Skip to content

An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight)

July 8, 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 23.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (Part Nineteen)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2020

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 4,738

ISSN 2369-6885

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: real; unreal; a proof; an evidence; distinguishing between moral, natural, and metaphysical philosophy; ideal reality; is the universe intelligible; the intelligibility of the universe an argument for or against a god; Socrates considered the wisest man; many great thinkers convicted, persecuted, or killed; Giordano Bruno killed; the Golden Age of Islam with the Caliphate decline and fall; Constantine; Christ’s message; the transcendental image of various religious figures; the scientific method; philosophy; Indian philosophy; East Asian philosophy; Indigenous American philosophy; Middle Eastern philosophy; Western philosophy; African philosophy; history of philosophical ideas; classical logic; syllogistic logic; modal logic; predicate logic; propositional logic; dialectic; formal reasoning and informal reasoning; mathematical logic; philosophical logic and computational logic; a non-computational logic; non-classical logics; the human mind; abductive/retroductive logic; a metaphorical inference and a literal inference; the mind; the profoundly intelligent; a logic; fundamentally impossible; fundamentally possible; the limits on the possible; love; what gods are not possible, are impossible; some basic categories of the possible; the metrics of plausibility of a god; the qualities of the categories of the possible and the plausible; interrelationships of the categories; some examples of the various categories stretched to their utmost limit; delimit the possible gods to the most plausible gods on offer in the religions of the world; the most plausible proposed by these scientists, philosophers, painters, composers, and the like; and top five gods.

Keywords: Christian Sorensen, gods, logics, metaphysics, philosophy.

An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight)[1],[2]*

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

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is real?

Christian Sorenson: Everything “that is being,” that is to say, everything “that has existence.”

2. Jacobsen: What is unreal?

Sorensen: Everything that “has no” possibility “to become,” or that does “not yet exist.”

3. Jacobsen: What is a proof?

Sorensen: It is the “obligation” that a certain “thing,” has to provide “sufficient justification,” with respect to “itself.”

4. Jacobsen: What is an evidence?

Sorensen: It is the “content” of a “knowledge,” of which it is possible to affirm with “certainty” of its “validity,” since it is “indisputably” manifested, and therefore does not admit “further discussion.”

5. Jacobsen: Why the distinguishing between moral, natural, and metaphysical philosophy?

Sorensen: Because they are “degrees” of increasing “levels and dimensions,” within the philosophy, in this way the “moral” refers to the “assessment” of behaviors anthropologically speaking, which is a part of “nature,” and “metaphysics” in turn, is a “remaining distinction,” and therefore refers to everything that’s “extra-natural.”

6. Jacobsen: If we have an ideal reality, and if we derive from the ideal reality as some delimit, we have individual purposes if we self-actualize to some degree. Real and non-survival-based purposes intelligible and important to the individual. We can reverse the logic of this: From the individual derived from the ideal reality who has an individual purpose as a reflection of this more absolute reality, the reflection, the reflected individual as such, should imply the idea of agency or purpose reflected, in part as it is partial in the individual reflection, in the ideal reality. Does this ideal reality have a purpose? If so, how? If not, why not? What is the trajectory or directionality of the purpose of the ideal reality’s reflections, where the ideal reality exists a-temporally and, thus, has a purpose insofar as it would have a crystallized, dare I say eternal and unchanging, purpose?

Sorensen: There is “no continuity” between “ideal reality” and “individual reality,” since they are realities that belong to two completely “different dimensions,” and therefore it is “not possible” to refer to them, in a “comparative” and “analogical” manner, nor even in a “participatory” way. “Purpose” is the “outcome” of an “intellectual operation” that “is a reflection,” and which in turn is “a property” of temporal, material, and individual reality. The “ideal reality,” does not have “this property,” as well as it “does not have any other,” since all the properties, operations and possible results derived from it, are circumscribed in the “dimension of having,” which it is in itself “an imperfection,” and because “this reality” is supposedly “perfect,” then strictly speaking “it does have nothing.” Furthermore, “reflection” and therefore the “purpose” derived from it, “are secondarily” an imperfection in an “intellectual” sense, due to the fact that they are what I will name as “of procedural” nature, for supposing a “process of thought” or “reasoning.” In consequence, regarding the “ideal reality,” it can be affirmed that it is what I will denominate as “pure intelligence,” which ultimately means that it is “not actualisable,” since the “movement” is not present within it.

7. Jacobsen: Why is the universe intelligible?

Sorensen: Because “intelligence” is “universal.”

8. Jacobsen: Is the intelligibility of the universe an argument for or against a god?

Sorensen: Sometimes I feel that “god is absurd,” so in that sense it would not be an argument in favor of a god.

9. Jacobsen: Why was Socrates considered the wisest man?

Sorensen: Since “Socrates” accomplished to “distinguish” and “separate” the “knowledge” from “truth,” in the sense of attributing “a content” to the first, and placing the second as “an ideal” of the being, at the same time that was able “to relativize” the concept of “certainty.”

10. Jacobsen: Why are many great thinkers convicted, persecuted, or killed?

Sorensen: Because the “great thinkers,” when denouncing the “error disguised as truth,” are seen “as sub-versives” since they “sub-vert” the order in the states of things, because “a change” is demanded regarding it, and this causes that “control mechanisms” lose their effectiveness, and therefore the “growth of autonomy” as an outcome, is seen as something “chaotic and bad.”

11. Jacobsen: Why was Giordano Bruno killed?

Sorensen: “Giordano Bruno,” was accused of “heresy,” by the “Catholic Inquisition,” and sentenced to death. He proposed a “cosmological theory,” which sustains that “the universe,” would be made up of an “infinite number of worlds,” and “theologically” proposed a particular form of “pantheism.”

12. Jacobsen: Why did the Golden Age of Islam with the Caliphate decline and fall?

Sorensen: The “Golden Age” of Islam or “Islamic Rebirth,” declined after the “Mongolian invasion” devastated the “Arab world” to such an extent, that “Arab science” could never regain its “former splendor.”

13. Jacobsen: Why did Constantine co-opt Christian for imperial and oppressor-dominator purposes?

Sorensen: Constantine used them to “gain political support,” especially in the “eastern territories,” where he aspired to become emperor of the east and also because he desired to reunify the empire.

14. Jacobsen: How has Christ’s message been diluted over time, even by the most gentle and well-meaning of ordinary, hardworking, and decent people?

Sorensen: The original message “of Christ,” was “revolutionary and idealistic,” because it was addressed to “the poor,” and since it aimed “to correct” the defects of the “Jewish religion,” especially in the sense of making it more “inclusive or universal,” and “libertarian.” However, over time, it has been “bad used” as an “exchange currency,” that is at the service of the “political and economic” powers, “to exploit” the poorest and the spiritually underprivileged.

15. Jacobsen: What is a human being?

Sorensen: It is a “rational substance” in a “material body.”

16. Jacobsen: How does this definition differ from the transcendental image of various religious figures?

Sorensen: In the sense that it “has not” been “created” by anyone, and “even less” has some kind of “divine breath.”

17. Jacobsen: How has the scientific method evolved over time and come out of the philosophical traditions as an extant branch of philosophy? That is, Newton, Witten, and Einstein all did/do a form of philosophy.

Sorensen: Rather I believe, that the “scientific method,” is a “branch of another trunk,” therefore I do not think that it has evolved from philosophy. The fact that there is an “historical contingency” between the appearance of the particular sciences, their method and philosophy, “does not” necessarily implies, that there is a “gnoseological” unity and evolution between them. Similarly, the “kind of philosophy” that these scientists and others have attempted to do, “is quite poor” with respect to their “epistemological foundations.”

18. Jacobsen: When should individuals be skeptical of the claims in philosophy now? Things simply untenable within the philosophical canon – once respectful, now scorned.

Sorensen: The fact of sustaining, that what “philosophy” previously said about “science,” was “respected” before, but “no longer,” and to maintain that what it can now says, is “unacceptable,” implies a “significant problem,” since this shows a “mental confusion,” because “two things” are taken as if they were “identical,” when actually they “are different,” and also exhibits “a pre-judice” due to “doctoral ignorance” or in same cases because of “resounding ignorance.” Therefore, it must be noticed, that “empirical” or “particular science” is completely different from “philosophical science” regarding its nature, method, and results. On the other hand, there is an “epistemological” area, that since it is common to both types “of sciences,” consequently allows “philosophy,” to pronounce on current “science.” Nevertheless, the same can not be said, in relation to the “methodological or empirical” assessment of scientific knowledge, since if in this area “philosophy” were to pronounce in some sense, it would be regardless of any context, something “unacceptable.”

19. Jacobsen: What defines Indian philosophy?

Sorensen: Known also as “darsan philosophy,” represents “an integration” of “philosophical traditions” and “religious doctrines,” typical of that region which includes concepts such as dharma, karma and samsara.

20. Jacobsen: What defines East Asian philosophy?

Sorensen: It is a “philosophy,” that starts from a “religious assumption,” which considers that all “natural phenomena” are a response to the “sins committed” by the “human being.” It “integrates three orientations”: that of Lao Tse, Confucius and Buddhism, which respectively emphasize virtue and harmony with the universe, the relationships between human beings, and self-knowledge regarding one’s own and internal god.

21. Jacobsen: What defines Indigenous American philosophy? Bill Sidis focused a lot on the Native Americans. In fact, he had some important insights and ideas developed from them.

Sorensen: It is a “philosophy,” that “symbolically” represents “reality,” through all its “expressions,” its “wisdom” and the way it “interacts” with nature. Within it, there are “two principles,” that interact with each other: that of “reciprocity,” and that of “know to be.” The first, refers to the “fact of giving,” as a form of respect, and in the same magnitude, as “mother earth” gives them, while the second, is related to the fact of “not feeling nature has owners,” and to learn to live as “being part of nature,” therefore the latter is what allows in practice, to carry out the first one of them.

22. Jacobsen: What defines Middle Eastern philosophy?

Sorensen: In my opinion, what defines it, is the “secret path” of “Kabbalah” knowledge.

23. Jacobsen: What defines Western philosophy?

Sorensen: What defines it, is the “love of wisdom,” through the “path of reason,” using as a means the “capacity for amazement,” and by pursuing the “useless” as an end.

24. Jacobsen: What defines African philosophy?

Sorensen: It is an “ethno-philosophy,” that is represented by “critical thoughts” about the “reality experiences,” which various African peoples have developed, as a “specific cultural” expression, and that presumably as such, cannot be “applicable and accessible,” to all the peoples and cultures of the world.

25. Jacobsen: How do men’s history of philosophical ideas differ from women’s history of philosophical ideas?

Sorensen: As 1 and 0 respectively.

26. Jacobsen: What is classical logic?

Sorensen: It is also known as “standard logic,” and it can be said of it, that is a “formal system,” that respects “the principles” of non-contradiction, excluded third party, explosion and monotonicity of the implication.

27. Jacobsen: What is syllogistic logic?

Sorensen: It is a form of “inductive and deductive” reasoning,” consisting of “two propositions” as premises, and a “conclusion,” being the latter a necessarily deductive inference from the other two.

28. Jacobsen: What is modal logic?

Sorensen: It is a “formal system,” that tries to capture the “deductive behavior” of a group of “modal operators,” which in turn are “expressions” that qualify the truth of the judgments.

29. Jacobsen: What is predicate logic?

Sorensen: It is a “formal system,” designed to analyze “inference” in first-order languages, that in turn are “formal languages,” and which have a superior “expressive power,” than that of propositional logic.

30. Jacobsen: What is propositional logic?

Sorensen: Also known as “zero order logic,” is a “formal system,” represented by “simple elements” denominated “propositions,” and by “logical constants” named “logical connectives,” that allow to “represent operations” regarding the formers, and to perform “inferences,” in order to determine their semantic truth or falsity.

31. Jacobsen: What is dialectic? Would this differ much from a trialectic, or a quadralectic?

Sorensen: I would define it as a type of logic, that “opposes two contradictory” terms, in order to extract a “synthesis” of both, that later becomes a “first term,” in response to which an other opposite term emerges again, and so on. I think that regarding a “trialectic or quadralectic,” it differs “profoundly,” since although these last do not exist, if I could imagine them, they would be similar to entering into another “logical dimension,” where necessarily and because of “their constellations,” it should be necessary “to abolish” all the existing “logical principles,” and propose other alternatives, which at least until now, has not been achieved by nobody.

32. Jacobsen: What is formal reasoning? What is informal reasoning?

Sorensen: “Formal reasoning,” is one that seeks to “solve problems,” and “draw conclusions,” by establishing the “necessary logical and causal” connections between the facts. “Informal reasoning,” differs from the previous, since tries “to overcome” the limitations of it, when pretending to take into account linguistic, contextual, pragmatic and epistemic factors, in order to arrive to inference argumentations” or to “decision-makings.”

33. Jacobsen: What is mathematical logic?

Sorensen: It consists of a “formal and symbolic” study of logic, and of “its application,” regarding some areas of mathematics and science.

34. Jacobsen: How do these differ from philosophical logic and computational logic?

Sorensen: “Philosophical logic” differs from these, because it is capable “of developing” extensions and alternatives, to traditional logic, as is the case that regards “non-classical” logic. In the case of “computational logic,” it is actually the same “mathematical logic” applied in the context of computational science.

35. Jacobsen: Is there such a thing as a non-computational logic?

Sorensen: I think it is possible, but out of the context of a “binary logic.”

36. Jacobsen: What are non-classical logics?

Sorensen: It is an “alternative logic” and a “formal system,” that aims to “differ significantly” from classical logic, by introducing extensions, deviations and variations of the last.

37. Jacobsen: If we take some of these ideas, people behind them, schools of thoughts, and the various derivations therefrom, then we come to some interesting tentative conclusions within the empirical evidence from the cognitive neurosciences and from individual experience of the various schools of logic practiced by their respective logicians. We can see the general architecture, operations, and outputs of the human brain in the human organism. We know individual logicians can conduct all these forms of logic in terms of the formal and informal operations. If we see this structure, and if we see these individuals performing all different manner of operations, then we can see the generalized functionality of the human mind in spite of caloric, computational, speed, memory, and comprehensive factorial limitations. The question: Why is the human mind so general, so profound, while so flawed and so obviously crummy?

Sorensen: Because this, is what ultimately allows “diversity,” and the implementation of “a comparative” criterion within it, which in turn enables the “structural and structuring” mobility “of mind,” regarding a “material” sense, and in relation to its “cognitive processes.”

38. Jacobsen: What is abductive/retroductive logic?

Sorensen: It is a form of “reasoning,” that from “the description” of a fact or a phenomenon, tries to arrive to an “hypothesis,” which pretends to explain “its reasons,” by means of “the premises” obtained.

39. Jacobsen: What is a metaphorical inference? What is a literal inference?

Sorensen: Respectively, is “to deduce” a concept or reality, “different” from the original concept or reality, but maintaining a “relationship or similarity” with it. Is “to deduce” a concept or reality, with “identical” signification or meaning, regarding “the original” concept and reality.

40. Jacobsen: What makes the mind material and non-material in some sense?

Sorensen: The fact of being “human beings.”

41. Jacobsen: What makes the profoundly intelligent more likely to incorporate an intuitive grasp of more of these logics in simultaneity than the others?

Sorensen: Due to the fact that “their brains,” compared to the rest, “neuro-anatomically,” exhibit a much broader and more complex “synaptic arborization.”

42. Jacobsen: How does a logic tolerate inconsistency and apparent impossibility?

Sorensen: In my opinion, by “tolerating ambiguity,” and “refraining” from passing “judgments,” until the inconsistency and apparent impossibility “are dissipated.”

43. Jacobsen: What is fundamentally impossible?

Sorensen: To “resurrect” or “revive.”

44. Jacobsen: What is fundamentally possible?

Sorensen: Everything that is “metaphysically” admissible.

45. Jacobsen: What are the limits on the possible?

Sorensen: Those who are imposed by “existence.”

46. Jacobsen: Is love logical?

Sorensen: Yes, as long as “the couple” has “artificial intelligence.”

47. Jacobsen: Speaking of the real and unreal, proofs and evidences, etc., William Paley wrote the 1802 book arguing for a god of Christianity as one evidenced by the natural world for ‘proof’ of a designing intelligence, a watchmaker, of the world. The book was entitled Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. “Evidences” and “Attributes” of a “Deity,” his god likely intervened in the world, so Theity would have been better. Anyhow! He looked at the evidence of observation of the natural world without much in the manner of formal experimentation and then reasoned from human design of objects to divine design of living things. Then this was a way to look at attributes of the “Deity.” In modern North American culture, there is a common notion, “God is Love,” or, “Love is God.” It’s an inane colloquialism without much content other than an American hípster talking about feeling “good vibes.” “God is love” is “good vibes” without the illicit substances involved in the sub-culture. Popular debaters with relevant qualifications in philosophy and theology, e.g., William Lane Craig, lay out a consistent and steady stream of variations on five themes of arguments for God: the cosmological argument, the kalam cosmological argument, the moral argument, the teleological argument, and the ontological argument. These either assume certain traits of the Christian God and then move to provide reasons for asserted characteristics of the god, argue for an impersonal god and then to a personal god for the reasonable faith of the Christian in the Christian God, or simply rely on personal thinking or personal experience (religious experience, e.g., “Witness of the Holy Spirit in my life”) to be sufficient, to the Craigs of the popular and public intellectual world, proof or evidence of God or enough to close the gap to make a “Reasonable Faith.” Personally, none of these seem, at root, particularly powerful or compelling arguments – though, maybe, intriguing and provocative proposals – in getting to the philosophical bedrock of the situation. There was a recent cultural counter response, too, as seen in largely 18-35-year-old White men, European heritage men, or Caucasian men. Much of this “New Atheism” arose in the midst of the last 15 years or so, as a branch of atheism, or a flavour of atheism, with Militant Atheism and Firebrand Atheism as its two heads, where Professor Daniel Dennett, Dr. Sam Harris, Dr. Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens were the main figureheads with others including David Silverman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the late Professor Victor J. Stenger, Jerry Coyne, and P.Z. Myers. Most freethought community members do not identify with Firebrand Atheism, Militant Atheism, or New Atheism to be clear. It rose in the 2000s and fell in the 2010s with an assumption of many religious people as idiots; all the while, many highly intelligent religious believers exist and work, debate, and research in the world if they bothered to look and engage more seriously, substantively, and directly, with them or, at least, with their work. However, I do not see much in the way of first principles thinking about a god, whether possible or plausible. Let’s explore some of this a bit, to take a Devil’s ‘advocate’ view – so to oppositionally speak, the possible gods and the plausible gods on offer in the world of hypothesis. To get these out of the way, and sorry if there is some indirect overlap with prior interviews here, what gods are not possible, are impossible, as a natural result of scientific developments or as a product of a priori considerations?

Sorensen: If anyone were “to wonder” what is “the most” perfect, infinite, eternal and self-subsisting idea that “could be imagined,” it would be difficult “to answer,” something other than the “idea of ​​god.” In this sense, it could at least be affirmed that “the greatest idea imaginable” by anyone, is the one “of ​​god,” and therefore in turn, it may be determined that “god exists,” at least as “an idea within anyone’s mind.” Something very different, would be beyond “an emotional need,” to supposed that god’s ontological existence is “rationally demonstrable.” Following this reasoning, it may be said, that until now, “all the arguments” regarding this purpose, from the most logically and simple, till the more sophisticated metaphysically and scientifically speaking ones, have been “an absolute failure,” since in their whole, “are attached” to “an argumentative fallacy denominator,” due to the fact of being “invariable tautological explanations,” where “what is explained,” is identical to “what is trying to be explained.” So far, this “type of knowledge,” would “not be accessible,” if it were not only by “way of faith,” and for this reason, would necessarily exist “a dichotomy,” that forces regardless of whether it’s considered a “valid path or not,” in assuming it as an “irrational option” or as a “supra-rational” alternative, which is not more than “a neologism,” since in strict order, the latter “lacks absolutely of any significance.” From my point of view, I think that god’s ontological existence, is “a legitimate problem,” because the “admissibility” of “a response” would be possible, as long as the concept of “mathematical infinity,” is developed and is complemented with that of “metaphysical time and present.”

48. Jacobsen: What would you consider some basic categories of the possible when thinking of a god?

Sorensen: Those of “infinity” and “eternity.”

49. Jacobsen: The plausible sits atop the possible apart, on the other side of the partition of the, implausible, once the impossible is dealt with there. We will be dealing only with the implausible here only insofar as this is implied via the plausibility of a god. What would be some of the metrics of plausibility of a god?

Sorensen: In my opinion, the only “plausibility metric” of god is that of “causality,” which “in itself” seems to me, to be “poor and weak,” as a metric “of anything,” while I believe that “any other metric” on the plausibility of god, would “also be so.” In this sense, I think that the “only criterion” to examine “god’s plausibility,” should be that “of negation,” through what god “does not has” and “does not is.”

50. Jacobsen: What differentiates the qualities of the categories of the possible and the plausible here in regards to the considerations of the gods?

Sorensen: If “any quality” in order “to exist,” necessarily must do it “while being in something,” since “by itself” it wouldn’t be possible, and at the same time I affirm of god, a “category” which is that of “negation,” because its “having is nothing,” then it could be assumed regarding “their differentiations,” that “no-quality” may be as such and under no possible aspect “participable.”

51. Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what inter-relates the categories?

Sorensen: “Ontologically” speaking, there would “be nothing” that “inter-relates” these categories, since they are not “distinguishable” nor “delimitable” Nevertheless, from “a logical” perspective, the “self-subsistence” as a “background” could be able to do so, at the same time that through a sort “of game,” in which they are simultaneously “shown and hidden,” allows them to “stand out” as “figures,” as they get lost within the “self-subsistence.

52. Jacobsen: If we stretch the possibilities of the categories of the possible gods, to make this more conceptually colorful, what would be some examples of the various categories stretched to their utmost limit with some representative gods?

Sorensen: Besides “infinity and eternity,” and no longer “as qualities,” but as “self-subsisting” properties in themselves, I consider they would be the categories of goodness, justice, parenthood, substance and reason.

53. Jacobsen: If we delimit the possible gods to the most plausible gods on offer in the religions of the world, what ones seem the most plausible?

Sorensen: Adonai.

54. Jacobsen: If we delimit the possible gods to the most plausible gods as proposed in various forms by the thousand or so greatest minds in the history of humanity, what ones seem the most plausible proposed by these scientists, philosophers, painters, composers, and the like? Of course, there will be some overlap between the set of religious gods and the religious historical geniuses’ gods. The third set would be simply an individuated historical genius’s god.

Sorensen: If I could “integrate,” all the forms of god, proposed outside of religion in a single sentence, I would define it as a “universal intellectual substance.”

55. Jacobsen: To you, if a god exists, let’s take top five gods, what ones seem the most plausible to you?

Sorensen: As a “universal reason,” as “Sefirots” and the tree of life, a “watch-maker” god, a “totemic” figure, and the “demiurge.”

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Independent Philosopher.

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2020: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2020: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight) [Online].July 2020; 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2020, July 8). An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight)Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A, July. 2020. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2020. “An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 23.A (July 2020). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2020, ‘An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight)In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 23.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 23.A (2020):July. 2020. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. An Interview with Christian Sorensen on Forms of Logic and the Gods (Part Eight) [Internet]. (2020, June 23(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sorensen-eight.

License and Copyright

License

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

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 2012-2020. 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 and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: