steps of a ladder, in which each stage poses a “challenge” with an additional difficult. The fact of “overcoming” it, allows us to “achieve knowledge” at that level. In consequence, if it is done successively, it will facilitate everyone to reach the “head” from where everything was “emerged.” In this way, what “renunciation of oneself” means, is “progressive,” since it is acquired depending on each stage, and therefore it is “not possible” to know it “a priori,” before having passed each state of “spiritual evolution.”

30. Jacobsen: Aside from global characteristics of intelligence, what other important characteristics feed into high performance or higher probability of achievement?

Sorenson: I feel, that both, the “emotional” and “intellectual” capacities, for “desiring” to put ourselves in the other’s place, after having understood the other as deeply as possible, And simultaneously with the last, the capacity, that I will name of “ambiguity” and “ambivalence,” in order to be able of “refraining ourselves” from making a “premature closure,” in relation to the “meaning” of things.

31. Jacobsen: What characterizes moral repressions?

Sorenson: I would say that’s a “psychic conflict,” originated by the “conscious effort” to stifle the “sexual impulse” without success, that is experienced with “displeasure,” through some “symbolic representative” of the paternal law that generates “guilt” and threatens with “punishment.” This internal trouble, “conversively” moves towards the body, provoking some kind of “suffering,” that’s expressed by “symptoms” of functional nature.

32. Jacobsen: What characterizes, philosophically speaking, the lack of remorse as a key indicator of psychopaths?

Sorenson: For who lacks of “remorse,” the “end pursued,” justifies the use of any type of “means” necessary to achieve it. In other words, transforms the person into a “resourse” who’s destiny is to satisfy its “utilitarian goals,” through the “indolent” use of “seduction” and “violence,” and therefore “alienating” its individual “dignity.”

33. Jacobsen: What was Nietzsche intending when he spoke of an Ubermensch, in contrast to an Untermensch? Is it the eternal child who plays with everything without a sense of remorse for immoral and unjust acts?

Sorenson: In my opinion, to understand both concepts well, it is necessary to analyze the works “Also sprach Zarathustra,” “Ecce Homo,” and “Der Antichrist” of Nietzsche. Regarding the image of the child who plays, is related more to the übermensch since he should be carried away by its “feelings” and “passions,” and in that way represent what the “super-man” really means. Nevertheless, at the same time, this child must be able to control himself, and therefore not only “seek pleasure,” because that would express a “weakness,” typical of the “last man,” but that in turn is quite different from acting with “moral remorse.” Respect the untermensch, I understand it rather with the meaning that I will denominate “infra-human,” which is very well reflected in the use that Nazi ideology gave through the term of “inferior people,” that ended up linked fundamentally with the Jewish people.

34. Jacobsen: What separates the primary narcissism idea reflecting an age of infantilism as opposed to immaturity, as infantilism can be seen as a cross-section of immaturity?

Sorenson: From my point of view, ”infantilism” is always synonymous with “immaturity,” nevertheless “immaturity” doesn’t mean necessarily the same as “infantilism.” In turn, “primary narcissism,” is not equivalent to “immaturity,” since one is a natural stage in development and the other not, however it may be analogous to “infantilism” in the context of an era. Therefore, if the latter is defined as a “condition of immaturity,” which it also could be “chronic”and “asymmetric,” since it is “not overcome” with the simple passage of time, and is “disharmonious” between parts that are adult and others that are not. Then it is possible, to talk about “primary narcissism” in an era, that is “immature,” and “childish” in that context.

35. Jacobsen: Why are clergy – religious authority figures – given such mythology around them, e.g., the “sacred holiness,” the ‘asexuality,’ and an assumed authority on things only spoken and never seen? How can members of these religious groups leave them in order to find a healthier way of life or one of freedom from the constraints of living under the authority of clergy figures?

Sorenson: Since in my opinion, they are “representations” of a “representative who represents” in the “symbolizing process” of what for me is the “name of the father,” which would establishes the “duty of being,” as moral conscience. Religion, is one of the possible ways but not the only to get there. If it’s the option chosen, I feel that the only manner to find a healthier way of life, is to adopt a religion, “but without becoming religious.”

36. Jacobsen: For the other category given, of the men who psychologically and physically violate, or abuse, women, what drives them? What draws some women to them? How can people get out of those kinds of relationships?

Sorenson: What leads many men to that, is something they cannot avoid, and in that sense the weight of their “psychic constellation” weighs more than anything else. They are subjects “who know,” and what is worse, “they know what is good for one woman,” which is already “violent” as such. Afterwards usually comes the “seduction process,” in which she may succumb, but sooner or later will wake up, to realize in the best of cases, that has lived in captivity “inside a golden cage,” without really having conscience of what she was doing. The outcome is her “rebellion,” and the search of breathable space. This triggers the “second moment of violence,” through “imposition” and the spiral of aggression that follows it. These type of subjects don’t have the option of being different, and its pattern will be identical regardless of who is involved, since invariably needs to “seduce” and after to “convince” their victims, in order to “pervert” them through “deception,” and therefore are “hardly treatable.” They are generally “dialectical” and “mutually symbiotic” relationships, where there are women who look without really knowing, this pattern, because in some way they tend to “repeat” by an “acting-out” mechanism, of the ancient relationships with their father, who used to become “idealized,” when they have being too “authoritarian” and “punishing” figures. To get out of these “vicious circles,” it must be she who puts the “brakes” first, since it is difficult that he does it. And in turn, it is necessary to do so by “applying zero tolerance” criterion against the minimum abuse, being aware at the same time, that it depends directly on her, “that no other woman is going to be aggressed.”

37. Jacobsen: When you come across sociopaths or psychopaths, what are simple behavourial, speech, or emotional cues/proxies of them? We can tell a sick person based on a persistent cough. We can avoid them. Similarly, there must be “coughs” of a like-kind in the behaviour, speech, and emotions (feigned or real-but-blunted).

Sorenson: Precisely, that’s the “mis-conception” about them, since these kind of subjects “aren’t sick persons.” In fact they do not have any disease, because they have a perfectly preserved “reality judgment,” and in addition in the broadest sense of the word.

They do not “suffer from anything,” as normal patients do. Rather it is the opposite, since it is a society that “suffers” because of them. If the above is correct, then it would not be appropriate to give them a “treatment” of something.

And therefore, the “environment” that should have them, it must be the prison and not the hospital. It seems to me, that the most “remarkable behavioural” characteristic of these individuals, is that they present themselves with a mixture of “excess seduction and goodness,” at the same time that it is possible to perceive them, as if they were “cold as ice,” and “sharp as a knife.”

38. Jacobsen: Matt Scillitani noted this “simple principle” covers everything about the core of intelligence too. There is research on Executive Function as a larger compilation of cognitive attributes. Does delay of gratification reflect the necessary function for the development of complex, sustainable social arrangements, including marriages and societies?

Sorenson: In some way yes, since the “delay of gratification,” requires to develops cognitive skills that allow “the source” or “object” of gratification to be symbolized, in the sense of “resignifying” it immaterially, in order to be able to satisfy the original need, through what I am going to name as “procuration” or “second intention.” As a “substitute,” that also allows to “cathectize” the energy that first triggered it. In turn, it would be possible to do something similar with “social dynamics,” which could improve the different levels of real interrelation in society.

39. Jacobsen: Our first love in the world is love of mother, as part of an integrated organism. Our second love is others. Our third love is the differentiation of self from mother. The lattermost as the process of individuation. How does this pattern of loves put constraints on types of loves and kinds of interpersonal arrangements for human beings?

Sorenson: I think that the different loves throughout life, are a sort of “reissue” of the “first or original love” with the mother. In a way, we also always “yearn to return” to maternal love, comparing all loved ones with that “first figure.” Something existed in our development, “symbolically” speaking, that did not allow us “to access” our mother, and forcing then to go out, and seek “substitute loves” throughout life. That “prohibition,” in my opinion is the one that enabled us to successfully enter the “symbolic world,” and “accept a law” that we carry within ourselves in order to discern with conviction, between the “morally” good and bad.

40. Jacobsen: Is the “roaring lion,” in terms of “rebellion,” more a child wailing than anything else?

Sorenson: I feel that he is a “self-centered” and “capricious” child, who plays with a “yo-yo,” expecting that the toy “goes and comes” back, nevertheless if that doesn’t happens, since he can’t pick it up with the string, he “cries but with rage,” because feels that the world, does not want to “follow his rules” of the game.

41. Jacobsen: What happened to Nietzsche’s thoughts over time? What was the symbolism of the moment that he collapsed and went insane? The purported moment of seeing the flogging of a horse, running over to it, and then holding its neck so as to protect it, followed by a collapse. A rather dramatic narrative of a mind unravelling over time with a climactic instant.

Sorenson: I am not sure if Nietzsche was really crazy or not, maybe he just felt so. In any case, I think that “no one can go crazy, even if he wants to.” He ends up being a “slave”to his beliefs, even though he tried to rebel from almost everything. In some way, it’s similar to what happened to Robinson Crusoe, when he “saw a mark”on the beach. Somehow, is a manner of finding “the presence” of something, that at the same time is “absent,” and therefore, when he wanted to “erase it,” its existence became even more evident for him.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Philosopher.

[2] Individual Publication Date: May 22, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorenson-four; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

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.