Bookpleasures.com isdelighted to welcome Franck Jourdain to Bookpleasures.com.

?Born in Grenoble in 1962, Franck Jourdain, a former chief information security officer ofa major French corporate group, now dedicates himself to exploringprofound reflections on life, being, and the human condition.

Deeply influenced byencounters with ecclesiastical thought and guided by thinkers such asRené Girard, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Emmanuel Lévinas, hiswork bridges philosophy, theology, science, and social analysis.

In our upcomingconversation, we will delve into his newly expanded essay titledSinapi Seed.

This impressive workoffers a fresh reinterpretation of the Genesis creation story,inviting readers to reconsider traditional notions of value, desire,and the complexities of human relationships. 

Through histhought-provoking analysis, he advocates for a transformativesocietal paradigm that prioritizes reciprocity and the spirit ofgiving, challenging us to rethink how we interact with one anotherand the world around us.

?Norm: Good day, Franck,and thanks for taking part in our interview.

Could you please share theinspiration behind the title Sinapi Seed and its significance?

Franck: Good day, Norm,

Thank you for thisinterview, which allows me to present this work.

First, I would like to laythe ontological foundations of this reflection, without which thepresented essay cannot be understood, especially in its religiousdimension: Our finitude is the seat of interpretation of theinformation we receive. 

Thus, we can know that the world is not whatwe perceive it to be; the very nature of things is objectivelyunattainable. We can only understand that we are dealing with a pieceof information that, intrinsically and ultimately, remains a mysteryand will remain a mystery. 

So the existing world is immersed ininformation that transcends us.

Regarding the title,“Sinapi Seed” is the translation of “Grain de Sinapi,” thetitle of the original French work. “Sinapi” is a Greek term inthe Bible that denotes a plant in the family Brassicaceae, translatedinto English as “senevey.” 

Sinapi was presumably the blackmustard plant with revulsive properties. This plant, which grows froma tiny seed, conveys the symbolism of incredible growth or incredibleeffect of a phenomenon that was negligeable at the outset (cf. Marc4: 30-32). 

It's therefore a whole symbolism for the book itself.

?Norm: Youreinterpret the Genesis account of the Fall as the introduction of a"regime of value" into human relations—could you explainhow this differs from traditional theological interpretations, andhow you came to see value itself as the root of suffering?

As a follow-up, what wouldyou say to readers who claim that your interpretation couldoversimplify the complexities of human relationships and themultiplicity of factors that contribute to suffering?

Franck: It is important toremember first that Genesis is a symbolic and parabolic narrative. Inthe story of the “Fall,” traditional exegesis symbolicallypresents Adam as the figure of our most distant ancestor. 

Still, theman who has always existed, thus placing the message of this story ona level relevant to all humanity. However, traditional exegesisfocuses solely on man's disobedience to the Creator's warning. 

Thisdisobedience, which consists of attempting to become God (“you willbe like gods”) without God.

Genesis 3:1-24 is indeedthe account of a transgression, but also deals with a singularphenomenon (the serpent) and a particular object of desire (the treeof the knowledge of good and evil). 

“Becoming like Gods” issolely the consequence presented by the Tempter (the serpent). Evilis thus reduced exclusively to the desire to be God or to become Godby oneself. According to traditional exegesis, the Tempter and theobject of desire remain somewhat enigmatic. 

This is all the morecurious since the knowledge of good and evil, as an immediateconsequence of the act, needs to be clarified, because the humancouple is already necessarily able to understand the interdictionaddressed to them by the Creator, and therefore sensitive to moralvalues, if not, then the interdiction and, even more so, the dialogueabout temptation would make no sense, and neither would the notion offault. 

Thus, the knowledge of good and evil does not concern theaxiological aspect of value. 

With this aspect set aside, the idea ofvalue, represented by the forbidden fruit, must ultimately beconsidered in its purely comparative acceptation, in its hierarchicalfunction, in the dynamics of relative differences and subjectivequality that “pit” things against each other, beings against eachother, according to a purely mental process that subjectively putsthem into relation. Isn't this a significant aspect of our economies?

I would not say that the“regime” of value mentioned here is the direct source ofsuffering, but it leads to behaviors and situations that contributeto suffering and its factors. Indeed, as you point out, the causes ofsuffering, in our context, are multiple and not necessarily, at firstglance, related to the exercise of value; 

However, we cannot say thatthe new man and the new society that would emerge from behaviorsfreed from this “regime” would ultimately face the same pitfalls. 

Today, there are many adverse side effects linked to the multipleimbalances caused by this “regime” of value, at the personal,societal, and natural levels. 

The “regime” of value alsocomplicates human relationships because it is conflictual. Theindividual primarily brings the world back to himself, in a certainway to the detriment of others, under constraints that must always belifted, under the yoke of desires exacerbated precisely by the“regime” of value. 

The behaviors, rules, and laws governing theseconflict situations become increasingly complex over time, eventuallylosing the justification that initially supported them.

Norm: In Sinapi Seed, youdescribe the Absolute as an informational "Space" that isnegentropic and atemporal—how did you arrive at this conception,and how does it reconcile with classical religious understandings ofGod?

?Franck: This conception ispure logic, which the very Being of the Absolute compels us to,although we cannot reach its level. 

The Absolute can only be definedas omnipotent, omniscient, and must integrate all concepts. Itscompleteness precludes any evolution; its essence, therefore,presents itself in a state of maximum organization, and time isultimately and only proper to finitude (finitude that necessarilyoperates within a field of information that surpasses it).

I use the term“Informational Space” because information precedes beinginformation in the sense of its definition). Since the world is, itmeans, of course, that it potentially was possible. 

Everything isthus defined by a concept detached from the thing itself. The “space”described as informational is the field of expression for all ideasand definitions; in a way, it is like a “place” of intention, theseat of all potentialities.

For many religions, theAbsolute is simply unknowable by its very nature. It is a dogmaticposition that often prohibits research or hypotheses about it (see,for example, the censorship Pierre Teilhard de Chardin faced).

Norm: You draw on RenéGirard's mimetic theory to frame your argument—what aspects ofGirard's thought were most influential for you, and where do you feelyour work diverges from his?

?Franck: René Girardteaches us that desire is mimetic. It is because an object is desiredor can be desired) by another that we desire it; there is noautonomy of the desire, which is expressed according to an identifiedor supposed third party. 

Desire is constructed along a triangularconfiguration: the subject that desires, the desired object, a thirdparty that qualifies (assigns value to) the object, often designatedas “model” or, according to René Girard, as the “mediator.” 

The mediator can also be “virtual” (imagined) or remembered (ahistorical person, a geographically distant person, etc.). Thephenomenon is circular; this aspect will be taken up by RenéGirard's detractors, on the pretext that there must be a firstdesiring party… otherwise, we would have to consider an impossibleregression. However, this objection pretends to ignore that the thirdparty can be imagined as having a potential interest in the object asa corollary; the triangular configuration of desire already arises inthis projection, which could be unconscious.

It is from this situationthat another aspect of the process is revealed, further justifyingdesire beyond the mere dynamics of mimicry (without, however, callinginto question its triangular configuration), a point René Girarddoes not mention.

The object has nointrinsic value, but only presents an interest proportional to the“supplement” of being that it confers (or can confer) on theperson who possesses it (or could possess it). 

This is how,subjectively, this object acquires value. And it is precisely thissame “supplement” of being (real or imagined) that we then seekto obtain through the object. 

Finally, in a bijective manner, thenotion of value is always correlative to a “supplement” of beingfrom a third party that we desire for ourselves.

The mirror effect ofdesire follows the mirror effect of value. René Girard does nothighlight this phenomenon, although he notes that the value of theobject increases as the intensity of the manifested desires grows. 

Itis, in fact, the notion of value that, in the end, supports andmaintains the effective circularity of the phenomenon described asmimicry (even if initially, there may only be pure mimicry – see onthis point the effects of mirror neurons).

All this remainsconsistent with the Girardian scheme, but founds the mimicry ofdesire beyond the mere “stereophony” of gestures or behaviors, inthe tendency humans have to attribute to the things and beings theypossess, and which then differentiate them from others, the abilityto push back their finitude (their temporality), thus objectivelyobtaining this supplement of being which must fill their existentialanguish and in which the subjective value of things is born.

It is always from thissearch for a “supplement” of being (which is intrinsicallyconstituted in relation to others) that this whole dynamic develops;hence René Girard's correct conclusion that each person's desire isbuilt on the desires of others, yet is nevertheless rooted in adeeper problem.

The story of the Fallincorporates all the elements developed here: the human couple whodesire the immortality specific to God. The “supplement” of beingsought by Eve's desire is here at its peak, and the means (object) ofachieving it: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

Thesymbolism of the tree is a fusion here, since the tree is both thefirst object of desire and the process of attributing subjectivevalue to objects, to the world.

Norm: You argue that the"tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolizes theregime of value—how does this symbolism reshape our understandingof the Fall, and what implications does it have for modern society?

?Franck: It should be notedthat the narrative itself guides us toward this association. Genesis3 clarifies, through Eve's remarks, that the forbidden fruit enablesdiscernment. 

This information confirms what has already beendeveloped regarding the concept of good and evil. To discern impliesmeasuring, evaluating. It is to perceive, to draw out a thing fromthe world, either according to its nature or according to a value viajudgment.

The “regime” of valueaccompanies our phylogeny and is embedded in the slow evolution ofhominization and culture, in this slow process by which man gains hisfreedom and a specific awareness from the instinct he loses.

The “Fall” is not aone-off, historic event, but a slow and silent drift. 

The symbolismof the serpent (the tempter) takes on its full relevance here; theserpent is quiet, is the most cunning of the animals, and moves byslithering along the ground, the regime of value slowly anddiscreetly intrudes into the daily life of evolving man, at the sametime as he becomes aware of his finitude and death becomes for him asource of anguish and reflection. 

Thus, according to the story ofGenesis, man then aspires only to avert this end. It is followingthis existential crisis that he assigns to things, through hisdesires, the task of postponing his temporality, and this anguishaccording to a projection of subjective value.

This scenario has twoconsequences for our relationship to the Fall: there is noculpability (historical or present) on the part of man in exhibitingthis behavior, given his ignorance of these aspects, and if,  despiteeverything, the account in Genesis 3 warns us of a fault, then itmust be because that fault has not yet happened… it is only in thelight shed on this experience, at the paroxysm of its side effectswe can say the majority of the problems already experienced by oursocieties today), that man, placed in full consciousness in front ofthis evil, will have to choose to modify this situation,  warnedby Scripture of the consequences of his choice, and from then on,fully and definitively responsible. Faced with the current situationon our planet, we must shift our paradigm in human relationships. 

There are no new recipes possible with the same ingredients. Thewarning given to Adam does not, of course, concern his natural deathand ours individually), nor indeed spiritual death, but ultimatelythe extinction of humanity.

?Norm: You describecreation as a "phase transition" of the Absolute, akin toTsimtsum in Kabbalistic thought—could you elaborate on how thismetaphor helps us understand the emergence of finite beings, and whyyou chose this particular lens?

?Franck: First andforemost, we must have a coherent and logical vision of the world andof ourselves to give meaning to our presence and to act as asafeguard against senselessness. 

Life can only have meaning if ourresponsibility to others transcends our physical existence. Thisrequirement, therefore, demands that the mind that drives us bepermanent, and given that this situation is beyond our control, ourmind can only be part of a Unity that transcends it. 

This dispositionmust still be able to be combined with the elements of our knowledge,at least so that what we can understand of this Unity is logical (andnot dogmatic), to allow a coherence with this knowledge in a processof becoming, if it is not already there.

It is from this necessitythat the proposed descriptions of creation and the Absolute arise.

We have already introducedthe notion of informational “Space,” the “Space” of concepts,the “Space” of the potentiality of all things to evoke theSpirit, the Absolute. Since the physical space of our presence, thespace of Creation, is first and foremost the result of arepresentation of the information we receive about it, the term spacecan cover the place of a phenomenon that is both conceptual andphysical, without us being able to appreciate its nature and itsorigin truly.

As already mentioned, theAbsolute, in its completeness, cannot produce anything in the verystate of its essence, the "place" of all potentialities;every concept, every thing, and relation being already includedwithin it. 

The act of creation nevertheless requires that the uniquespace of Unity be the seat of differentiation, therefore that thisspace becomes the locus of a distance conducive to the expression ofotherness. This distance can then only result from a local“fragmentation,” a discrete phenomenon of “withdrawals”“local curvatures” that are detached and closed in uponthemselves) of this original “Space.” 

It is this dynamic thatallows for an approach, a different expression of this “Space” ofthe Absolute, thereby conferring upon the (infinite) “ensemble”of the “parts” thus generated the means of expressing theoriginal Unity differently. It is a change in the level oforganization, or a phase transition of this space.

This vision is very closeindeed to Tsimtsum in Kabbalistic thought.

At the origin of our levelof information, at the origin of the elementary phenomena thatconstitute our Universe, the original (informational) “Space,” ina process of “introversion,” is “divided,” like a“fractalization” of this “Space,” and “curves” (upon)itself ad infinitum, at all “points” of its “division.”

The “division,” the“withdrawal,” and the “contraction” of these “dividedparts” all the way to “singularity” allow a “void” toappear that itself will enable these “parts”—which are producedby the withdrawal into itself of the “Space” that constitutesthem—to break free: Tsimtsum... Now the elementary “physical”singularities (particles) at the source of “matter” aredistinguished (without limiting this phenomenon to solely thesingularities that are given to us to know), thus, for science, the“quantum foam” of Planck’s era and, for Judeo-Christianthought, the Tohu-wa-bohu of the Bible.

The Absolute, the Spiritmakes Itself known in an informational dynamic that produces theinformation about the differentiated elementary event (the elementaryparticle—our reality), endowed with relational properties that,through reorganization, allow for the actualization of the morecomplex informational systems inherent to our level of existence,thereby providing an exteriority to the Unity from within Itself.  Weperceive the manifestation of the elementary particle (theinformational phenomenon) as “matter;” the essence of itsemergence is Spirit.

?Norm: The regime of value,as you describe it, leads to commodification and alienation—how doyou see this playing out in contemporary economic systems, and do youbelieve modern capitalism embodies this regime most clearly?

?Franck: First, I will becategorical. The “conjugation” of the value of beings and thingsengenders our model of society. 

The “regime” of value alwaysleads to this place; it is inevitable. In the slow evolution of humanculture, from the denatured gift (calculated, assigned value throughprotocols) all the way to capital (with its fetishism for the unit ofvalue: currency, stock market indices, etc.), passing by way ofbartering, it is only a matter of time. Modern capitalism mostclearly embodies this “regime.” 

Still, it must be understood thatany (new) system of exchange that implements a unit of account toregulate its activities (whether this unit be physical: currency,token, object, or logical: time) always allows for subjectivelyqualifying things and thereby arbitrarily ascribing value to them,then it's just a matter of sophistication over time. The root of theevil remains.

The “regime” of value,with its intrinsic greed and competitive processes, sacrifices at thealtar of profit, in ever shorter cycles, everything that opposes itsgrowth (ecology, respecting biodiversity, human health, etc.). 

The“regime” of value infiltrates human activity to the point ofcorrupting ethics (the commodification of life —medicine, genetics,personal services, the exploitation of human weaknesses, etc. —and,finally, the very capacities of humans—transhumanism—becomesources of profit and are developed for that purpose).

 Humanrelations are trapped, shackled by this same process: to gain (themarket) or lose (the market), to innovate and produce at all costs,to satisfy the principle to make a living from it or be reduced toabject poverty and starvation…, and all this, in a more and morefrantic rush produced by the competition brought on by the necessityof having, first of all, this very value at our disposal, value beingthe only guarantee required for subsistence in this “regime.”

Here, we can understand the currently observed acceleration of allhuman processes: innovation, production, profitability, etc., and theso-called need for growth.

?Norm: You emphasize thatgiving, free from goals or subsumptions, is the antidote to theregime of value—highlighting its potential to inspire hope andempower societies to shift toward reciprocity and genuine connection.

?Franck: Yes.

The regime of valuecorrupts desire and produces the immeasurable violence thatcharacterizes human societies.

The only way to eliminatethe violence of mimetic desire is to make it so that the Other, mycontemporary (the mediator), is no longer the obstacle barring accessto the world (to the objects from which he holds or might hold,according to a personal projection, his supplement of being), butrather that he is the condition for this access; namely that thesought-after supplement of being is not so much in the objects as inthe relation to the Other who designates me and gives me theseobjects, or through whom I can obtain them. 

It is in the dependenceon the Other that distance (a condition of the relation) is formedand maintained. It is in the reliance on the Other that, on the onehand, the elimination of what opposes us inevitably is found, andthat, on the other hand, the sought-after completeness can beobtained. It is in the reciprocity of this dependence, where each oneis contributing to the accomplishment of the Other, that fusion isalso born—in other words, the crucible where the needs expressed bysome motivate the desire in others to realize these needs. 

It is inthis communion, brought about by relation, that the sought-aftersupplement of being definitively resides. However, for thissupplement to be definitively detached from the object and no longercarried by it, it is necessary to “confiscate” the object'ssubjective value in favor of its sole objective (functional) value,thereby ultimately prioritizing needs. 

There are no other solutionsother than to always reset this subjective value to zero, which meansthat we must no longer maintain an external, subjective referenceframe and that we must refuse to model, synthesize, or fix this valuebased on an autonomous backing (currency or unit/medium of exchange)and that we must also eliminate the scale of arbitrary hierarchiesbetween things.

It is here, in thissituation devoid of assigned value between things, a situationextended to human beings to avoid ultimately maintaining a scale ofvalue between men (which this “regime” of value has always donethrough a hierarchized compensation)—namely a situation where arelation of giving goods and services is instituted— that oursocieties and the world can be sustainable.

Within this context, therelation to others is always privileged, and the reciprocity of thissituation offers the world to each person in an unhoped-for way. Thesupplement of being is multiplied by the infinite potentiality ofrelations that open up and, at the same time, are in a position tofulfill needs that might extend beyond what is “reasonable.” 

Inthis level of relation, the Other, as a relay of access to the worldno longer an obstacle this time), abolishes the subjective value ofthe world, and the lost Transcendence (or instead never attained) canthen finally reveal itself.

In a certain way, thedesire to appropriate things is also extinguished in the infiniteavailability of things, and this is where desire can move,henceforward seeking a better sense of being through doing (creation,perfection, esthetic, relation), which means ultimately through Beingrather than Having.

?Norm: Your book advocatesa new social paradigm based on objective value—what might this looklike in daily life, and how could it transform institutions such aseducation, politics, and economics to address today's societalissues?

?Franck: By objectivevalue, we mean considering things in relation to each other solelyaccording to their functional interest, retaining only the importanceof things based on their obligatory participation in the functioningof the world, whatever this participation might be, therefore withouthierarchical consideration 

The challenge is to eliminate the power ofsubjective value that corrupts desire, that arbitrarily hierarchizesthe world, living beings, humans (all things material andimmaterial), that inexorably “precipitates” for its own success,and that distorts our relation to the Other, to the world, to theAbsolute. This entails removing any medium of regulation or unit ofaccount (money, time) for accounting purposes in human exchanges.

It ultimately meansestablishing a gift economy, relationships without measuredcompensation, commitments without fiduciary rewards, which brings usback to the previous question.

The modalities and detailsof this new framework for human relations are certainly still to beinvented. Still, we can nevertheless already identify some keyprinciples that characterize and govern this new social contract. 

Themeaning of life and ensuring its sustainability must be at theforefront of human concerns; in other words, guaranteeing thefulfillment that every human being expects today and tomorrow. Thenew world we envision must, of course, prioritize these objectives.

This new situation firstand foremost entails a constantly evaluated personal responsibilityand the development of human activity governed by the principle ofprecaution raised to the rank of a categorical imperative.

It is a world that is nolonger limited by costs but which must, of course, be sustainable,through reasoned, reasonable behavior, and therefore throughsustainable consumption and development. 

The free provision of goodsand services frees up the highest functions of this environment:research, care to the person, the primary activity of recycling (ifconsumption may be limited here, depending on resources, theseresources are also offset by the ever-optimized recycling - nowwithout cost - of this consumption).

It is a world wherefreedom is given (based on unprecedented personal responsibility) andnot something to be earned. True freedom is not trying to appropriateor “earn” the world to experience it (to the detriment of others,within constraints that are constantly needing to be lifted),  butrather being able to limit reasonably, on one’s own, one’sconsumption of a given world.

These few aspects alreadymake us aware of the urgent need to prioritize ethics, to require itof ourselves, and to take responsibility for the balance of others ineducation.

?Norm: You referencethinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin, Lévinas, and Hans Jonas—howdid their ideas shape your reflections, and which of them do you feelmost closely aligns with your vision in Sinapi Seed?

?Franck: Each of thesephilosophers always aims for something greater for humanity, forsociety, for our living environment. There is always an effort, eachin their own field of thought, to bring meaning that respectshumanity and the world.

I don't think that, withinthis work, any one of these thinkers is more critical than theothers, even if they are not cited with the same frequency. They arecomplementary; each influencing the discussion according to itsfield, either formally or simply in terms of substance:

Teilhard's vision, inwhich Matter and Spirit are two sides of the same reality, isdizzying; 

The questions of the Other and freedom in Levinasian ethicsare indispensable for conceiving of giving as both the fulfillment ofthe other and of oneself in reciprocity, in accordance with theresponsibility that these questions call for; finally, Hans Jonas andthe question of our primary responsibility in the exploitation of theworld should allow us to understand that there can ultimately be noplace for competitive economies, based on the “regime” of value,which necessarily objectify profit above all.

Each of these thoughtsentails an infinite responsibility for ourselves towards the world,towards others, and therefore ultimately a circular responsibility.This situation is the point of balance for living together.

?Norm: You argue that theregime of value distorts human mimicry and leads to rivalry—howdoes this insight help us understand current social conflicts, and doyou see parallels in today's political polarization?

?Franck: We have alreadydiscussed how the "regime" of value supplants the mimesisof learning (natural and peaceful—see mirror neurons) with themimesis of appropriation (conflictual) following the fact ofattributing a subjective value to things in the world and whatmotivates this approach.

While our societies andcultures have been shaped by regulating the violent effects ofmimetic desires, current social conflicts are increasingly based lesson desire and more on need—the need for individuals to live withdignity. Another aspect of the "regime" of value, besidespolluting our relationship to the world, interferes in humanrelations. Value has an intrinsic tendency to concentrate; it isinsatiable and ultimately serves only a few (individuals, companies,or societies), depriving others beyond a tolerable limit, therebydepriving them of dignity. Migration flows, in particular, which areat the heart of current political polarization debates, are one suchconsequence.

It should be noted thathistorical societies were able to overcome the violence of theircrises through consensus (reconciliation) on the exclusion of victimswho were then blamed for all the ills of the community (scapegoats,pharmacology, genocide, etc.). Today, crises are internationalidentity crisis, value crisis, widespread, fierce competition), andall human organizations are affected, including nations themselves. 

The disagreements are widespread, and there are only opposing sideseven if they appear civilized). The political forces at play canonly become polarized. 

This increasingly evident politicalpolarization also reflects the latest efforts of the “regime” ofvalue to maintain itself through old methods, a radicalizationsynonymous with exclusion...

The “system” hasreached its limits, and this polarization can only intensify withunprecedented virulence.

?Norm: Where can ourreaders learn more about you and  Sinapi Seed?

?Franck: The website of thepublishing house "Grain de Sinapi S.A.S." presents the bookand its author.

Norm: As we end ourinterview, your expanded editions in both French and English suggestthat your thought is continually evolving—what new directions areyou exploring now, and how do you envision Sinapi Seed contributingto future debates on philosophy, theology, and society? What wouldyou say to critics who claim that literature cannot significantlyinfluence societal debates in today’s fast-paced digital world?

?Franck: There is oneparticular point that emerges from the subject we have just discussedand which needs to be developed: how to think about the transitionbetween our world and the one called for in this work? How should weconceive the gratuity? In what form? 

In its absolute form, in theform of an unconditional universal income for all, what compensationsand guarantees are necessary? What processes and steps are needed toachieve this? 

These questions are all the more urgent given that the“regime” of value now places us in situations that areincreasingly conducive to our demise... Unless, under the pressure ofdisasters (of horror?), humanity finally decides to combine what ithas always considered a utopia.

Given this situation,“Sinapi Seed” presents itself primarily as a warning beforesparking debate, even if it redefines specific anthropologicalknowledges. Thus, like any warning, this reflection will only proverelevant when tested by the facts, even if its analysis issurprising.

Moreover, literaturealone) cannot significantly influence social debates to the extentof changing society. And it depends, of course, on the subjectmatter—Hans Jonas and René Girard did not change the world. Theremust be at least one other factor that compels us to consider thisliterature beyond its relevance.

Before considering a textand what it implies, there is always a stakes/costs analysis (the"regime" of value requires it). In the case of obviouseconomic benefits, the question of change remains open. 

Otherwise, anemergency factor (a significant risk to life, to public health, or inour society, a financial loss) is needed to put (back) thisliterature to the forefront. This depends on the probability (whichis relative, since it is never zero, as it is assessed) that theissue addressed in the text will occur, and on the certainty that thefinal cost of the course of action to be taken outweighs theshort-term benefit of not changing anything.

“Sinapi Seed” bringsto light a text that is probably more than three thousand years old,linking its tragedy to the human condition today. 

The interpretationof the consumption of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil asthe act of subjectively assigning value to the world provedsurprising in the light of other passages of the Bible and theconditions of our evolution, and, finally, of our situation today.

There is an ethicalresponsibility to share one's experience. “Sinapi Seed”participates in this duty.

“From now on, man ismuch closer to Adam than Homo habilis ever was.

Norm: Thank you once again and good luck with all of your future endeavors