Interview with Luca Fiorani

Author(s): Luca Fiorani and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/04

Abstract

Luca Fiorani is the first member of RealIQ Society by Ivan Ivec with an estimated IQ of 181.2 (σ15) combining 9 tests, where he studies and considers himself a philosopher in nuce.  He discusses: some of the prominent family stories being told over time; an extended self; the family background; experience with peers and schoolmates; some professional certifications; the purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses; the greatest geniuses in history; a genius from a profoundly intelligent person; profound intelligence necessary for genius; some work experiences and jobs; job path; the gifted and geniuses; philosophy, theology, and religion; science; some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations); the range of the scores; ethical philosophy; social philosophy; economic philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview-encompassing philosophical system; meaning in life; meaning; an afterlife; the mystery and transience of life; and love.

Keywords: genius, intelligence, IQ, life, love, Luca Fiorani, meaning, philosophy.

Conversation with Luca Fiorani on World War II, Geniuses, Philosophies, Meaning, Life, and Love: First Member, RealIQ Society (1)

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

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?

Luca Fiorani[1],[2]*: Back to the origins! I like this approach, it’s interesting. In the past, in its remotest aspects or areas, is perhaps hidden more truth than we usually believe. Family stories? My maternal grandfather was a key-figure. He was one of the Partigiani, The Italian resistance movement which fought against Fascism and Nazism during World War II. His stories were about: bravery, fortitude, daring. ‘Giving up is not an option’ – this maxim summarizes almost everything.

Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?

Fiorani: Yes, indeed. Cognition of our roots, in my perspective, fortifies our Self – our own perception of inner phenomena and the connection with a milieu; awareness invariably leads to significance.

Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?

Fiorani: My family lived and lives in Tuscany and Liguria. Its cultural level – firstly in terms of education – has always been medium-high, all things considered. My family traditionally embraces Catholicism, nevertheless not in a too rigid way.

Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?

Fiorani: I was a loner, as a child and as an adolescent. But I had social skills, and it wasn’t hard for me to make friends. But this happened sporadically. I had tendency for becoming estranged, I cut myself off reality often. I have never been grouchy, but simply I preferred my mind and its simulations to people.

Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?

Fiorani: I’m still studying. I’m still trying to get the proper credentials for achieving something non-negligible in my eventual professional life.

Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you? 

Fiorani: Two goals: cognitive assessment and cognitive entertainment. Generally speaking, the first one is the most noble. For instance, a multi-componential analysis of cognitive abilities (as in WISC-IV and V for children, and WAIS-IV for adults) is surely relevant, from a diagnostic point of view as well. It’s not all about ‘IQ’ and a single number there, but also pointing out strengths and weaknesses of the individual. If you detect mental retardation or, conversely, giftedness you may proceed accordingly. The examples made are rather simplistic. I can’t expatiate too much withal.

The ‘cognitive assessment purpose’ can be pursued also through high range IQ tests, if their quality is acceptable. A single result won’t suffice. In order to get a reliable estimate of your IQ you need to take several tests. HRTs are usually untimed, but they can also be timed. The most common and broad fields of high range testing are: verbal, spatial, numerical and mixed/composite. In order to know your IQ, you’ll need a wide spectrum of data. If your aim is exactitude, you’ll need attention to details (stats of the test, norming method, etc.) as well.

It’s not uncommon, though, that one may try HRTs as a hobby or something similar. That’s the cognitive entertainment. You take them ‘for fun’, for the pleasure of solving challenging puzzles, the eureka moment of decoding a riddle, and so on. It’s not unusual that a competitive attitude takes place. If the competitive aspect is not pervasive is fine. If HRTs become an addiction and your mindset is too competitive, they should be avoided, since they lose their meaning and spirit, and the situation may become unhealthy. I speak according to my own experience.

Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Fiorani: As perceived by other people, since I was a boy, 7 years old. A teacher of mine told me: “You already are a thinker. You think in a superior way. More deeply, more comprehensively. You just think in a different manner”.

As discovered by IQ tests and psychometric tools, in 2015. I was 23 years old.

Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.

Fiorani: I suppose that the historical and socio-cultural contexts are crucial here. Geniuses may incarnate multiple facets of human being, and typically exaggerated. You can idolize or reject; it’s our nature. Divinizing or demonizing what we can’t comprehend fully. The most entrenched vision of things is dualistic. View of existence can become Manichean, then. Not necessarily. Seldom we give away this Weltanschauung, though; it’s conscious but unconscious too, it’s a-rational and pre-rational mostly, then it’s rationalized.

Geniuses can go against a status quo, a paradigm, etc., so they might become a threat. Au contraire, sometimes they’re the inspiration needed for a revolution. Treatment of geniuses depends on the current predominant necessities, from epoch to epoch.

The ones alive today perhaps are mainly camera shy ’cause are against this liquid society… of surface, appearance, facade, emptiness, moral and conceptual non-substantiality… La société du spectacle, a society of exhibitionism, and then Homo vacuus.

Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?

Fiorani: The list is too long, to be honest with you. Plato, Dante Alighieri, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz, Werner Heisenberg, Jacques Lacan, Kurt Gödel: these are good examples.

Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?

Fiorani: Briefly, the actualization of a potential. This actualization becomes an offer to mankind. A genius creates – originality, innovation, uniqueness: trademark of an actual genius. Geniuses are pioneers and precursors, and not epigones. Geniuses change how we view things.

Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?

Fiorani: Almost always, yes.

Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?

Fiorani: None. (see above)

Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?

Fiorani: I cannot reply for self-evident reasons.

Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?

Fiorani: About high IQ individuals there are indeed myths to debunk. One of these, to me, is the idea of the high IQ person as cold, impassive, with scarce inclination for emotions overall. That’s simply a hoax. People tend to simplify things, categorizing a priori and labelling – it’s easier: less effort, less stress.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?

Fiorani: Religion is one of the fundamental ways through which humanity expresses itself: the relevance of religions – as a trans-cultural and omnipresent phenomenon – is unquestionable: history, sociology and anthropology demonstrates the fact abundantly.

About God. I quote an apophthegm which condenses a lot: καλούμενός τε κἄκλητος θεὸς παρέσται [Greek]/vocatus atque non vocatus Deus aderit [Latin]… Which in English is: “Bidden or not bidden, God shall be present”.

Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?

Fiorani: The role of science is essential and irrevocable. Science can be a perfect antidote to any absolutism and any relativism, simultaneously – both the instances lead to a dead-end street, from an epistemological and gnoseological perspective, but also from an existentialist point of view.

Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?

Fiorani: I scored > 170 σ15 on normed high range IQ tests designed by: Theodosis Prousalis, Xavier Jouve, Ron Hoeflin, Jonathan Wai, James Dorsey, Iakovos Koukas, Nick Soulios. And also others.

Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically. 

Fiorani: I consistently score above 160 σ15 (if my effort is optimal); rare exceptions. I also have a couple of 180+ σ15. My strongest area is the verbal one but I can consider myself a versatile test-taker, having scored 165+ σ15 in all main fields of high range testing (verbal, numerical, spatial, mixed; untimed and also timed).

Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Kantianism.

Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Rousseauism.

Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Liberalism.

Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: notably cf. A Theory of Justice (John Rawls, 1971).

Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Spinozism. »Philosophieren ist Spinozieren«, as Hegel unerringly said.

Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Fiorani: Nietzscheanism.

Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?

Fiorani: Ich und Du relationship. To put it simply, intersubjectivity. The others. (anti-solipsistic view)

Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?

Fiorani: Externally and internally derived, in synchrony.

Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?

Fiorani: About this, ἐποχή (epoche), id est ‘suspension of judgment’, is my best answer.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life? 

Fiorani: Life always presents what Carl Gustav Jung called numinosum, ineffable sacred mystery.

Life’s impermanence enriches things, not the opposite. But we, by nature, are afraid of death and the end of things. The process of wisdom to think and sense otherwise is very slow, and arguably inexhaustible.

Jacobsen: What is love to you? 

Fiorani: The most marvellous sentiment that we have.

[End of Part 1 of Interview.]

Abstract

Luca Fiorani is the first member of RealIQ Society by Ivan Ivec with an estimated IQ of 181.2 (σ15) combining 9 tests, where he studies and considers himself a philosopher in nuce. He discusses: a family history in the Partigiani; the triplet values; Roman Catholicism; the reason for being a loner; cut off social reality; studying; the “proper credentials for achieving something non-negligible”; a life work; regrets; discovery and commentary by other people at 7-years-old; the main reasons for the “society of exhibitionism”; Plato; Dante Alighieri; Leonardo da Vinci; Gottfried Liebnitz; Werner Heisenberg; Jacques Lacan; Kurt Gödel; some exceptions to the principle of profound intelligence required for genius; work, love, friendship; the correct properties of God; science changing the views of consciousness; personal perspectives on consciousness and the soul; freedom of the will and human nature; test constructors; Kantianism; Rousseauism; economic liberalism; Rawlsian ethics; Spinozan metaphysics; Nietzscheanism; reject solipsism; conscious agents, operators; the numinosum; and love.

Keywords: consciousness, love, Luca Fiorani, meaning, Partigiani, philosophers, soul, virtues.

Conversation with Luca Fiorani on the Partigiani, Virtues, Love, Meaning, Philosophers and Geniuses of Note, and Consciousness and the Soul: First Member, RealIQ Society (2)

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

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As an irregular army force, the Partigiani fighting against both Fascism and Nazism seems most intriguing to me. These stories of “bravery, fortitude, daring,” while ‘giving up is not an option,’ as a maxim, seems to imbue a family narrative with nobility in sentiment. Is this a sensibility found throughout many Italian families with a family history in the Partigiani?

Luca Fiorani[1],[2]*: Yes, I guess. Without Resistance there is no Liberation and without Liberation there’s no Liberty. Freedom is something valuable. Their sacrifice won’t be forgotten. Our current battles – for rights, against ideological systems, etc. – are mainly possible because of their battle, less metaphorical but even more representative. They’re an emblem.

Jacobsen: What are some aspects of personal life in which you have been able to fulfill the maxim and the triplet values of “bravery, fortitude, [and] daring”?

Fiorani: In the context of my psychological growth. I had demons to face and I fought them without quitting. This granted me the chance of living a more than acceptable life, I’d say satisfying – the only flaw/defect remains the lavorative scope: but I’m less than 30, nothing is lost, I still have opportunities, and I intend to take them.

Jacobsen: What does Roman Catholicism mean to a family living in Tuscany and Liguria while ‘embracing Catholicism in a not too rigid way’?

Fiorani: Roman Catholicism is rule, routine, standard for most families in Italy. The promulgated values are important and elevated. You can follow most of them even without being assiduously practicing, in my humble opinion: in fact, this very thing happens repeatedly, with no clamor.

Jacobsen: What was the reason for being a loner “as a child and as an adolescent”?

Fiorani: I don’t possess all the answers, things just happen, several factors I suppose – i.e. my nature/temperament/personality and others’ cognitive and emotive maturity or lack of it, it depends. Not everything is easily classifiable.

Jacobsen: It seems as if a tendency to only pursue friendships if they fell into your lap rather than heading out into the world to find them, consciously. So, why cut off social reality and from “reality often”?

Fiorani: Maybe I suffered more than I like to admit. Escapism is a response to a stimulus.

Jacobsen: What are you studying now?

Fiorani: Philosophy. I’m about to complete the full cycle of studies. I shall obtain my doctor’s degree within July 2021, I’m preparing my graduation thesis. I am a good student, being A+ my average grade at university. I’ve also obtained full marks with honors in high school, appearing in Albo Nazionale delle Eccellenze [National Excellence Honours Roll] as well.

Jacobsen: What comprises the “proper credentials for achieving something non-negligible” in work?

Fiorani: Master’s degree, for instance. Plus, right motivation and befitting forma mentis. I’ll reach a stability, I’m pretty confident about that.

Jacobsen: Do you have a life work, as in a pursuit or passion intended for life?

Fiorani: Certainly.

Jacobsen: Any regrets on the side of competitive aspect with addiction and competition as the mindset?

Fiorani: Yes, I do have regrets. Anancasm is not fine.

Jacobsen: How did this discovery and commentary by other people at 7-years-old change the orientation to education? As peers, based on prior commentary, they seemed a distant non-concern while in rapture with your own thoughts.

Fiorani: The orientation to education… I’ve progressively become aware of my talent in various fields, almost everything which involved theoretical conceptualizing and abstract reasoning – as for my manual dexterity, my skills were almost null then, and are very poor now. Also, my drawing ability is close to zero. It’s a soft sub-kind of dysgraphia – my handwriting, for example, is something horrible.

Back to the point, people considered me a brainiac but rarely in its pejorative meaning, I’ve never been a eager beaver vel similia, and, as for teaching programmes, nothing changed – giftedness is an almost ignored issue in Italy, which implies de facto not taking into account gifted children and possible specific educational programmes. But I wasn’t an underachiever, and I fought boredom in many ways – being also a precocious autodidact.

Jacobsen: What seem like the main reasons for the “society of exhibitionism,” of the creation of Homo vacuus, of ‘the society of spectacle’?

Fiorani: I cannot clarify with abundance of details. I may become encyclopedic, pedantic, verbose. I suggest to read works of Guy Debord, Zygmunt Bauman, Slavoj Žižek, Peter Sloterdijk.

Jacobsen: Looking at the examples, it raises some straightforward questions with Plato, Dante Alighieri, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz, Werner Heisenberg, Jacques Lacan, and Kurt Gödel. What makes Plato a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: Plato has been the first pedagogue of the Western world. He was a formidable writer – his Dialogues are literary masterpieces –, his mind was vast. He conceived so many thoughts and ideas (cf. the famous quote of Alfred North Whitehead on Western philosophy: “a series of footnotes to Plato”, in Process and Reality). Philosophy was already alive and strong – Heraclitus, Parmenides –, but Plato let it shine and rise and expand, both following and overcoming his master Socrates. The latter is very present till the end, though. Not a coincidence that Leo Strauss spoke about zetetic skepticism describing the Socratic attitude of Plato: doubt and research as keystones.

Jacobsen: What makes Dante Alighieri a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: If one has familiarity with the Divine Comedy, it becomes truistic. His poetry is unmatched. Each single verse – of the 14233 of which his masterpiece consists – is not trivial nor easy. Consider as well how much theology was in his work. Dante was able to express things in a way that has never been equaled, I’d say. Take the following lines as a golden example:

«Fede è sustanza di cose sperate
e argomento de le non parventi,
e questa pare a me sua quiditate»

(Paradise, XXIV, 64-66)

faith is the substance of the things we hope for 

and is the evidence of things not seen;

and this I take to be its quiddity

I consider the beauty and depth so amazing that I shall leave to the reader other remarks.

Jacobsen: What makes Leonardo da Vinci a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: He is the most classic and complete example of Homo universalis. He was impressively versatile, the novelty of his ideas is now well-known. His skills were various and immense and his contributions to mankind remarkable.

Jacobsen: What makes Gottfried Liebnitz a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: Another polymath… The mind of Leibniz is similar to The Library of Babel of Jorge Luis Borges. I’d say then, the total mind. High standing logician [cf. identity of indiscernibles, etc.], mathematician [cf. differential and integral calculus and refinement of binary system as notable examples], elegant and ingenious philosopher [cf. Monadology, etc.], prolific inventor [cf. stepped drum and other mechanical calculators]. Some of his intuitions were confirmed more than two centuries after his time. He wrote essays in six languages. His erudition too was something nearly unbelievable.

Jacobsen: What makes Werner Heisenberg a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: He won the Nobel prize in 1932 “for the creation of quantum mechanics”. He really has been a pioneer and key figure in physics. This (r)evolution hasn’t perhaps the same vastness of the ones by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, but we’re not that far.

Jacobsen: What makes Jacques Lacan a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: Lacan just brought psychoanalysis to another level. He has been able to re-read and re-comprehend entirely Sigmund Freud, his mentor. His studies on the language are sublime. He reaches a rate of elaborateness so high that he is often considered obscure or even indecipherable. Difficulty is there, I mean, that’s unquestionable, but his complexity is also epiphany, brainwave and so on. He appears unintelligible, but as well he enlights us about so many phenomena, that I’m inclined to forgive his excess of sophistication.

Jacobsen: What makes Kurt Gödel a good example of a genius?

Fiorani: I believe that he’s the greatest logician ever lived. I’m not excluding Aristoteles and Gottlob Frege, nor Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred Tarski, Saul Kripke and Alan Turing, beware! Gödel’s incompleteness theorems represent a revolution tout court. How we view things – our approach to everything we know, for instance.

The famous Pontius Pilate’s question (cf. John 18:38), Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια; [Greek]/Quid est veritas? [Latin]/What is truth? becomes even more difficult or challenging and intriguing after Gödel.

Jacobsen: What are some exceptions to the principle of profound intelligence required for genius?

Fiorani: In some artistic fields it may happen that one brings a revolution (sort of), without being profoundly intelligent. So, at least to a certain extent this person is genius, in a way. To some degree, yes. Andy Warhol seems fitting.

Jacobsen: In a direct sense, you have spent a significant amount of time in intellectual and alternative test-taking pursuits. Why the obsessions with a reduction in the practical concerns for the manner of an ordinary life, e.g., work, love, friendship, and the like?

Fiorani: Assuming that I haven’t spent time for things like love and friendship, for example, is incorrect. I devoted time also to important things.

Jacobsen: What seem like the correct properties of God, “bidden or not bidden”?

Fiorani: The correct properties? Bonum-Verum-Unum-Pulchrum? Yes, I guess so…

Jacobsen: How is science changing the views of consciousness, the soul, and human nature, even the nature of nature? How do these differ from the past philosophical arguments? How do these not differ from the past philosophical arguments?

Fiorani: Materialistic arguments are winning – in the field of philosophy of mind, which includes consciousness & soul. But that’s not a law, just a trend. Neurosciences are changing a bit how we view human nature, indeed. As for the nature of the nature, I guess that contemporary physics arrives. Quantum field theory, Unified field theories, Standard Model, Cosmology, Higgs boson: Wikipedia might help the reader here.

The other two questions require a very long diachronic analysis. Let’s just say I don’t reply ’cause I’m not able to.

Jacobsen: What are personal perspectives on consciousness and the soul?

Fiorani: A curious and thorough perspective about consciousness is described in: The Matrix (1999), directed by Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski; and Memento (2000), directed by Cristopher Nolan. My ‘personal’ perspective is similar. About soul, I might quote The Seventh Seal (1957), directed by Ingmar Bergman; and Life of Pi (2012), directed by Ang Lee. Why do I cite movies? I don’t know, it has been genuine.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on freedom of the will and human nature?

Fiorani: The verdict of Mahābhārata is a thought of mine: “The knot of Destiny cannot be untied; nothing in this world is the result of our acts”. Please cf. also Dark, the famous German TV series, which debuted in 2017. The ambition and complexity of its narrative deserves our praise. My hasty prose does not deserve praise, instead. Speech is silver, silence is golden – never mind.

Jacobsen: Those test constructors: Theodosis Prousalis, Xavier Jouve, Ron Hoeflin, Jonathan Wai, James Dorsey, Iakovos Koukas, Nick Soulios; they are well-known within the high-range testing community.  Whose tests seem the most g-loaded tests, whether numerically, spatially, or verbally, or some admixture of them?

Fiorani: It depends. The (good) verbal ones might be the most g-loaded.

Jacobsen: Why Kantianism as the ethical philosophy?

Fiorani: Because there is less heteronomy but not less universality.

Jacobsen: Why Rousseauism as the social philosophy?

Fiorani: His Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are fascinating. You need to understand the impact of civil society on people – and nature of people – in order to overcome social injustices. Otherwise you won’t go anywhere. I don’t concur with everything he said, for example about private property as original source of all inequality, but I like his method – Rousseau has been a pioneer too.

Jacobsen: Why economic liberalism as the operating system for an economy?

Fiorani: Because that system is the one that, in Wirklichkeit, in factual reality, works the most. In concreto. There are better systems in abstracto, i.e. ideally. But history proves that they don’t work with a similar efficiency for a relevant amount of time.

Jacobsen: What parts of Rawlsian ethics most definitively sets forth an ethical vision of a political system?

Fiorani: Advantaging the underprivileged is one of the main ideas of Rawls. That’s the most important point. How he applies this principle is explained updating some instances of Kantian philosophy. He also uses a variant of the social contract theory (a reinterpretation of Jusnaturalism).

Jacobsen: Why does Spinozan metaphysics (philosophy) as demarcated by Hegel help thinking about things outside of the physical?

Fiorani: There’s a third level of knowledge, the first being by perception and the second by reason. The third kind is amor Dei intellectualis – you may call it intuitive. The second kind of knowledge is OK for the physical, but it’s not enough. To comprehend reality in all its aspects, metaphysics is necessary, thus the third level of knowledge. Spinoza describes these things in the most solid philosophical system I know. That’s all.

Jacobsen: Why does Nietzscheanism provide a comprehensive system of thinking for you?

Fiorani: Thus Spoke Zarathustra… Almost everything is there. A Book for All and None. Explanation concluded.

Jacobsen: Why reject solipsism as in the intersubjectivity of meaning?

Fiorani: Human being is φύσει πολιτικὸν ζῷον (by nature, social animal) and our mind is, Bereshit, in principle/in beginning, relational. Solipsism is wrong, sic et simpliciter.

Jacobsen: With meaning externally and internally derived synchronously, what does this state about a universe or an area in the universe without conscious agents, operators?

Fiorani: There is an universe/area if there are conscious agents.

Jacobsen: With the “ineffable sacred mystery” of the numinosum, what does this mean for the process of discovery of science and the human activity of organizing the findings into theoretical constructs, organizing principles?

Fiorani: Nothing. That process – consisting of: discovery, theoretical constructs, organizing them, etc. – continues and works.

Jacobsen: As love is the “most marvelous sentiment that we have,” what is a life without love?

Fiorani: Life without love would be an error.

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.