Bookpleasures.com is delighted to welcome Franck Jourdain to Bookpleasures.com.

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

Deeply influenced by encounters with ecclesiastical thought and guided by thinkers such as René Girard, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Emmanuel Lévinas, his work bridges philosophy, theology, science, and social analysis.

In our upcoming conversation, we will delve into his newly expanded essay titled Sinapi Seed.

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

Through his thought-provoking analysis, he advocates for a transformative societal paradigm that prioritizes reciprocity and the spirit of giving, challenging us to rethink how we interact with one another and the world around us.

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

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

Franck: Good day, Norm,

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

First, I would like to lay the ontological foundations of this reflection, without which the presented essay cannot be understood, especially in its religious dimension: Our finitude is the seat of interpretation of the information we receive. 

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

So the existing world is immersed in information that transcends us.

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

Sinapi was presumably the black mustard plant with revulsive properties. This plant, which grows from a tiny seed, conveys the symbolism of incredible growth or incredible effect of a phenomenon that was negligeable at the outset (cf. Marc 4: 30-32). 

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

​Norm: You reinterpret the Genesis account of the Fall as the introduction of a "regime of value" into human relations—could you explain how this differs from traditional theological interpretations, and how you came to see value itself as the root of suffering?

As a follow-up, what would you say to readers who claim that your interpretation could oversimplify the complexities of human relationships and the multiplicity of factors that contribute to suffering?

Franck: It is important to remember first that Genesis is a symbolic and parabolic narrative. In the story of the “Fall,” traditional exegesis symbolically presents Adam as the figure of our most distant ancestor. 

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

This disobedience, which consists of attempting to become God (“you will be like gods”) without God.

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

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

This is all the more curious since the knowledge of good and evil, as an immediate consequence of the act, needs to be clarified, because the human couple is already necessarily able to understand the interdiction addressed to them by the Creator, and therefore sensitive to moral values, if not, then the interdiction and, even more so, the dialogue about temptation would make no sense, and neither would the notion of fault. 

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

With this aspect set aside, the idea of value, represented by the forbidden fruit, must ultimately be considered in its purely comparative acceptation, in its hierarchical function, in the dynamics of relative differences and subjective quality that “pit” things against each other, beings against each other, according to a purely mental process that subjectively puts them 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 of suffering, but it leads to behaviors and situations that contribute to suffering and its factors. Indeed, as you point out, the causes of suffering, in our context, are multiple and not necessarily, at first glance, related to the exercise of value; 

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

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

The “regime” of value also complicates human relationships because it is conflictual. The individual primarily brings the world back to himself, in a certain way to the detriment of others, under constraints that must always be lifted, under the yoke of desires exacerbated precisely by the “regime” of value. 

The behaviors, rules, and laws governing these conflict situations become increasingly complex over time, eventually losing the justification that initially supported them.

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

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

The Absolute can only be defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and must integrate all concepts. Its completeness precludes any evolution; its essence, therefore, presents itself in a state of maximum organization, and time is ultimately and only proper to finitude (finitude that necessarily operates within a field of information that surpasses it).

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

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

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

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

​Franck: René Girard teaches us that desire is mimetic. It is because an object is desired (or can be desired) by another that we desire it; there is no autonomy of the desire, which is expressed according to an identified or supposed third party. 

Desire is constructed along a triangular configuration: the subject that desires, the desired object, a third party that qualifies (assigns value to) the object, often designated as “model” or, according to René Girard, as the “mediator.” 

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

It is from this situation that another aspect of the process is revealed, further justifying desire beyond the mere dynamics of mimicry (without, however, calling into question its triangular configuration), a point René Girard does not mention.

The object has no intrinsic value, but only presents an interest proportional to the “supplement” of being that it confers (or can confer) on the person who possesses it (or could possess it). 

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

Finally, in a bijective manner, the notion of value is always correlative to a “supplement” of being from a third party that we desire for ourselves.

The mirror effect of desire follows the mirror effect of value. René Girard does not highlight this phenomenon, although he notes that the value of the object increases as the intensity of the manifested desires grows. 

It is, in fact, the notion of value that, in the end, supports and maintains the effective circularity of the phenomenon described as mimicry (even if initially, there may only be pure mimicry – see on this point the effects of mirror neurons).

All this remains consistent with the Girardian scheme, but founds the mimicry of desire beyond the mere “stereophony” of gestures or behaviors, in the tendency humans have to attribute to the things and beings they possess, and which then differentiate them from others, the ability to push back their finitude (their temporality), thus objectively obtaining this supplement of being which must fill their existential anguish and in which the subjective value of things is born.

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

The story of the Fall incorporates all the elements developed here: the human couple who desire the immortality specific to God. The “supplement” of being sought by Eve's desire is here at its peak, and the means (object) of achieving it: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 

The symbolism of the tree is a fusion here, since the tree is both the first object of desire and the process of attributing subjective value to objects, to the world.

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

​Franck: It should be noted that the narrative itself guides us toward this association. Genesis 3 clarifies, through Eve's remarks, that the forbidden fruit enables discernment. 

This information confirms what has already been developed regarding the concept of good and evil. To discern implies measuring, evaluating. It is to perceive, to draw out a thing from the world, either according to its nature or according to a value via judgment.

The “regime” of value accompanies our phylogeny and is embedded in the slow evolution of hominization and culture, in this slow process by which man gains his freedom and a specific awareness from the instinct he loses.

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

The symbolism of the serpent (the tempter) takes on its full relevance here; the serpent is quiet, is the most cunning of the animals, and moves by slithering along the ground, the regime of value slowly and discreetly intrudes into the daily life of evolving man, at the same time as he becomes aware of his finitude and death becomes for him a source of anguish and reflection. 

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

This scenario has two consequences for our relationship to the Fall: there is no culpability (historical or present) on the part of man in exhibiting this behavior, given his ignorance of these aspects, and if,  despite everything, the account in Genesis 3 warns us of a fault, then it must be because that fault has not yet happened… it is only in the light shed on this experience, at the paroxysm of its side effects (we can say the majority of the problems already experienced by our societies today), that man, placed in full consciousness in front of this evil, will have to choose to modify this situation,  warned by Scripture of the consequences of his choice, and from then on, fully and definitively responsible. Faced with the current situation on our planet, we must shift our paradigm in human relationships. 

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

​Norm: You describe creation as a "phase transition" of the Absolute, akin to Tsimtsum in Kabbalistic thought—could you elaborate on how this metaphor helps us understand the emergence of finite beings, and why you chose this particular lens?

​Franck: First and foremost, we must have a coherent and logical vision of the world and of ourselves to give meaning to our presence and to act as a safeguard against senselessness. 

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

This disposition must 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 (and not dogmatic), to allow a coherence with this knowledge in a process of becoming, if it is not already there.

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

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

As already mentioned, the Absolute, in its completeness, cannot produce anything in the very state of its essence, the "place" of all potentialities; every concept, every thing, and relation being already included within it. 

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

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

This vision is very close indeed to Tsimtsum in Kabbalistic thought.

At the origin of our level of information, at the origin of the elementary phenomena that constitute our Universe, the original (informational) “Space,” in a 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 “divided parts” all the way to “singularity” allow a “void” to appear that itself will enable these “parts”—which are produced by the withdrawal into itself of the “Space” that constitutes them—to break free: Tsimtsum... Now the elementary “physical” singularities (particles) at the source of “matter” are distinguished (without limiting this phenomenon to solely the singularities that are given to us to know), thus, for science, the “quantum foam” of Planck’s era and, for Judeo-Christian thought, the Tohu-wa-bohu of the Bible.

The Absolute, the Spirit makes Itself known in an informational dynamic that produces the information about the differentiated elementary event (the elementary particle—our reality), endowed with relational properties that, through reorganization, allow for the actualization of the more complex informational systems inherent to our level of existence, thereby providing an exteriority to the Unity from within Itself.  We perceive the manifestation of the elementary particle (the informational phenomenon) as “matter;” the essence of its emergence is Spirit.

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

​Franck: First, I will be categorical. The “conjugation” of the value of beings and things engenders our model of society. 

The “regime” of value always leads to this place; it is inevitable. In the slow evolution of human culture, from the denatured gift (calculated, assigned value through protocols) all the way to capital (with its fetishism for the unit of value: currency, stock market indices, etc.), passing by way of bartering, it is only a matter of time. Modern capitalism most clearly embodies this “regime.” 

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

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

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

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

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

​Norm: You emphasize that giving, free from goals or subsumptions, is the antidote to the regime of value—highlighting its potential to inspire hope and empower societies to shift toward reciprocity and genuine connection.

​Franck: Yes.

The regime of value corrupts desire and produces the immeasurable violence that characterizes human societies.

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

It is in the dependence on the Other that distance (a condition of the relation) is formed and maintained. It is in the reliance on the Other that, on the one hand, the elimination of what opposes us inevitably is found, and that, on the other hand, the sought-after completeness can be obtained. It is in the reciprocity of this dependence, where each one is contributing to the accomplishment of the Other, that fusion is also born—in other words, the crucible where the needs expressed by some motivate the desire in others to realize these needs. 

It is in this communion, brought about by relation, that the sought-after supplement of being definitively resides. However, for this supplement to be definitively detached from the object and no longer carried by it, it is necessary to “confiscate” the object's subjective value in favor of its sole objective (functional) value, thereby ultimately prioritizing needs. 

There are no other solutions other than to always reset this subjective value to zero, which means that we must no longer maintain an external, subjective reference frame and that we must refuse to model, synthesize, or fix this value based on an autonomous backing (currency or unit/medium of exchange) and that we must also eliminate the scale of arbitrary hierarchies between things.

It is here, in this situation devoid of assigned value between things, a situation extended to human beings to avoid ultimately maintaining a scale of value between men (which this “regime” of value has always done through a hierarchized compensation)—namely a situation where a relation of giving goods and services is instituted— that our societies and the world can be sustainable.

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

In this level of relation, the Other, as a relay of access to the world (no longer an obstacle this time), abolishes the subjective value of the world, and the lost Transcendence (or instead never attained) can then finally reveal itself.

In a certain way, the desire to appropriate things is also extinguished in the infinite availability 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 Being rather than Having.

​Norm: Your book advocates a new social paradigm based on objective value—what might this look like in daily life, and how could it transform institutions such as education, politics, and economics to address today's societal issues?

​Franck: By objective value, we mean considering things in relation to each other solely according to their functional interest, retaining only the importance of things based on their obligatory participation in the functioning of the world, whatever this participation might be, therefore without hierarchical consideration 

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

It ultimately means establishing a gift economy, relationships without measured compensation, commitments without fiduciary rewards, which brings us back to the previous question.

The modalities and details of this new framework for human relations are certainly still to be invented. Still, we can nevertheless already identify some key principles that characterize and govern this new social contract. 

The meaning of life and ensuring its sustainability must be at the forefront of human concerns; in other words, guaranteeing the fulfillment that every human being expects today and tomorrow. The new world we envision must, of course, prioritize these objectives.

This new situation first and foremost entails a constantly evaluated personal responsibility and the development of human activity governed by the principle of precaution raised to the rank of a categorical imperative.

It is a world that is no longer limited by costs but which must, of course, be sustainable, through reasoned, reasonable behavior, and therefore through sustainable consumption and development. 

The free provision of goods and services frees up the highest functions of this environment: research, care to the person, the primary activity of recycling (if consumption may be limited here, depending on resources, these resources are also offset by the ever-optimized recycling - now without cost - of this consumption).

It is a world where freedom is given (based on unprecedented personal responsibility) and not something to be earned. True freedom is not trying to appropriate or “earn” the world to experience it (to the detriment of others, within constraints that are constantly needing to be lifted),  but rather being able to limit reasonably, on one’s own, one’s consumption of a given world.

These few aspects already make us aware of the urgent need to prioritize ethics, to require it of ourselves, and to take responsibility for the balance of others in education.

​Norm: You reference thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin, Lévinas, and Hans Jonas—how did their ideas shape your reflections, and which of them do you feel most closely aligns with your vision in Sinapi Seed?

​Franck: Each of these philosophers always aims for something greater for humanity, for society, for our living environment. There is always an effort, each in their own field of thought, to bring meaning that respects humanity and the world.

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

Teilhard's vision, in which Matter and Spirit are two sides of the same reality, is dizzying; 

The questions of the Other and freedom in Levinasian ethics are indispensable for conceiving of giving as both the fulfillment of the other and of oneself in reciprocity, in accordance with the responsibility that these questions call for; finally, Hans Jonas and the question of our primary responsibility in the exploitation of the world should allow us to understand that there can ultimately be no place for competitive economies, based on the “regime” of value, which necessarily objectify profit above all.

Each of these thoughts entails 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 the regime of value distorts human mimicry and leads to rivalry—how does this insight help us understand current social conflicts, and do you see parallels in today's political polarization?

​Franck: We have already discussed how the "regime" of value supplants the mimesis of learning (natural and peaceful—see mirror neurons) with the mimesis of appropriation (conflictual) following the fact of attributing a subjective value to things in the world and what motivates this approach.

While our societies and cultures have been shaped by regulating the violent effects of mimetic desires, current social conflicts are increasingly based less on desire and more on need—the need for individuals to live with dignity. Another aspect of the "regime" of value, besides polluting our relationship to the world, interferes in human relations. Value has an intrinsic tendency to concentrate; it is insatiable and ultimately serves only a few (individuals, companies, or societies), depriving others beyond a tolerable limit, thereby depriving them of dignity. Migration flows, in particular, which are at the heart of current political polarization debates, are one such consequence.

It should be noted that historical societies were able to overcome the violence of their crises through consensus (reconciliation) on the exclusion of victims who were then blamed for all the ills of the community (scapegoats, pharmacology, genocide, etc.). Today, crises are international (identity crisis, value crisis, widespread, fierce competition), and all human organizations are affected, including nations themselves. 

The disagreements are widespread, and there are only opposing sides (even if they appear civilized). The political forces at play can only become polarized. 

This increasingly evident political polarization also reflects the latest efforts of the “regime” of value to maintain itself through old methods, a radicalization synonymous with exclusion...

The “system” has reached its limits, and this polarization can only intensify with unprecedented virulence.

​Norm: Where can our readers learn more about you and  Sinapi Seed?

​Franck: The website of the publishing house "Grain de Sinapi S.A.S." presents the book and its author.

Norm: As we end our interview, your expanded editions in both French and English suggest that your thought is continually evolving—what new directions are you exploring now, and how do you envision Sinapi Seed contributing to future debates on philosophy, theology, and society? What would you say to critics who claim that literature cannot significantly influence societal debates in today’s fast-paced digital world?

​Franck: There is one particular point that emerges from the subject we have just discussed and which needs to be developed: how to think about the transition between our world and the one called for in this work? How should we conceive the gratuity? In what form? 

In its absolute form, in the form of an unconditional universal income for all, what compensations and guarantees are necessary? What processes and steps are needed to achieve this? 

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

Given this situation, “Sinapi Seed” presents itself primarily as a warning before sparking debate, even if it redefines specific anthropological knowledges. Thus, like any warning, this reflection will only prove relevant when tested by the facts, even if its analysis is surprising.

Moreover, literature (alone) cannot significantly influence social debates to the extent of changing society. And it depends, of course, on the subject matter—Hans Jonas and René Girard did not change the world. There must be at least one other factor that compels us to consider this literature beyond its relevance.

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

Otherwise, an emergency factor (a significant risk to life, to public health, or in our society, a financial loss) is needed to put (back) this literature to the forefront. This depends on the probability (which is relative, since it is never zero, as it is assessed) that the issue addressed in the text will occur, and on the certainty that the final cost of the course of action to be taken outweighs the short-term benefit of not changing anything.

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

The interpretation of the consumption of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the act of subjectively assigning value to the world proved surprising in the light of other passages of the Bible and the conditions of our evolution, and, finally, of our situation today.

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

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

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