Chapter 5

(Being dualists)

 

                          

                           5.1 ) Homo sapiens dualis

 

    For the science the man is still the better or at least the more interesting product of evolution of the biosphere. The mammal that with the gain of the erect position has freed the two anterior paws from the tasks of walking, re-qualifying them, as hands, toward absolutely extraordinary tasks of catching and manipulation, that are in the base of nearly all the human activities and primary cause of all intellectual developments.  But is its brain to notably grew in mass and faculty in comparison with the chimpanzee, with which shares the common ancestor. It has so implemented its abilities and widened the knowledge and intuition of the reality toward intuitive, imaginative and logical-computational horizons not allowed to his cousins primates, that became possible for the man to overcome the limits of its material nature.

    But the indisputable mental capacities of the man built in its psyche also such superiority complex that caused its oblivion of own origins, that is to remain still, always and irremediably, an animal, even if a little more evolved than others. Its presumptuousness causes to consider itself earth’s lord and project some ideal human excellence in a “super-human” God, that was then situated in a fantastic and celestial transcendence. Topologic projection that persisted not only metaphorically, to spite of the awareness that in the sky is a little difficult that God is able to go into and that is very difficult to give him any other place where He can stay, unless to imagine Him in other universe or, pantheistically, diffused in this one. It is quite funny such conceit to imagine some our creator and transcendent father and then to draw the universe in accordance with His presence, as a lot of contemporary theologians continue to do.

    We have already said that recent researches about the elementary matter and about the universe hallowed to pose the hypothesis that the universe in which we live to be only one of the many existing, and that in this one could be hidden spatial dimensions that escapes to all our observation and researching tools [1]. Even if this physical and cosmological theories are today yet far to be confirmed, they could however give us some doubt about our metaphysical supremacy. I mean that our possibility (already rather disputable) to reach the limits of our galaxy in “this” universe (a fact that however would not change our nothingness with regard to reality of the totality) could make decidedly ridiculous if are existing other universes (where perhaps could be more life than in this one), to the point that every conceitedness would become laughable over every measure. But moreover; all we define “objective”  has to be more correctly defined “anthropic”, because we read the book of the universe still always with human eye and such little portion of reality to which we have access is irremediably limited to our very little action range. But such human situation, clearly, not changes neither when we do the little footstep forward that involves our RD, which yet opens a not little breach in the wall of such sealed “anthropic castle” that the monism has built stubbornly over the millennia.

    Since from the Neolithic era the man, increased in the number and in its vital demands, has begun a systematic transformation of the Earth to its benefit, with predation operations of the existing resources often blind and inconsiderate. The conceited ennoblement of our species has pushed to the point to detach it genetically from the rest of the biosphere, which, mother enslaved and exploited, became only a warehouse of resources at disposal, without that any ethic restraint set some limits to its arbitrary use. At the point that the human race, comes today to the number of six individual billions, has to bring the account with the anxious deterioration of the environment and of the atmosphere. And all that is happened without that inside mankind has neither reach some intraspecific modus vivendi, so to exit from cruel rules of the conflicts for the supremacy, the selection and the stratification among human groups and individuals, in an implacable logic of predominance and enslaving. On the contrary, just one's own intellectual capacities furnished to it the means and ability for every kind of intraspecific over-powering, of which the wars, local or regional, are the more meaningful aspect. But such remarks don't have to lead us toward some moralizing way absolutely untimely. We have instead to value the past, the present and the future still always in the optics of a living being, which, in spite of his intellectual and ethical progresses, remains fundamentally a beast among the beasts. It seams, indeed, that the man using its own means tries to favour itself whether in accordance or against the biological reason that regulates all biosphere. Of the other hand, from an ethological point of view, we don’t see neither because the man, in its evolution level, could surpass and eliminated the instincts concerning its nature, that probably will for the most part persist, fixed and unchangeable, even in the future; if too corrigible with the civilization level attainment always more advanced.

    Arises then the enormous contradiction of an animal that on the one hand had itself attributed a divine investiture and on the other was incapable to go much over the predatory and merciless logics of all other living beings, from which differ for its evolutionary level, but not just for the nature. The imaginative ad abstractive ability of its mind are surely extraordinary projections over the limits of its intuition of the reality, and not less important and meaningful of the often overestimated ability of the reason, but all that for nothing removed it from the materiality, that constitutes and conditions it. Therefore, in spite of that and from the more to the less, the man continues to remain tied, as every other animal, to the universal laws of the necessity, that pertain the quarks as every its neuron. But, it is to remark, without such exceptional projective ability not could have neither possible that phenomenon, in the same time anthropological (natural) and cultural (artificial) that is the birth of “sense of sacred ”, from which came, across unknown passages, the creation and the installation of the organized religions.

    The religious phenomenon assumes therefore a particular anthropological importance, since throws light on the mental structure of the man and on its demand to endow with ideal and axiological references, which, projecting it on an existential horizon that goes beyond the animal level, were able to satisfy psychic demands specifically human, but that was present yet in species that have preceded that of the homo sapiens. To avoid then to throw away the good with the bad, a philosophy of the existence that wants come to an exhaustive and correct conception of the man, but that at the same time consider and surpass such ancestral psychic demands, has to take in considerations even this important historical reality of the religious feeling, to interpret it correctly and put it adequately in the anthropological context. To do that not means to be conditioned by such psychic demand that the religion satisfies, but actually gather the more deep meaning, by means of a correct philosophical reading of the very important function, conservative and protectress, of the psyche (that protects even itself against the dissociative and destructive risks) inside such functional complex in which concur the other three mental organizations already considered.

    In other words, the biological reason has  “programmed” our psyche to work so and not otherwise, therefore it is necessary to bring to account with this anthropic reality, to see what it means and what heuristic addresses is able to supply us. The scientific point of view in a strict sense, that concerns mainly the structures and functions of the human organism, in its relationships with the all, doesn't have very much to reveal us in this field, unless to consider resolutely as sciences the psychoanalysis and the psychology in general, which are however useful (but limited) tools of functional research. The important for us is try to recover the authentic aitherial reality, underlying (but misunderstanded or hidden) in the spiritualistic-religious hypostases, recognizing it in transparency as object of a true intuition of which one has been given (naively or artfully) an incorrect interpretation.

    In replacing the false divine “spirit” with the real aither, and eliminating every element of fanciful transcendence, the RD tries to recover its authentic traces and at the same time to cancel that contingent and improper track that was engraved the psyche across the millenniums. In the idema, the core of the individuality, the aither is perceived, introjected and elaborate in a individual product, but at the same time even extra-individual, spendable in the ethics, in the aesthetics and in all other forms in which it could have expressed, according to theist tradition, the “soul” of divine origin. Therefore with the RD we pass from such transcendentalistic and improper interpretation, which considers the soul as emanation of the God’s spirit, to another that considers the idema formed by the same matter of the body and then to it homogeneous. Not only, but goes even stressed that the aither is not a “elsewhere”  respect to the matter, but is to the margin [2] of it, in a strict topologic relationship to spite of its total extraneousness under the “substantial” point of view.

    The homo sapiens becomes then, in our dualistic perspective, the extraordinary phase of an evolution of the matter that pushes it toward an approach to what would be a metaphoric "sister" of a common origin, from which it was separate perhaps from birth or perhaps from a precedent and unknown cosmic event. The idema, which is present, in various evolution degrees, all over the animal world, but perhaps, elementarily, in that vegetable one, becomes like that “intern” element of the biosphere in general, as advanced result of evolution. The idema, in the dualistic perspective, expunges the old hypostasis of the  soul, but as emergent product of life on the Earth in its generality, loses also that specifically anthropic character that the human conceitedness has attributed to the soul. As theoretically common to all biosphere it, perhaps (and I stress the perhaps), has reached in the homo sapiens the more elevated functionality level for the passage from the pure materiality to a certain form of share to a reality, that aitherial, probably blocked to the lower evolutionary degrees.

    It is yet evident that the human idema is a tool of the matter in any case very rough to have deal with the aither, but nobody forbid us to think that in other planets outside the solar system, or in the same future of the Earth, exists or will exist living beings equipped with an idema very more evolute than our and capable to have a relationship with the aither much less confused and precarious of what we are able to experiment. This makes even us aware of the long way that would be able await the biosphere, before it is reasonably able to reach levels in which becomes possible produce a living being capable of constitute a true bridge of communication with the aither or with some other presumable realities that we have hypothesized.

    But, as we already said, the reciprocal "extraneousness" of aither and matter is very far from the concept of “transcendence” of the “spirit” in comparison with matter as posed by religion, which presupposes a hierarchical relationship between what transcend and what that is transcended. In the RD the two ambits, and what constitutes them, are reciprocally independent and with the same ontological dignity. The dynamic being (or becoming) of the matter, in its temporariness, would seem (but this would be only a mine “inevitable anthropic deformation”) reveal yet “a movement outside itself toward some other” much more strong in comparison with the being, probably more stable, of the aither. That is to say that the matter would reveal in addition the tendential capacity to surpass its borders and its structural dimensions, projecting itself toward the plurality of the general reality. This capacity would seem reveal in the fact that it, by means of idema, becomes really a co-creator of the forms of the aither. To bring to the extreme consequences this our hypothetical speech it would seem then that the matter could be able to go toward the aither. This one, instead, would seem incapable to behaviour as much, just because it would not seems to go toward the matter, but, on the contrary, to evade from it hiding itself, and this is the reason for which we are induced to think the aither grounded by a more stable being. How we see in the RD the relationship between matter and aither results upside-down in comparison with that one of the spiritualistic and religious ideologies, where is the spirit to be mobile and going to the brute and immovable matter (often creating it) [3].

    Then the homo sapiens, in dualistic terms, could be considered a biological outpost toward such “plurale” reality  we have hypothesized; being it able, already today, to throw a look over the limits of the matter. And perhaps in the future, for evolution one's own, or as basic material for further genetic mutations, forms forerunner more evolutes of the matter and still more open toward what today there is totally us unknown. An unknown that is not distant, as the galaxies escaping each other, but “here” , in the gorges of a complex reality, that the theologians and the philosophers has more or less always (consciously or unconsciously) wanted to simplify, hypostatizing a monistic reality “one and unitary”, with the purpose to maintain to a lower level that tensions which could have been able to damage a psyche not still enough evolved, which, for homeostasis reasons, was not able to accept a plural reality that warned as potentially dangerous.

 

 

 

                             5.2) To be and to exist.

 

    If Heidegger was worried that his ontology not was exchanged for existentialism, my worry, in writing these pages, are exactly opposed. The awareness of my materiality and of the limits of my thought block me the presumptuousness to research the being as “origin and transcendence” of what is existing. If I oppose the being that is “inside the universe” to the nothing that could be outside and use terms as dynamic being and (probably) stable being to indicate what is to the base of the two ambits of the reality, not for that I hope to add something, ontologically, to the pure sound of the words that designate them. They are used as simple reference terms, to point out what is supposed to be origin, cause and substance of all that exists, without of them we are able to advance some further connotation.

    The being for the RD is simply the totality of the real single beings, since, without real beings to testify it, the being simply “is not”. But, if we want grant us a poetic envoy then can to say that perhaps it is the mysterious “power” to which is to relate the “act” of existing of our universe in its complex whole; and yet we of the whole being, in any case, would be able always and only to perceive (in Kantian terms) the show of his effects “for us”. And with a process of reduction to the "sure", in the end, the only existence of which we are able really deal is still always "our" one. And that bring back us to the ontological supremacy that we had recognized in due course to the individuality, when we had assumed it as starting point of our researches.

    It is in fact our existence, with regard to the “all”, the true object of the RD. Everything we are able to think of that is outside us is the result of the limited intellectual faculties which we have at disposal and yet we cannot are able to count on other. The main point is doesn't clip the little wings of our intellect and abdicate to pose the questions that the existing set, accepting passively the tempting answers prepackaged that are offered from the religious ideologies, or, on the contrary, limiting us to a materialistic monism that block every opening to the unknown in which we are dipped. It is in such sense that the RD is even an existentialistic philosophy, having it for above all object the existence of the man. But of the secular existentialisms known and more recent (apart from that more specifically  religious ones) doesn't have that intellectualistic character by which are they determined and pervaded. Whose issues go from the mystical ontology [4] to the substitution of the religion, otherwise toward a wishful libertarianism, become the intriguing and ambiguous substratum of cultural and behavioural fashions of anticonformist and uninhibited character [5], which have assumed aspects of fashionable aestheticisms. The RD is instead a ground-to-ground existentialism, for the man in the street, where prevails the good sense with a touch of pragmatism; characteristics that maintain it very far from elegant acrobatics of the intellect and of the reason, only references to real and practical life.

 

                           

 

 

                        5.3)  The good and the evil.

 

    The two terms indicate interpretative and of reference concepts of enormous importance, even linguistic, whose manifold meanings cover all complex range of the human esperience. In origin they have to be simple verbal expressions tied to the bodily pleasure or pain, a few after they have to become in the speech of the desirable and of the undesirable expressive signals; only later they acquired, for correlation, analogy or extension, the wide range of meanings currently in use. Yet is in the cultural field and especially in metaphysical that good and evil assume the more amazing development, going away from the primitive meaning up to twist it ideologically in the reciprocal opposite. So the transgression of the divine law that produces pleasure can be considered evil and the pain suffered as homage to the divinity ca be considered good.

    But the relativity of good and evil is of more wide importance, because the desire is an urge that goes to thousand sometimes opposite directions. So the damage of an individual can becomes an advantage of an other, till the extreme result express from the Latin proverb “mors tua vita mea".  And yet, going out from the abuses of the ideology, we can ask if have to abandon the evil and the good to the pure expressive relativism or, instead, try to attribute to the two terms a less vague meaning, with an univocal and definite meaning that not opposes the good sense and the reason.

    In a dualistic perspective it emerges immediately an adjunctive difficulty, because we have to set preliminarily the question about the legitimacy of the use of the couple of opposite terms relatively to both or to an only of the two ambits of the reality of them are we dealing. And, in any case, what would be the respective, and diverging, meanings? Luckily we are able to clear away easily and at once the field of a horn of the problem, affirming that, probably, where is presumably absent any form of material becoming, and is the case of aither, becomes absurd to seek to apply it such two merely anthropic concepts. Where it is, presumably, stable being and not becoming (dynamic being) in materialistic-evolutionary sense, cannot exist conflictual states among the different forms of the aither with regard to the couple good/evil.

    On the other hand, being the fundamental modality (ways of being) of the aither those of liberty and quality ones, we cannot consequently introduce in the ambit of the aither any effects of the laws of the necessity, inherent to the substance and becoming of the matter, which admit the opposite results of “positive” and “negative”. It is just doubtful if, and in which way, it has sense to apply our couple of terms to the ambit of matter itself, because inside it all is in transformation and in continuous evolution, for which the mechanisms of the necessity (alterable from the case), with the exchange and the transition of the causes in the effects (with those of feed-back ones), make them often superimposed, muddled and sometimes interchangeable.

    That with regard to the inorganic matter it is impossible decide in a chemical reaction, where certain substances become others, if that happens is good or evil, if not in utility or damage terms for the men that observe, effect or suffer it, that is out of question. And the same thing we may say of that organic matter only virtually living that precedes or follows the life.  The things are in different way if we speak of living subjects. The cells that constitute a body regenerate continually themselves and the death of a cell is functional to the birth of that replaces it: just such fact allows the survival of the body [6] . But if we from the minimal unity that constitutes the living matter move toward the whole multicellular living being, the binomial life/death so express becomes immediately an antinomy. "Ours" life distinguish and match itself to the life in general and our living becomes the Supreme Good to defend above all. Just the pleasure by which we are biologically attracted becomes second-rate, to the point that we are ready to suffer for a therapy or a surgical intervention if they assure us the preservation of the life.

   The point is that the cardiac arrest in a living being is not a pure transformation, but the functional cessation of a concluded and isolated entity of the biological “whole”. That results still more evident if we think that from the chemical point of view it  remain, at least for some time, unchanged the same bodily consistence and its molecular composition. The evil is then just here, in the passage of the individuality to a totality that end a process where we pass from the existence of an  “I”  to its annulment, while the putrefaction that follows the death is a normal chemical transformation, where the nature and the sum of the atoms remains unchanged. But if the "breath of life" is nearly a nothing in comparison with the fundamental structure of the matter, it is yet the form of it that testifies its evolution and progress, for that the life has to be considered the most precious value from it achieved. Neither we can push over, to affirm that a still greater value could have the psyche, the reason, the intellect or the idema, since they are simple functions of the living organism, which end in the moment when happens the cerebral death.

    But the life dialectic, with the implications over remembered, under the theoretical profile (and then general) doesn't admit only our individual point of view, but even that collective of our group or of our people, just, that of the whole species. But that legitimates then also the virtual point of view of every other living species and even the sum of all the living species, then the biosphere in its whole. Thence, if we want adopt valid concepts of good and evil are compelled, logically, to include the virtual point of view that concerns all the life forms, with them we linked and relative by the common origin are. If the criterion must have a general validity we have then to abandon the reference to the individual desire, that has a pure psychological value, passing decidedly to that of the general “life will”, what direct us toward the self-preservation and the survival. The term, that we borrow from Schopenhauer, in the RD assumes however a meaning a little different. For us the life will is irrational and blind only at individual level, while for Schopenhauer [7] it assumes totality character. Under the profile of the totality instead for us the life will answers fully to the biological reason, that exstablishes and includes it. Biological reason that we can even define as a kind of “intelligence of the evolved matter”, because it regulates and guides the biosphere, to the maintenance and the best adaptation (in its generality ) to the inorganic world that it accepts.

    It emerges then clearly that the good/evil couple and its derived and connected has a sense only if concerns the life in its whole, but that its meaning cannot be neither related only to the extremes of life and death; therefore we must include all that, in the form of situations, happenings or corollaries to good and evil, puts in the vital course of every being of the biosphere in the arc of whole its existence, that is between the birth and the rigor mortis. It is not only a problem of existing or not, but even of  modality of the existing itself, that are subjectively perhaps more important than to live or to die.

    At this point we are able to draw a conclusion, affirming that it may be considered good all that in some way promotes the life, preserves, develops and improves it, on the contrary it may be considered evil all that denies, damages, does regress and worsens it. From such comes that even the damage of any tool or means that accompanies usefully our life is a negative fact. The life precariousness in itself is accompanied from that of every our power or attribute, and that allows us a further more extensive formulation (but not devoid of some ambiguity) that would be said so: «In the becoming of the matter and in its continuous change is good what involves maintenance, increase and progress, while is evil what involves destruction, reduction and deterioration.»

    But what happens of all metaphysical and ethical meanings that good and evil have assumed in all the religions and in all the cultures to every latitude and longitude? We’ll say that the RD not denies aprioristically some value to this traditional and cultural determinations, but that abstain from the judgment on parameters that are specific and concerning civilization forms nowadays still not superimposing, and that then it is practically impossible establish univocal criterions to judge values and disvalues that go too far the criterions above by us exposed. They, electing the life (and its maintenance and amelioration) as judgment meter, have the characters of universality hardly assignable to the single cultures and local ethics.

    But having we set dualistically matter and aither and besides, in a certain sense, oppose necessity to liberty, neither can we abstain to give a further opinion about the problem above posed. Well, from the dualist point of view (and coherently with what so far said) we are able neither to say that the liberty is nearer to the good than the necessity, with consideration that this two terms have only an anthropological meaning and not cosmological. Then becomes evident that every achievement of the individual liberty, against every form of constraint, limitation or danger, whether by natural strengths, or by other life forms (virus, bacteria, etc.), or by endogenous, exogenous, environmental and social causes, has to be considered a correlative value to the good only “for the man” in its oneness; but to this good, I repeat, we cannot grant any more extensive value beyond the “for me” or “for you” .

 

                                      

                      

                                            

 

                  5.4) Transformation and persistence.

 

    In the preceding paragraph we spoke of life and have it recognized the character of Supreme Good for that portion of universe that us concerns, but have even stressed that is not possible separate biologically the death from the life without fall in the banality or in uncritical schemes of the ideologies. It is a question of two faces of the same medal, and becomes just difficult to affirm, in spite of that we have asserted over, that the death of an individual is “in absolute sense” evil. It is, at most, to species level that the loss can be considered evil when it impoverishes the biological  “difference”, but to level of the individual and from a general point of view such consideration is enough irrelevant. Instead to subjective and individual level the “one's own” death is essential, to the extent that the person is conscious of it, and in such sense it represents the pre-eminently evil, at least up to the suffering not makes it desirable. And yet, if the RD is a philosophy of the existence, that wills be a useful means for the life whose adopts it as conception of the world, it is essential to face even the theme of the death. But here we have to be much cautious, because entering on a conceptually dangerous ground, where becomes easy to use, more or less consciously, whether psychological rather than biological elements, or to fall in cultural perspectives of a millennial tradition, rich of literary and poetic elements, but often unrealistic. The death is a variously seen and heartfelt event, to the of loved/hated or exalted/despised boundaries. The death is from always and usually heartfelt as “end” of something and a “begin” of something else, ascent to the being or immersion in the nothing, access to the whole or loss of whole, accession in the God Kingdom or condemns to relive toward an expiation.

    In the dualistic perspective it is evident that the death problem becomes the problem of the idema and we will have to limit us to proceed for induction, avoiding to fall in the trap of the metaphysical suggestions. We have said that the idema receives and elaborates aither and that every form of this one may be considered released from the destinies of living matter, as it belongs to an other ambit. Besides we, with the death, suffer the annulment of our person, but at the same time we take part in the maintenance of the life in general. In other words, “our” death is against “our” life will, but in favor of the life will of biosphere in general. In a certain sense the will of the part goes against the will of the whole, but the part ransoms this guilt with dying.

    But what will happen to the “aitherial product” that idema has built when this dies? Of such product (that we had called idioaiterion), which doesn't possess the qualifications neither of the matter nor of the life (as of different nature), what happens when loses our material support? Before still, however, to sketch an answer emerges an objection to such question itself, that could be expressed so: and why the idioaiterion has to need that support “to being”?

    Let us to see: if such product is released from the laws of the necessity then, contextually to the decease of the body, it would can enter in that liberty world that the aither constitutes (and of which the idema was before witness and anticipator without be part of). Already in its phase of  formation, without that the access to the ambit that is its own (the aither) must await the death of that “material  receiver and moulding machine” that is the idema. That do allow perhaps just to forms the hypothesis that already in individual course of life some auroral form of the idioaiterion already could have autonomous existence, capable of a relationship with aither in its totality? Perhaps.

    But then: can we conclude that the idioaiterion can be supposed as a “real” entity  even  “outside” of individual life that it produces and supports, during which besides it “form” itself ? Is it possible deduce that as child of the core of our individuality (the idema) and as exempt for its nature to the inevitable necessity of the matter, the idioaiterion is able to stay “tendentially” (and just from its birth) not  “inside” the matter, but  to the margin of it?

    In any case (but on this subject will return) are we able to conclude that the idioaiterion (that would persist to the margin of our cadaver) can “enter” (or “re-enter”) under new form in the ambit that is its own? Have we perhaps reinvented a masqueraded form of soul immortality? Decidedly and easily we can answer: no! In fact is not the idema that survives, since in any case could only its product be so, as elaboration of aitherial row material of which the idema is out and only may perceive and transform. We are then legitimated to form the hypothesis that the idioaiterion is able survive to the death of the idema, but in any case not for how long: perhaps that would last only an instant! But, is the matter that has created the time, having it as coordinated. Then, may the aither have a time or place itself in the time? We will speak again about.

 

                     
       5.5) The destiny.

 

    The concept, in its common meaning, is quite trivialized, become by now nearly a therapeutic idea for the acceptance of us ourselves or of what concerns and surrounds, together with the avoiding one's responsibilities for our apathy or for our incapability to choose and to decide. In philosophical terms its history has distant roots and intersects with that of the fate, already present in the farthest Greek mythology, that has assumed in the Roman world just the connotations of a god. But more generically we are able to say that the destiny is considering as a mysterious strength (a vis a tergo), rational or irrational is not known, that in ineluctable way determines all what happens in the existence of an individual, of a family, of a people, of the humanity, of the planet. Then historically the destiny concept, more that related to the individual (to which is more often related the fate concept), concerns the world in its totality and was shown even as “necessary cause” of the becoming [8] . In this meaning it was understood sometimes even as “providence”, and this has evidently created some problem to philosophers and theologians worried of don't invalidate the free will and the freedom of mankind [9] . The RD point of view (that assumes it nowadays only as individual) I very far from what above outlined, in fact it sees the destiny as a “system” of causes, that draws a “plan” of life to which, all of us, unintentionally, conform in the one's own think and especially in the one's own acts.

    From an ethological and psychoanalytic point of view it is known that the life experiences in the childish period are conclusive, at least how much the characteristics genetically inherited; if to them we add the social sphere and the following experiential sedimentations becomes enough clear what is meant in the RD with destiny term. To completion of the picture it is to add that, in physiological and not pathological terms, the destiny as is by RD meant remembers a little the Freudian coercion to repeat, that is that unconscious tendency to the repetition, in analogous situations, of constant attitudes and behaviours (because conditioned by one’s own past) to which is very difficult escape. But at the same time for the dualist the destiny is something that pertain to him positively, that concerns his personality, and that then not only is to be accepted, but, within certain limits, shared and approved.

    In the RD the elements-agents that concur to determine, like pre-existing causes, the  “destinal project” are: 1) the genetic inheritance, 2 ) the imprinstings, 3 ) the condition, 4 ) the situation, 5 ) the role, 6 ) the social class, 7 ) the wealth. The functional sum of these agents delineate an existentive  journey in which we are putted in and from which can be very difficult and, in some cases, inopportune, too deviate. That said, it results that when we speak of human freedom (and more properly of eleutheria) [10] in current sense (that is existentive) we have to recognize the relativity of it, without pursue fanciful and ideological ghosts [11] out of reality. Let us see now in the detail such elements-agents.

    About the genetic inheritance we don’t have very much to say, if not that we make reference to results of the scientific searches about, whether genetic in narrow sense, or ethological and psychological, that on this subject have already clarified what is useful to define the fundamental importance in the determination of the individual character, as of natural bents, ability or incapability, inclinations of thought and behaviour.

    For what concerns the childish imprintings has been the searches and the experiences of Konrad Lorenz with the animals, about to the half of the '900, that have explain clearly what they are [12] . And the following searches, of him and of other ethologists, not have done other that confirm the importance of such conditioning behavioral and conceptual element in the man, relating to the early life, even beyond the starting terms of its discoverer.

    The condition could be almost considered superfluous element, since it is in fact a resultant of genetic inheritance and imprintings, but in it concur and superimpose other concomitant and divergent element in adolescent and juvenile experience, for which it, in the adult, takes on some definite characters that permit to consider it independently from them.

    The situation is the “medium”, the external environmental-sociological element, in which the individual is integrated, lives and acts; we would be able even define it the geographical-temporal-social context in which the person stays and lives. The situation can therefore assume a contingent character, but even stable or repetitive, possess exceptionality character or of normalcy, or also of transitoriness or constancy, but in every case it is a decisive factor of conditioning of the mood and behaviour of every person. As all of us have experimented, we are as fishes accustomed to swim in a certain water, if we are transferred elsewhere we risk to meet an uneasiness and more or less accentuated difficulties, according to the degree of “desirableness” or “congeniality” of the new social context. In psychoanalytic-energetic terms we are able to say that the situations can be (freudianly) at high or low psychic investment, according with the fact that they produce stress or relax.

    The role. Everyone of us has one or more: in the family, in the profession or in the relaxation. Child or parent, head or subaltern, clever or incapable, in every situation of our life, except perhaps when sleep, we are engaged to play a “part”, more or less congenial and more or less easy, that determines and moulds our character, often determining esteem or disesteem of themselves.

    The social class. We took in consideration this element-agent although in developed world, that is in that one of diffused democracy and advanced technology, it can be considered practically absent or however a few remarkable, coinciding practically with the wealth. But if we go in areas of the planet where survive some old social stratifications (for example the India of the Castes or certain African or underdeveloped Asian society) this last destiny element-agent may assume an absolutely remarkable importance. In such social contexts becomes even not less important the factor of the sex (that normally could be considered as included in the genetic inheritance), because there it characterizes in heavily negative way the woman, which pay for this fact and may suffer some cruel and aberrant limitations.

    Finally we have to consider the wealth, element-agent of which I think all of us are ready to recognize the importance. This social factor, primarily mutable and dynamic in the developed world, may get instead joined (in much traditional or underdeveloped social contexts) to the agent of the social class, with which enough often is identifies itself. That the money quantity that one can have is an important factor of our existence can deny only the hypocrite ones. The fact that be rich makes more easy to be good, tolerant and generous is nearly a tautology. We not despise the money and yet for the perspective in which the RD set us its part is of little importance. Unless we add that with the money is more easy to buy some books of poetry, to go at the exhibitions of paintings, to the concerts, to the theatre, to the cinema and to every other cultural happening that improves our aesthetical sensibility. In this case we are able to admit that the money favours the possibility (but only the possibility) to have idemal experiences in events of aesthetical character. But the field of the idemal experiences, as we'll see, is very much ampler and deeper. 

    After defined the destiny in accordance with the RD, we may ask us which practical utility derives for our existence by it. We affirm then that it is a kind of “conventional resultant” constituted from a parameters series, as much conventional, and that may serve as a means of auto-analysis of one’s own existentive course of happenings. Or as a tool to read the present to the light of the past, looking for with that to understand a little better because the things that concern us are going in a certain way rather than in an other. That said, need however to account for the destiny is like a stream that leads us to a certain direction, but it is always the possibility that the case disarranges such plain, doing that some casual happenings are able “to redraw” the destinal project so to also substantially change it. Then the destiny conditions us, but such conditioning can always reduce or straight annihilates itself in every moment by casual happenings of great existentive impact.

    We have pointed out seven determinable parameters, plus one indeterminable and unpredictable, to underline the fact that are always plural the factors that can give a direction and “draw” the course of our life. And we have done this to take away the destiny from that traditional idea of existential “road”  fixed in advance (by God’s will o by Necessity) to which we would be tied in the course of our existential adventure. Which seem us, besides as ridiculous, dangerously diverting, because impoverish beforehand us of our eleutheria, that we may consider, without any hesitation, the most precious resource at disposal: a more precious good than the same life.