On The Relevance of Hegelian Dialectic Theory to Present-day Canadian Politics and Culture...
I found this article on the internet this
morning, freshly written in The National Post by Robert Fulford, from the University of Toronto, March 24th, 2008..
What divides us makes us Hegel
Robert Fulford, National Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2008
Iris Murdoch, a sharp-eyed philosopher before she
began writing her outrageous novels about convoluted
relationships, once suggested a way to learn the real
purpose of a philosopher. You should ask, "What is he
afraid of?"
We know what scared G.F.W. Hegel (1770-1831), the
titan of German idealism. He was terrified at the
prospect of Europe being devastated by irreconcilable
forces. And in the 1950s, when Europe finally made
peace with itself through a common market, one of the
main planners was a great Hegelian theorist, Alexandre
Kojève.
Robert C. Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen has used
Murdoch's question and Hegel's philosophy as a way to
think about modern Canada. For more than a century,
leading Canadian scholars, including our most eminent
philosophers, have applied Hegel's theories. Sibley
draws a clear line from Hegel to Canada and asks the
Canadian version of Murdoch's question: What are
Canadian philosophers afraid of?
Northern Spirits: John Watson, George Grant, and
Charles Taylor - Appropriations of Hegelian Political
Thought (McGill-Queen's University Press), published
last month, began life as Sibley's doctoral thesis in
political science at Carleton University. He's shaped
it as a stimulating analysis of the thinking that
drives Canadian public life.
We know one thing that frightens Sibley himself: He's
afraid of writing badly. His firm, clear prose shows a
devotion to careful craftsmanship and an affection for
third drafts. In itself that's un-Hegelian. Hegel
never for a moment worried about being understood, so
he wasn't concerned when people called his prose the
most impenetrable verbiage ever imposed on helpless
students.
Sibley's three Canadian subjects are well chosen for
their historic reach and their influence on the way
Canadians think about their society.
John Watson (1847-1939), a Queen's University
professor, developed an international reputation in
the 19th century for his Hegelian analysis of the
troubled relations between governments and
individuals. He worked on new approaches to Christian
institutions, preparing the intellectual ground for
the creation of the United Church of Canada in 1925.
George Grant (1918-1988), a distinctly unloved thinker
within Canadian philosophy departments, nevertheless
became for a few years the most prominent Canadian
philosopher. His Lament for a Nation, perhaps the
least understood of all famous Canadian books, helped
jump-start the radical nationalist movement of the
1960s and 1970s.
See FULFORD on Page AL4
And Charles Taylor (1931-), well regarded among
Hegelians everywhere on the planet, has become best
known in Canada for articulating the virtues of
multiculturalism.
Sibley takes us on a guided tour of political culture
in English-speaking Canada, stopping along the way to
exchange words with public figures ranging from
Stephen Leacock to Pierre Trudeau, from Lawren Harris
to Michael Bliss, from Richard Gwyn to Larry Zolf. He
suggests that even Canadians who don't actually read
Hegel are intuitively Hegelian.
His three chosen philosophers have something
remarkable in common: At certain points all of them
have been on top of the news, a surprise to anyone who
imagines that philosophers live private lives behind
university walls.
Watson, aside from helping reorganize Canadian
Protestantism, became a serious proponent of world
government after the First World War. Grant developed
links connecting anti-Americanism, anti-modernism and
Canadian nationalism - links that remain powerful
today. And Taylor deployed Hegel's dialectic, a
philosophy of contradictions and their resolutions, to
argue for Quebec's unique place within the country and
the necessity of a new multiculturalism.
As Sibley maintains, "To read Watson, Grant and Taylor
is to see Hegelian thought alive and acting in the
present, not as some dead philosophical artefact of
the past."
Canada, eternally contested territory, exists by
playing variations on themes by Hegel, the prince of
painful but necessary reconciliation. Careful
political crafting, with Hegelian tools, makes the
country work.
The solutions of Watson, Grant and Taylor indicate
their fears. Iris Murdoch would have no trouble
recognizing that all of these philosophers have been
appalled by the possibility that Canada could dissolve
into fragments and become several nations or be
absorbed by the U.S. One of them decided it happened
long ago: Grant, the eternal pessimist, said, "Canada
has ceased to be a nation," with only legal
formalities awaiting settlement. It's hard to imagine
exactly what he had hoped for, since he never quite
explained when Canada was a nation, but certainly he
was disappointed. Lament for a Nation mourned Canada's
slow disappearance into, as he often put it (in a
phrase borrowed from Kojève), "the universal and
homogeneous state."
All of Sibley's philosophers, at different times, have
responded as Hegelians to the constantly unfolding
crisis of Canadian nationhood as Hegelians. Hegel
provides a framework in which people can recognize
their diversity, permit particular cultures to retain
their distinctive features, but remain within a single
state. As Sibley says, Canadians seem to have grasped
that our regional and ethnic tensions help make us the
country we are, for good or ill.
He quotes Michael Ignatieff's "distinctly Hegelian"
recognition of the arguments at the core of our
political psychology. As Ignatieff puts it, "Canada
just happens to be one of those countries that is
committed, as a condition of its survival, to engage
in a constant act of self-justification and
self-invention." He adds that those who weary of this
endless dialogue are weary of being Canadian.
Is it by collective intuition, I've often wondered,
that Ontario for six decades has almost always
arranged to be governed by a provincial party
different from the one holding power in Ottawa? It
looks like a Hegelian strategy. Brian Mulroney's Meech
Lake scheme promised, in effect, to "settle" the
central French-English conflict in Canada. That was
unrealistic - and unHegelian.
On the cover of Sibley's book, a classic Lawren Harris
painting, North Shore, Lake Superior, neatly
symbolizes the contents. The split trunk of a tree,
partly light and partly dark, suggests the discord
embodied in Canadian life. Sibley quotes Roald
Nasgaard, a former curator at the Art Gallery of
Ontario, who sees Harris's picture as a symbolic
exploration of Canadian identity and a metaphor
responding to the condition of life in the geographic
vastness of Canada.
Northern Spirits, a revealing title for this
remarkably ambitious book, refers to the spirit that
breathes life into an organism and also to spirit as
Hegel expresses it: a dynamic force and the highest
principle of life. Readers who believe they understand
Canada may well finish this book thinking unexpected
thoughts.
National Post
robert.fulford@utoronto.ca
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Thursday, November 08, 2007
On Defining A Concept and Bridging The Gap Between Two Real and/or Apparently Contradictory-Paradoxical Concepts (Theories, Philosophies, Lifestyles...)
There are two ways of defining a concept:
1. by similarity and association (synonym): eg. synonyms or part-synonyms to 'dialectic' might include: dialogue, debate, discussion, argument, difference of opinions...etc.
2. by differentation and/or opposition (antonym): eg. antonyms to 'dialectic' might include: solidarity, uniformity, wholism, unity, monism, unilateralism...etc.
An example of a 'monist' might be someone like the oldest known Greek philosopher -- Thales (624-546BC) who believed that everything in the world originated with 'water'. Thales had many other important ideas besides this one but in this particular regard he might be viewed as the 'water' theorist. In this regard, he might also be viewed as a 'monist' or a 'mono-causalist' (my word) since he believed that everything on earth originated in the one particular entity he specified -- water.
Another example of a monist is Anaximenes (585-525BC) who believed that everything in the world originated in 'air'.
The second oldest Greek philosopher -- Anaximander (610-546Bc) -- is a little more complicated in his thinking. He can be viewed as both a monist and as the first Greek 'dialectic philosopher'. He is at least partly paradoxical in this regard. As a monist, he believed that everything in the world originated in 'The Boundless' -- an idea that had much more abstractness and indefiniteness than Thales' idea of 'water' or Anaximenes' idea of 'air' or Heraclitus' later idea of 'fire'. This is how Wikipedia describes the philosophical differences between these early Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers:
...................................................................................
While each pre-Socratic philosopher gave a different answer as to the identity of this element (water for Thales, air for Anaximenes, fire for Heraclitus), Anaximander understood the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, that perpetually yielded fresh materials from which everything we perceive is derived.[7] He proposed the theory of the apeiron in direct response to the earlier theory of his teacher, Thales, who had claimed that the primary substance was water. (Wikipedia, Anaximander).
.....................................................................................
Despite their philosophical differences, because Anaxamander's idea specified one source of origin which was 'The Boundless' (kind of like how we might say 'The Universe' today), in this regard Anaxamander can still be viewed as a monist just like the other Pre-Socratic philosophers mentioned above, even though the other three Pre-Socratic philosophers were more concretely specific in their respective 'sources of origin' of life on earth.
However, there is a second sense in which Anaxamander can be viewed as the first Greek 'dialectic' philosopher. In this latter sense, Anaxamander was the first Greek philosopher to start theorizing about 'the philosophy of opposites'. In this same sense, Heracitus can be viewed as the second oldest dialectic philosopher but with an important difference. Anaximander theorized about the 'domination and suppression of opposites' -- each one taking turns 'dominating' and suppressing' each other, and in this regard, eventually 'exacting justice and pentance on each other'. This idea was poetically expressed in what became known over time as 'The Fragment':
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In contrast, Heraclitus wrote about 'the balance and unity of opposites' which was a whole different outlook on the interaction of opposites than what Anaximander was writing about (the latter of whom might have been reacting to such things as the alternating tendencies of the Spartans and Athenians dominating and suppressing each other through victories and defeats in different wars with each other).
In this regard, a distinction can be made between 'dialectical unity, balance, and wholism' on the one hand (Heraclitus) vs. 'dialectical dominance and suppression' on the other hand (Anaxamander). The first can be associated with a 'will to integrate' whereas the second can be associated with a 'will to dominate' -- both significant and often alternating features of human nature, behavior, history and culture. The first can generally be associated with 'health', 'peace', and 'evolution' whereas the second can more often be associated with 'war', 'pathology', and 'destruction'.
There is also a sense in which the dialectic can be traced and categorized 'between' philosophers rather than 'within' individual philosophers. For example, a dialectic can be formulated between Thales' idea of causal origin (water) vs. Anaxamenes' idea of causal origin (air). Add Heraclitus' causal theory of origin (fire) to this equation and now you are talking about what might be called a 'trialectic' or a 'multi-dialectic' or a 'poly-lectic' (which may or may not be existing words in the English language. If not, they just became new words in Hegel's Hotel.)
Similarily, a dialectic can be traced and categorized between Plato's 'rational idealism' (his theory of 'Forms') vs. Aristotle's philosophical perspective of 'observational empiricism'.
We come now to one last characteristic that I would like to add here about the dialectic and dialectic philosophy.
Every 'monistic theory' will always stimulate and provoke the birth of a new and contrary 'anti-monistic theory' ('thesis' vs. 'anti-thesis' in the Hegelian theory of what might be called 'the dialectic cycle' or 'dialectic evolution').
However, dialectic philosophy has one advantage over monistic philosophy in this regard: specifically, it anticipates opposition, contradiction and paradox in human thinking, behaving, culture, history, and life in general. Without having the exact quote in front of me, it is a general Hegelian idea that 'Every idea, every theory, every characteristic, carries within it the seeds of its own self-destruction.' It is out of the weakness and achilles heal of one theory that the birth of a second opposing, contradictory theory is born. The second opposing theory takes advantage of the first theory's acute and inherent weakness in order to gallop its own white (or black) horse to self and/or social prominance.
In this regard, dialectical philosophy if it so desires can 'play both ends of a theoretical spectrum or opposite polarities in a theoretical showdown -- integratively -- towards the middle'. This is the philosophical perspective of Heraclitus -- the idea of 'dialectical negotiation, integration, evolution, unity, balance, and wholism'. Most democratic political and legal systems operate at least partly according to this principle. (They also operate partly by the 'righteous, either/or, domination vs. submission' principle as laid down by Anaxamander which is not always healthy to a dialectical system because it can result in 'exclusionism' and 'marginalization' rather than 'integration', 'compromise', and 'balance' which is generally what you like to see in a 'multi-dialectical democracy' .)
These ideas will all be explored and applied in more detail in the construction and extrapolation of Hegel's Hotel.
dgbn, Nov. 8-9th, 2007.
There are two ways of defining a concept:
1. by similarity and association (synonym): eg. synonyms or part-synonyms to 'dialectic' might include: dialogue, debate, discussion, argument, difference of opinions...etc.
2. by differentation and/or opposition (antonym): eg. antonyms to 'dialectic' might include: solidarity, uniformity, wholism, unity, monism, unilateralism...etc.
An example of a 'monist' might be someone like the oldest known Greek philosopher -- Thales (624-546BC) who believed that everything in the world originated with 'water'. Thales had many other important ideas besides this one but in this particular regard he might be viewed as the 'water' theorist. In this regard, he might also be viewed as a 'monist' or a 'mono-causalist' (my word) since he believed that everything on earth originated in the one particular entity he specified -- water.
Another example of a monist is Anaximenes (585-525BC) who believed that everything in the world originated in 'air'.
The second oldest Greek philosopher -- Anaximander (610-546Bc) -- is a little more complicated in his thinking. He can be viewed as both a monist and as the first Greek 'dialectic philosopher'. He is at least partly paradoxical in this regard. As a monist, he believed that everything in the world originated in 'The Boundless' -- an idea that had much more abstractness and indefiniteness than Thales' idea of 'water' or Anaximenes' idea of 'air' or Heraclitus' later idea of 'fire'. This is how Wikipedia describes the philosophical differences between these early Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers:
...................................................................................
While each pre-Socratic philosopher gave a different answer as to the identity of this element (water for Thales, air for Anaximenes, fire for Heraclitus), Anaximander understood the beginning or first principle to be an endless, unlimited primordial mass (apeiron), subject to neither old age nor decay, that perpetually yielded fresh materials from which everything we perceive is derived.[7] He proposed the theory of the apeiron in direct response to the earlier theory of his teacher, Thales, who had claimed that the primary substance was water. (Wikipedia, Anaximander).
.....................................................................................
Despite their philosophical differences, because Anaxamander's idea specified one source of origin which was 'The Boundless' (kind of like how we might say 'The Universe' today), in this regard Anaxamander can still be viewed as a monist just like the other Pre-Socratic philosophers mentioned above, even though the other three Pre-Socratic philosophers were more concretely specific in their respective 'sources of origin' of life on earth.
However, there is a second sense in which Anaxamander can be viewed as the first Greek 'dialectic' philosopher. In this latter sense, Anaxamander was the first Greek philosopher to start theorizing about 'the philosophy of opposites'. In this same sense, Heracitus can be viewed as the second oldest dialectic philosopher but with an important difference. Anaximander theorized about the 'domination and suppression of opposites' -- each one taking turns 'dominating' and suppressing' each other, and in this regard, eventually 'exacting justice and pentance on each other'. This idea was poetically expressed in what became known over time as 'The Fragment':
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
In contrast, Heraclitus wrote about 'the balance and unity of opposites' which was a whole different outlook on the interaction of opposites than what Anaximander was writing about (the latter of whom might have been reacting to such things as the alternating tendencies of the Spartans and Athenians dominating and suppressing each other through victories and defeats in different wars with each other).
In this regard, a distinction can be made between 'dialectical unity, balance, and wholism' on the one hand (Heraclitus) vs. 'dialectical dominance and suppression' on the other hand (Anaxamander). The first can be associated with a 'will to integrate' whereas the second can be associated with a 'will to dominate' -- both significant and often alternating features of human nature, behavior, history and culture. The first can generally be associated with 'health', 'peace', and 'evolution' whereas the second can more often be associated with 'war', 'pathology', and 'destruction'.
There is also a sense in which the dialectic can be traced and categorized 'between' philosophers rather than 'within' individual philosophers. For example, a dialectic can be formulated between Thales' idea of causal origin (water) vs. Anaxamenes' idea of causal origin (air). Add Heraclitus' causal theory of origin (fire) to this equation and now you are talking about what might be called a 'trialectic' or a 'multi-dialectic' or a 'poly-lectic' (which may or may not be existing words in the English language. If not, they just became new words in Hegel's Hotel.)
Similarily, a dialectic can be traced and categorized between Plato's 'rational idealism' (his theory of 'Forms') vs. Aristotle's philosophical perspective of 'observational empiricism'.
We come now to one last characteristic that I would like to add here about the dialectic and dialectic philosophy.
Every 'monistic theory' will always stimulate and provoke the birth of a new and contrary 'anti-monistic theory' ('thesis' vs. 'anti-thesis' in the Hegelian theory of what might be called 'the dialectic cycle' or 'dialectic evolution').
However, dialectic philosophy has one advantage over monistic philosophy in this regard: specifically, it anticipates opposition, contradiction and paradox in human thinking, behaving, culture, history, and life in general. Without having the exact quote in front of me, it is a general Hegelian idea that 'Every idea, every theory, every characteristic, carries within it the seeds of its own self-destruction.' It is out of the weakness and achilles heal of one theory that the birth of a second opposing, contradictory theory is born. The second opposing theory takes advantage of the first theory's acute and inherent weakness in order to gallop its own white (or black) horse to self and/or social prominance.
In this regard, dialectical philosophy if it so desires can 'play both ends of a theoretical spectrum or opposite polarities in a theoretical showdown -- integratively -- towards the middle'. This is the philosophical perspective of Heraclitus -- the idea of 'dialectical negotiation, integration, evolution, unity, balance, and wholism'. Most democratic political and legal systems operate at least partly according to this principle. (They also operate partly by the 'righteous, either/or, domination vs. submission' principle as laid down by Anaxamander which is not always healthy to a dialectical system because it can result in 'exclusionism' and 'marginalization' rather than 'integration', 'compromise', and 'balance' which is generally what you like to see in a 'multi-dialectical democracy' .)
These ideas will all be explored and applied in more detail in the construction and extrapolation of Hegel's Hotel.
dgbn, Nov. 8-9th, 2007.
Friday, September 14, 2007
3.1. Defining, Describing, and Distinguishing Different Types of Dialectics
'The dialectic' is like any other concept in philosophy, psychology, science, or any other field of study: it can, and invariably does, mean different things to different people -- philosophers and theorists, students, readers, etc. Usually there is a 'range of similar' meaning(s) among philosophers who have studied basically the same philosophers before them. Call this range of similar meaning the 'social meaning' of the concept. But within this range of social meaning, different philosophers will always have different 'nuances' or 'focuses' of meaning for each of their particular concepts which are aimed to help drive their own particular theory in the particular direction that they want and thus, are driven by the philosopher's own 'narcissistic' wants, motives, needs. This is what I will call the 'narcissistic'(self-based) meaning of the philosopher's concept.
Having made this particular distinction (and most leading edge philosophy is about philosophers making new distinctions that previous philosophers have not thought about), and allowing for the fact that we will spend considerable time delving into the historical, social and philosophical roots of the term 'dialectic, I turn now to a further distinction that has not really been made relative to the dialectic: the difference between a 'narcissistic' dialectic and a 'humanistic-existential' dialectic. The first tends to generally be more detrimental and self-destructive relative to the advancement and evolution of human society (as well as to the specific person and/or persons involved in this type of dialectic), whereas the second type of dialectic seems to generally have more favorable results toward both the social and personal advancement and evolution of the particular people involved.
So we come back to the question, 'What is the dialectic?'; and then what is the difference between a 'narcissistic dialectic' and a 'humanistic-existential dialectic'?
A dialectic, for our purposes here, is any personal and/or social disagreement that involves that involves a 'split of social and/or personal interests'. This we might call a 'dialectical split'. Liberalism vs. Conservatism. Capitalism vs. Socialism. Impulse vs. Restraint. Environment vs. Economics. Right vs. Wrong. Good vs. Bad. Saint vs. Sinner. Narcissism vs. Altruism. Narcissism vs. Humanistic-Existential Values and Ethics. Black vs. White. Men vs. Women. God vs. The Devil. Heaven vs. Hell. East vs. West. North vs. South. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Idealism vs. Realism. Idealism vs. (Fake) Ideology. (Fake) Ideology vs. (Underlying)Real Narcissistic Motives and Goals. These are all various different types of dialectic possibilities and/or realities.
By 'narcissistic dialectic', we will mean any debate and/or conflict situation whereby there is the desire by one or more persons to 'win an argument' or to 'get their own way', to 'control' or 'overpower' the other person in the conflict, and/or to 'manipulate the other person(s) towards the desired narcissistic outcome'. In the worst case scenarios, a narcissitic dialectic may result in court, crime, violence, and/or outright war. Within the realm of narcissistic dialectics, we can further distinguish between: 'power dialectics', 'manipulative dialectics', 'economic dialectics', and 'violent dialectics' but these we will save for another discussion.
In contrast, a 'humanistic-existential or integrative dialectic' is a dialectic where both parties in the disagreement are aiming towards a 'win-win solution or resolution' to the disagreement. The particular 'process dynamics' in this latter type of dialectic involve such things as: creative imagination, problem-solving skills, conflict-negotiation or mediation skills, a style of negotiation that involves both self-assertiveness and social empathy, compromise, and integration. The idea in this latter case scenario is that it is best for both sides to leave the negotiation table as happy as possible, as opposed to one party 'trampling over top of the other party' using a combination of force, coercion, leverage, manipulation, deceit, etc.
The study of 'dialectics' in general then becomes the study of bot of these types of debate and/or conflict situations -- and the differences between them. It can and will also mean the study of 'opposing polarities' and the attempt to resolve the distance and differences between these opposing polarities, either through a 'righteous either/or solution' (a 'will to power' and/or a 'will to rhetorical supremacy' -- the classic 'Socratean dialectic') or by means of a more 'compromising, integrative solution or resolution' (the classic Hegelian dialectic -- 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis').
Within the framework of Gap-DGB Philosophy, this is what we will mean by the study of 'dialectics' and/or 'multi-dialectics' (the latter meaning more than one type of dialectic going on at the same and/or different times).
dgb, Jan. 30th, 2007, Updated Sept. 16th, 2007.
'The dialectic' is like any other concept in philosophy, psychology, science, or any other field of study: it can, and invariably does, mean different things to different people -- philosophers and theorists, students, readers, etc. Usually there is a 'range of similar' meaning(s) among philosophers who have studied basically the same philosophers before them. Call this range of similar meaning the 'social meaning' of the concept. But within this range of social meaning, different philosophers will always have different 'nuances' or 'focuses' of meaning for each of their particular concepts which are aimed to help drive their own particular theory in the particular direction that they want and thus, are driven by the philosopher's own 'narcissistic' wants, motives, needs. This is what I will call the 'narcissistic'(self-based) meaning of the philosopher's concept.
Having made this particular distinction (and most leading edge philosophy is about philosophers making new distinctions that previous philosophers have not thought about), and allowing for the fact that we will spend considerable time delving into the historical, social and philosophical roots of the term 'dialectic, I turn now to a further distinction that has not really been made relative to the dialectic: the difference between a 'narcissistic' dialectic and a 'humanistic-existential' dialectic. The first tends to generally be more detrimental and self-destructive relative to the advancement and evolution of human society (as well as to the specific person and/or persons involved in this type of dialectic), whereas the second type of dialectic seems to generally have more favorable results toward both the social and personal advancement and evolution of the particular people involved.
So we come back to the question, 'What is the dialectic?'; and then what is the difference between a 'narcissistic dialectic' and a 'humanistic-existential dialectic'?
A dialectic, for our purposes here, is any personal and/or social disagreement that involves that involves a 'split of social and/or personal interests'. This we might call a 'dialectical split'. Liberalism vs. Conservatism. Capitalism vs. Socialism. Impulse vs. Restraint. Environment vs. Economics. Right vs. Wrong. Good vs. Bad. Saint vs. Sinner. Narcissism vs. Altruism. Narcissism vs. Humanistic-Existential Values and Ethics. Black vs. White. Men vs. Women. God vs. The Devil. Heaven vs. Hell. East vs. West. North vs. South. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Idealism vs. Realism. Idealism vs. (Fake) Ideology. (Fake) Ideology vs. (Underlying)Real Narcissistic Motives and Goals. These are all various different types of dialectic possibilities and/or realities.
By 'narcissistic dialectic', we will mean any debate and/or conflict situation whereby there is the desire by one or more persons to 'win an argument' or to 'get their own way', to 'control' or 'overpower' the other person in the conflict, and/or to 'manipulate the other person(s) towards the desired narcissistic outcome'. In the worst case scenarios, a narcissitic dialectic may result in court, crime, violence, and/or outright war. Within the realm of narcissistic dialectics, we can further distinguish between: 'power dialectics', 'manipulative dialectics', 'economic dialectics', and 'violent dialectics' but these we will save for another discussion.
In contrast, a 'humanistic-existential or integrative dialectic' is a dialectic where both parties in the disagreement are aiming towards a 'win-win solution or resolution' to the disagreement. The particular 'process dynamics' in this latter type of dialectic involve such things as: creative imagination, problem-solving skills, conflict-negotiation or mediation skills, a style of negotiation that involves both self-assertiveness and social empathy, compromise, and integration. The idea in this latter case scenario is that it is best for both sides to leave the negotiation table as happy as possible, as opposed to one party 'trampling over top of the other party' using a combination of force, coercion, leverage, manipulation, deceit, etc.
The study of 'dialectics' in general then becomes the study of bot of these types of debate and/or conflict situations -- and the differences between them. It can and will also mean the study of 'opposing polarities' and the attempt to resolve the distance and differences between these opposing polarities, either through a 'righteous either/or solution' (a 'will to power' and/or a 'will to rhetorical supremacy' -- the classic 'Socratean dialectic') or by means of a more 'compromising, integrative solution or resolution' (the classic Hegelian dialectic -- 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis').
Within the framework of Gap-DGB Philosophy, this is what we will mean by the study of 'dialectics' and/or 'multi-dialectics' (the latter meaning more than one type of dialectic going on at the same and/or different times).
dgb, Jan. 30th, 2007, Updated Sept. 16th, 2007.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
3.2. From Hegel to Gap-DGB Philosophy
Canada Day, July 1st, 2006.
This forum is designed to build philosophical bridges between separate philosophical ideas, opinions, perspectives, lifestyles, organizations, structures, and processes. For example, the forum aims to build a bridge between academic/historical philosophy and contemporary, pragmatic ‘street’ (home/family/work) philosophy. It aims to bridge the gap between the abstract and the concrete. Between philosophy and psychology. Between Hegel and Nietzsche. Between Anaximander and Hegel. Between religion and science. Between Enlightenment Philosophy and Romantic Philosophy. Between humanism and existentialism. Between conservatism and liberalism. Between capitalism and socialism. Between Freud and the feminists. Between Freud and Adler. Between Freud and Jung. Between Freud and Perls. Everywhere we go there is going to be a ‘dialectical face-off’ between philosophy A and philosophy B, and there is going to be an underlying assumption that there is a mixture of truth and distortion, value and disvalue, in both philosophy A and Philosophy B, and there is often -- if not always -- creative value in aiming to reach an integrative, ‘homeostatic balance’ between the two competing philosophies/philosophers/perspectives/ideologies/lifestyles...
Canada Day, July 1st, 2006.
This forum is designed to build philosophical bridges between separate philosophical ideas, opinions, perspectives, lifestyles, organizations, structures, and processes. For example, the forum aims to build a bridge between academic/historical philosophy and contemporary, pragmatic ‘street’ (home/family/work) philosophy. It aims to bridge the gap between the abstract and the concrete. Between philosophy and psychology. Between Hegel and Nietzsche. Between Anaximander and Hegel. Between religion and science. Between Enlightenment Philosophy and Romantic Philosophy. Between humanism and existentialism. Between conservatism and liberalism. Between capitalism and socialism. Between Freud and the feminists. Between Freud and Adler. Between Freud and Jung. Between Freud and Perls. Everywhere we go there is going to be a ‘dialectical face-off’ between philosophy A and philosophy B, and there is going to be an underlying assumption that there is a mixture of truth and distortion, value and disvalue, in both philosophy A and Philosophy B, and there is often -- if not always -- creative value in aiming to reach an integrative, ‘homeostatic balance’ between the two competing philosophies/philosophers/perspectives/ideologies/lifestyles...
Thus, you can call this a post-Hegelian school and forum of philosophy. It is built on the Hegelian dialectical evolutionary theory of ‘thesis’, ‘anti-thesis’, and ‘synthesis’ -- and start over again at a different, hopefully better, level. Thus, also, we are trying for the most part to discourage most forms of righteous, narcissistic, , extremist, destructive ‘either/or’ philosophies, religions, organizations, etc. These types of philosophies usually generate ‘wars’ of any and every kind -- intra-psychic, inter-personal, civil, political, international…
However, this is not only a post-Hegelian forum of philosophy but also a post-Anaxamanderian, post-Spinozian, post-Darwinian, post-Nietzschean, post-Kierkegaardian, post-Derridian, post-Freudian, post-Adlerian, post-Jungian, and post-Gestalt forum as well. Call it a ‘Leap-Frog and Link’ forum of philosophy, or Gap Philosophy, or Gap-Bridging Philosophy, or Dialectical-Gap-Bridging (DGB) Philosophy, or Gap Multi-Integrative-Dialectical Philosophy...these names all aim to describe the same basic idea -- linking opposing philosophies and lifestyles together into a more harmonious multi-integrative-dialectical homeostatic balance.
We are looking for creative, integrative conflict resolutions that bring people together in a spirit of ‘dialectical-democratic unity’, appreciating our unique individual differences and multiple different perspectives -- and in fact embracing these differences as a vital part of our human essence, heritage, and future. As the great psychologist, Carl Jung, has written: “ ‘The greater the contrast, the greater is the potential. Great energy only comes from great tensions between opposites.’ In every case, the possibilities are contained within the opposites. What is required is their (creative, assertive, compassionate, democratic) interaction, so that the dialectic may be permitted to operate” (towards a successful ‘gap-bridging’ creative-integrative solution/resolution to the particular conflict). Joel Latner, The Gestalt Therapy Book, The Julian Press, 1973. (bracketed extensions mine). In a world that seems to be rushing back towards the brink of nuclear war again, and in a world where friends, family, and foes alike all tend to take righteous, narcissistic, extremist, ‘either/or’ stances against each other, it would seem that this type of philosophy of ‘tolerance and creative evolutionary harmony of differences’ cannot be expounded, promoted, and applied any time too soon.
-- David Bain, July 1st, 2006. dgbainsky@yahoo.com
3.3. A DGB Rendition of Nietzsche's 'Tightrope, Abyss, and Superman' Philosophy
We all need to climb onto the Nietzschean tightrope overlooking the abyss of our existence - not all the time, but on a decently regular basis - so that we can reflect on, feel on, and act on, the dialectical contrasts between our 'non-being' vs. our 'being and becoming' selves. Some people - let us call this first group of people the 'risk takers' - may need to visit their existential tightrope more often than others, while other people - let us call this latter group of people the 'security seekers' - may not want to visit their existential tightrope at all, or at least, as seldom as possible.
Having reflected on this situation for a while, I have come to the conclusion that it might be useful to differentiate between different types of 'existential tightropes'. Specifically, I have distinguished between ten different types of existential tightropes that offer ten different types of challenges to our existence.
Common to all these different Nietzschean tightropes is the Nietzschean idea of the 'Superman philosophy', the 'will to power', or better translated in most cases perhaps - 'the will to excel'.
The essence of the Nietzshean tightrope, metaphorically speaking, is that every time we climb onto this tightropes, we are going to feel an adrelanine rush - a mixture of anxiety and excitement - to the extent that we are actually going to tightrope walk -- or climb -- to the other side, over the deep abyss opposite our 'home base-cliff' that we just left the sweet security of.
The adrenaline rush and the contrast to what we just left then is this: that we are actually climbing on the tightrope, using both our mental and physical faculties, and our passion, our adrenaline rush, our arms and legs to actually get us to the other side, and in so doing, stretching the limits of our capabilities and potentialities to their maximum -- as opposed to just 'hanging out there', hanging onto the rope for dear life, waiting for someone to come and rescue us from the rope overlooking the abyss - the danger and anxiety - of our existence...This is the difference between 'existential self-suffiency' and 'existential dependency'. We can also contrast the combined adrenaline rush of anxiety and excitement of being on one of our existential tightropes with the safety of the home-base cliff which can become our prison rather than our home if we are unwilling to leave its safety for the danger of the tightrope walk across the abyss. For many -- and I include myself in this generalization -- this safety is much preferred to the anxiety-excitement of the potential danger and/or fear of failure related to not living up to the full capapbilities and potentialities of our God-given freedom and talents. Erich Fromm, in his first book, written in the midst of traumacy and atrocities of Nazi Germany, described an assortment of different 'tactics' that we humans use in order to 'Escape From Freedom'. (This was the title of Fromm's book, 1941.)
This is my interpretation of Nietzsche's 'Superman philosophy', and it is the starting-point of my own personally modified post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-a-lot-of-philosphers-and-ideas...'DGB (Multi-Dialectical, Humanistic-Existential) Philosophy'...
The 'tightrope' formula is generally fairly simple: the more responsibilities we take on - up to a certain threshold of tolerance at least - the more we challenge our own capabilities and potentialities; in contrast, the more we seek to avoid responsibilities - at least of the kind that would legitimately challenge our abilities and potentialies - the more we are going to wrestle with the problem of 'existential insufficiency and alienation' - and extended further if it is happening more or less all the time - of a 'beingless existence' - or worded otherwise - an existence without the challenge and meaning of 'self-striving' and 'self-fulfillment'...We all have to 'go to trial' at various points in our lives -- the Franz Kafka/Joseph K. type of trial...(Franz Kafka, The Trial, 1925, "SOMEONE must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning..." ). The type of trial I am talking about is an 'existential trial' - a trial about the accountability and responsibility we all must take for leading and/or having led, either a meaningful, substantiated life with many 'tightrope climbings and extensions of our existence' - or the opposite - the type of life where we are always watching someone else take on the responsibilites and challenges while we watch from the sidelines, we watch from the home base cliff while someone else is climbing one of the existential tightropes.
At the end of the day we are left feeling unfulfilled and unsubstantiated by our lack of courage and/or effort. In this case, we see and feel the abyss with the greatest of clarity, first with anxiety, by looking down rather than ahead to the other side of the cliff, to our goal, But even worse is when we feel the abyss in the pit of our stomach and in the core of our heart because we have led a life that has not sufficiently contacted ourselves and the limits of our capabilities, and/or not contacted anyone else in a sufficiently meaningful way. (See Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 1948.) The good news is that we can change the direction - and the substance - in our life, at any moment in time, with any change in behavior, small and/or large. But to do this, we cannot avoid the Nietzschean existential tightrope(s).
dgbn,
david gordon bain,
dialectical-gap-bridging-negotiations
democracy goes beyond narcissism
We all need to climb onto the Nietzschean tightrope overlooking the abyss of our existence - not all the time, but on a decently regular basis - so that we can reflect on, feel on, and act on, the dialectical contrasts between our 'non-being' vs. our 'being and becoming' selves. Some people - let us call this first group of people the 'risk takers' - may need to visit their existential tightrope more often than others, while other people - let us call this latter group of people the 'security seekers' - may not want to visit their existential tightrope at all, or at least, as seldom as possible.
Having reflected on this situation for a while, I have come to the conclusion that it might be useful to differentiate between different types of 'existential tightropes'. Specifically, I have distinguished between ten different types of existential tightropes that offer ten different types of challenges to our existence.
Common to all these different Nietzschean tightropes is the Nietzschean idea of the 'Superman philosophy', the 'will to power', or better translated in most cases perhaps - 'the will to excel'.
The essence of the Nietzshean tightrope, metaphorically speaking, is that every time we climb onto this tightropes, we are going to feel an adrelanine rush - a mixture of anxiety and excitement - to the extent that we are actually going to tightrope walk -- or climb -- to the other side, over the deep abyss opposite our 'home base-cliff' that we just left the sweet security of.
The adrenaline rush and the contrast to what we just left then is this: that we are actually climbing on the tightrope, using both our mental and physical faculties, and our passion, our adrenaline rush, our arms and legs to actually get us to the other side, and in so doing, stretching the limits of our capabilities and potentialities to their maximum -- as opposed to just 'hanging out there', hanging onto the rope for dear life, waiting for someone to come and rescue us from the rope overlooking the abyss - the danger and anxiety - of our existence...This is the difference between 'existential self-suffiency' and 'existential dependency'. We can also contrast the combined adrenaline rush of anxiety and excitement of being on one of our existential tightropes with the safety of the home-base cliff which can become our prison rather than our home if we are unwilling to leave its safety for the danger of the tightrope walk across the abyss. For many -- and I include myself in this generalization -- this safety is much preferred to the anxiety-excitement of the potential danger and/or fear of failure related to not living up to the full capapbilities and potentialities of our God-given freedom and talents. Erich Fromm, in his first book, written in the midst of traumacy and atrocities of Nazi Germany, described an assortment of different 'tactics' that we humans use in order to 'Escape From Freedom'. (This was the title of Fromm's book, 1941.)
This is my interpretation of Nietzsche's 'Superman philosophy', and it is the starting-point of my own personally modified post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-a-lot-of-philosphers-and-ideas...'DGB (Multi-Dialectical, Humanistic-Existential) Philosophy'...
The 'tightrope' formula is generally fairly simple: the more responsibilities we take on - up to a certain threshold of tolerance at least - the more we challenge our own capabilities and potentialities; in contrast, the more we seek to avoid responsibilities - at least of the kind that would legitimately challenge our abilities and potentialies - the more we are going to wrestle with the problem of 'existential insufficiency and alienation' - and extended further if it is happening more or less all the time - of a 'beingless existence' - or worded otherwise - an existence without the challenge and meaning of 'self-striving' and 'self-fulfillment'...We all have to 'go to trial' at various points in our lives -- the Franz Kafka/Joseph K. type of trial...(Franz Kafka, The Trial, 1925, "SOMEONE must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning..." ). The type of trial I am talking about is an 'existential trial' - a trial about the accountability and responsibility we all must take for leading and/or having led, either a meaningful, substantiated life with many 'tightrope climbings and extensions of our existence' - or the opposite - the type of life where we are always watching someone else take on the responsibilites and challenges while we watch from the sidelines, we watch from the home base cliff while someone else is climbing one of the existential tightropes.
At the end of the day we are left feeling unfulfilled and unsubstantiated by our lack of courage and/or effort. In this case, we see and feel the abyss with the greatest of clarity, first with anxiety, by looking down rather than ahead to the other side of the cliff, to our goal, But even worse is when we feel the abyss in the pit of our stomach and in the core of our heart because we have led a life that has not sufficiently contacted ourselves and the limits of our capabilities, and/or not contacted anyone else in a sufficiently meaningful way. (See Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 1948.) The good news is that we can change the direction - and the substance - in our life, at any moment in time, with any change in behavior, small and/or large. But to do this, we cannot avoid the Nietzschean existential tightrope(s).
dgbn,
david gordon bain,
dialectical-gap-bridging-negotiations
democracy goes beyond narcissism
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
<em>3.4. The Legacy of Hegel's Evolutionary Dialectic Philosophy on The Evolution of Western and Eastern Philosophy and Culture
G.W. Hegel (1770-1831) was either loved or hated for his revolutionary philosophical work in 'The Phenomemnology of Mind(Spirit)', published in 1807. Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche all were heavily influenced by Hegel -- even in largely rejecting his most prized work -- and each went on to write his own passionate 'anti-thesis' against Hegel's philosophy. (How many 'anti-theses' can one philosophical theory have? In Hegel's case, the answer seems to be 'many'! Ironically, as each of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche were writing their own respective 'theoretical compensations and retaliations' to Hegel's work, one could/can easily argue that they were just adding more 'fuel to the fire of Hegel's theory' because they were each showing the creativity of the human dialectic at work just as Hegel had argued that it was in every aspect of human thinking and cultural activity. 'Thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis' -- These three terms were not actually Hegel's, and from what I understand, he only used them once in his work -- but he made them famous and they have been associated with his work every since. See below.*
.....................................................................................
*Although he never used the terms himself, the triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic.
It is usually described in the following way:
The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by Fichte the neo-Kantian. The idea was subsequently extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
* Reference: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
.....................................................................................
Now a philosophical theory, treatise, system -- or 'Grand Narrative' as the 'anti-system' philosophers or 'deconstructionists' like to call the 'system-philosophies' -- is likely to have numerous 'smaller theses' in it, all part of the workings and construction of the 'whole philosophical system' if you will. Now this would seem to explain the fact that various philosophers can put together various 'negations' of the same philosophical system. For example, Kierkegaard rebelled agaist Hegel's abstractionism (as opposed to Kierkegaard emphasis on concrete existence), Schopenhauer against Hegel's reason and rationalism (as opposed to Schopenhauer's irrationalism and pessimism), and Nietzsche against Hegel's long-winded, systemic Grand Narrative (as opposed to Nietzsche's supposed anti-systemic philosophy althogh Nietzsche did seem to be promoting his Superman, tightrope, abyss, and Dionysian philosophy which would seem to be at least partly systemic as well, if not quite as long-winded as Hegel's more Apollonian Grand Narrative.
So the deconstructionists -- primarily Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche -- picked apart Hegel's philosophy to the point that it came crashing off the wall like Humpty Dumpty. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Humpty Dumpty did not die. In fact, Humpty Dumpty was put back together again by a legion of 'post-Hegelians'. Marx (turned Hegel upside down but kept the dialectic and the conflict between 'class thesis and anti-thesis' alive (the bourgeous vs. the proletariat). Nietzsche (in 'The Birth of Tragedy' before Nietzsche himself rejected his own work as being 'too Hegelian'). Freud (The Id (thesis), The Superego (anti-thesis), and the Ego (synthesis). Jung (the personna (thesis) and the shadow (anti-thesis). Perls (topdog (thesis), and underdog (anti-thesis).
Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Foucault, Derrida, Perls...all made important evolutionary additions to Hegel's dialectic theory. But through it all, Hegel's dialectic evolutionary theory has climbed back on the wall -- as Humpty Dumpty, back together again, all in one piece, and stronger than the classic rendition. Hegel has been 'existentialized' -- and it incorporates Nietzsche's precursor to, and Derrida's later, 'Deconstruction Theory' just as easily as it can be called a 'structural Grand Narrative'. Indeed, it is the paradoxical and multi-bi-polar evolutionary element in Hegel's dialectic theory -- especially after the Hegelian snowball incorporates elements of Kierkegaarde, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, Derrida...and also appreciates the full legacy and ancient sophistication of the first Hegelian philosopher -- Anaxamander, 1350 years before Hegel -- that make's Hegel's dialectic theory, in this theorist's opinion, the greatest of all theories, the greatest of all Grand Narratives. Gap-DGBN Philosophy is one version, one post-Hegelian rendition, of Hegelian Classic Dialectic Theory, modernized, and very much alive and kicking as it rolls into the 21st century.
db, Feb. 12th, 2007.
G.W. Hegel (1770-1831) was either loved or hated for his revolutionary philosophical work in 'The Phenomemnology of Mind(Spirit)', published in 1807. Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche all were heavily influenced by Hegel -- even in largely rejecting his most prized work -- and each went on to write his own passionate 'anti-thesis' against Hegel's philosophy. (How many 'anti-theses' can one philosophical theory have? In Hegel's case, the answer seems to be 'many'! Ironically, as each of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche were writing their own respective 'theoretical compensations and retaliations' to Hegel's work, one could/can easily argue that they were just adding more 'fuel to the fire of Hegel's theory' because they were each showing the creativity of the human dialectic at work just as Hegel had argued that it was in every aspect of human thinking and cultural activity. 'Thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis' -- These three terms were not actually Hegel's, and from what I understand, he only used them once in his work -- but he made them famous and they have been associated with his work every since. See below.*
.....................................................................................
*Although he never used the terms himself, the triad thesis, antithesis, synthesis is often used to describe the thought of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic.
It is usually described in the following way:
The thesis is an intellectual proposition.
The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis.
The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.
Hegel used this classification only once, and he attributed the terminology to Immanuel Kant. The terminology was largely developed earlier by Fichte the neo-Kantian. The idea was subsequently extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
* Reference: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
.....................................................................................
Now a philosophical theory, treatise, system -- or 'Grand Narrative' as the 'anti-system' philosophers or 'deconstructionists' like to call the 'system-philosophies' -- is likely to have numerous 'smaller theses' in it, all part of the workings and construction of the 'whole philosophical system' if you will. Now this would seem to explain the fact that various philosophers can put together various 'negations' of the same philosophical system. For example, Kierkegaard rebelled agaist Hegel's abstractionism (as opposed to Kierkegaard emphasis on concrete existence), Schopenhauer against Hegel's reason and rationalism (as opposed to Schopenhauer's irrationalism and pessimism), and Nietzsche against Hegel's long-winded, systemic Grand Narrative (as opposed to Nietzsche's supposed anti-systemic philosophy althogh Nietzsche did seem to be promoting his Superman, tightrope, abyss, and Dionysian philosophy which would seem to be at least partly systemic as well, if not quite as long-winded as Hegel's more Apollonian Grand Narrative.
So the deconstructionists -- primarily Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche -- picked apart Hegel's philosophy to the point that it came crashing off the wall like Humpty Dumpty. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Humpty Dumpty did not die. In fact, Humpty Dumpty was put back together again by a legion of 'post-Hegelians'. Marx (turned Hegel upside down but kept the dialectic and the conflict between 'class thesis and anti-thesis' alive (the bourgeous vs. the proletariat). Nietzsche (in 'The Birth of Tragedy' before Nietzsche himself rejected his own work as being 'too Hegelian'). Freud (The Id (thesis), The Superego (anti-thesis), and the Ego (synthesis). Jung (the personna (thesis) and the shadow (anti-thesis). Perls (topdog (thesis), and underdog (anti-thesis).
Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Foucault, Derrida, Perls...all made important evolutionary additions to Hegel's dialectic theory. But through it all, Hegel's dialectic evolutionary theory has climbed back on the wall -- as Humpty Dumpty, back together again, all in one piece, and stronger than the classic rendition. Hegel has been 'existentialized' -- and it incorporates Nietzsche's precursor to, and Derrida's later, 'Deconstruction Theory' just as easily as it can be called a 'structural Grand Narrative'. Indeed, it is the paradoxical and multi-bi-polar evolutionary element in Hegel's dialectic theory -- especially after the Hegelian snowball incorporates elements of Kierkegaarde, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, Derrida...and also appreciates the full legacy and ancient sophistication of the first Hegelian philosopher -- Anaxamander, 1350 years before Hegel -- that make's Hegel's dialectic theory, in this theorist's opinion, the greatest of all theories, the greatest of all Grand Narratives. Gap-DGBN Philosophy is one version, one post-Hegelian rendition, of Hegelian Classic Dialectic Theory, modernized, and very much alive and kicking as it rolls into the 21st century.
db, Feb. 12th, 2007.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
3.5. A DGB Rendition of Nietzsche's 'Tightrope, Abyss, and Superman' Philosophy: Second Version -- The Legacy of Anaxamander
We all need to climb onto the Nietzschean tightrope overlooking the abyss of our existence - not all the time, but on a decently regular basis - so that we can reflect on, feel on, and act on, the dialectical contrasts between our 'non-being selves' (i.e., a composite of our aliented and alienting behaviors) as opposed to our 'being selves' (i.e, a composite of our 'contactful' behaviors where we are actually making good contact with ourselves and others -- not manipulating ourselves and/or them).
Also fitting into this dialectical contrast spectrum - but extending in a different direction - we might also look at the contrast between our 'being selves' and our 'becoming selves'. In this case, both experiences may be happening more or less simulateousnessly because as we 'behave contactfully' in a way that touches upon the outer edges of our talents and capabilities, we become something a little differently, and become someone a little different, than the 'less actualized' person that we just were before our 'self-actualizing' behavior(s). Does this make sense?
Here we might reflect, feel, and act on the actual essence of the 'tightrope of our life and our existence'. The contrast is this: Are we actually 'climbing' on the tightrope, using our mental faculties, and our passion, our adrenaline rush, and our arms and legs to actually get us to the other side, and in doing so, stretching the limits of our capabilities and potentialities - or are we simply 'hanging there', hanging onto the rope for dear life, or hanging there with someone holding onto us and supporting us, waiting for someone to come and rescue us from the rope overlooking the abyss, the big gaping void, of our existence...This is the difference between 'existential self-suffiency' and 'existential dependency'.
This is my interpretation of Nietzsche's 'Superman philosophy', and it is the starting-point of my own personally modified post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-a-lot-of-philosphers-and-ideas...'Gap Dialectical, Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'...
My name is David Bain. I am a taxi dispatcher by economic profession which generally keeps my budget reasonably balanced (until recently), and stretches my creative abilities and potentialities sometimes, at other times leaving me a little bored, lethargic, and/or non-challenged...wanting more...
The 'tightrope' formula is generally fairly simple: the more responsibilities we take on - up to a certain threshold of tolerance at least - the more we challenge our own capabilities and potentialities; in contrast, the more we seek to avoid responsibilities - at least of the kind that would legitimately challenge our abilities and potentialies - the more we are going to wrestle with (especially the older we get), the 'existential fallout' of a 'beingless existence' - or worded otherwise - an existence without meaning...
Worded otherwise again, it means that we will all end up having to 'go to trial' at some point in our lives (Franz Kafka, The Trial, 1925, "SOMEONE must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning..." ). Even though the trial may be predominantly in our own minds, this can still be the harshest trial of all - a trial about the accountability and responsibility we all must take for leading and/or having led either a meaningful, substantiated life or a life characterized by the huge, bottomless void, pit, abyss, that we see below us from the tightrope, and/or feel in the emptiness of our stomach and in the aching of our heart...
Those who continue to wait, usually fruitlessly, for someone else to rescue them and/or make their life interesting, are the ones most likely to suffer from the ineptitude of their own 'non-reaching' philosophy and their consequent alienation. (See Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 1948.) Obviously, no person's life can be written in 'black and white', it does no one any good to 'cry over spilt milk', to whine about 'ifs' and 'buts', or to lament how we could have been -- and the positive component of this is that we all can make our life more meaningful and productive at a moment's notice. Something we say, something we do, may be all that we need to do in order to steer what may have been a partly or largely alienated life -- or period of our life -- in a more meaningful, productive direction.
As you can partly see above, reading and writing about philosophy is one of the driving forces in my life. I have an Honours B.A in psychology from too far back to remember (The University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1979) and I am considering going back to university next fall to specialize in Hegelian philosophy, and perhaps even upgrade to an M.A. in philosophy. (I am looking at The University of Guelph in Ontario.)
In the meantime, writing remains the central growing point of my philosophical passion - and integrating Hegel, Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy - Apollo vs. Dionysius, the tightrope, the abyss and the Superman philosophy...), Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious and the Han philosophers (yin-yang), Spinoza (unity, wholism, and pantheism), the Enlightement philosophers, the Romantic philsophers, the humanistic-existentialists, the deconstructionists, and the clinical psychologists (Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls...), academic philosophy and pragmatic philosophy - into a coherent, organized, 'multi-dialectic-integrative whole' - is what I both do, and continue to aim to do with more philosophical clarity and completeness.
Mainly, I am trying to stick to four philosophical paradigms and metaphysical premises as much as possible: 1. the historical paradigm of the evolution of the dialectic -- and 'multi-dialectics' -- in Western (and some non-Western) philosophy; 2. the 'scientific-process' paradigm of Heraclitus' premise of life as 'changing process; not stagnant structure' ('You cannot step into the same river twice' - Heraclitus); 3. the paradgigm of an integration of Nietzsche's, Kierkegaard's, Kafka'a, Beckett's, Sartre's, Freud's, Jung's, and Perls' humanistic-existentialism; and 4. the paradigm of Spinoza'a 'unity, wholism, and pantheism'.
To the extent that I can stick as much as possible to the integration of these four paradigms - and in the process 'climb around on the Nietzschean tightrope of my existence' as much as possible in each and every one of my essays, keeping them coming on a fairly day-to-day basis - to this extent, I expect that I should and will be happy with both the process and the outcome of my life's 'number 1 hobby'. But there is a lot of hard work and discipline that is needed in between the 'gap' of my 'promisary note' here and 'delivering the goods' of what I am promising to deliver.
You look at the careers -- and particularly the writing careers -- of famous philosophers and psychologists like Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, and you realize that success did not happen without a lot of hard work -- living and breathing what they read and wrote about, in Freud's case, usually after he had already put in more than a full day's work in his psychoanalysis room. Sometimes you ask yourself whether the type of dedication and committment to do a job like this is worth sacrificing much of everything else. Is it worth neglecting your child and/or spouse? Kierkegaard walked away from a woman he loved very much and was scheduled to marry. Was he crazy? Turning against a life of 'balance' with a potential 'soul mate' in favour of a very solitary and generally miserable life -- where he did indeed become a great writer and a great philosopher. His sole company was 'God' in a very unorthodox, un-institutional sense of practising his own unique brand of 'existentialized' religion. Was it all worth it?
I believe that 'good balance' is generally to be preferred over 'righteous and existential extremism' which in the end is likely to leave one feeling cold, alone, and empty. What is philosophy if there is no room for the love of other people in your particular brand of philosophy. Many of the greatest philosophers over the course of history have seemed to live very solitary, unsocial lives -- as if battling their whole careers with their own social -- and self -- alienation. Perhaps there was some solice, some celebration, some psychotherapy, in their intellectual achievements. But I ask again: Was it all worth it? Was it worth walking away from love and balance? In a word, I would probably say, 'No'.
Balance, love, social tolerance, and 'dialectical wholism' rather than a very personally construed need and chase for righteous extremism, unilateralism, and a battle for intellectual supremacy could have probably been achieved in these philosophers lives. But that, for better or for worse, did not seem to be many of their destinies -- Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Doestevsky, Nietzsche, and many more that do not come to the top of my head -- I include myself as an amateur trying, at least in part, to follow much the same direction as many of these famous professionals -- many of whom had to walk that usually very lonely path...down the righteous and solitary lane of the philosopher skaking his finger at the real and/or mistakes and pathologies of the society around him. (Not to be sexist but it was usually a man; and not to overgeneralize and to be sexist again but women generally seem to have a better knack for walking a 'social path' even as they may be just as 'socially critical -- or more -- than men.)
Is it worth not focusing your attention properly on the job that is paying your bills? Indeed, is the time that I need to spend on this project not violating every principle that I am trying to teach in these essays which is essentally that a person ideally needs 'good balance' in every part of his or her life to be healthy and happy? At what point does the human need for 'good balance' in his or her life conflict with the excess -- indeed obsessive -- amount of time that is required to try to be the best that you can be in the field that you are trying to excel in and bring home a performance that all your important loved ones can be pround of, only to find that all your friends and loved ones have disappeared on you because you effectively disappeared on them many years before? The choice between a 'will to balance' and a 'will to excel' is not always an easy one. You look at Nietzsche -- the 'poster boy' philosopher for the 'will to excel' -- and you see that he spent the last ten years of his life in a psychiatric institution, and you ask yourself, Was this from some sort of disease that he contacted along the way? (Syphilus has often been implicated.) And/or was it from a life of 'Dionysian excess'? And/or was it from too much 'philosophical obsession' in his life and not enough 'balance' from other areas in his life (romance, family, etc...)?, indeed, maybe even at least partly from one too many 'crushing love affairs' -- that left him with a huge 'void' in his heart? The same thing might be said about Kierkegaard -- deserting the love of his life practically at the alter for his religion and his philosophy when he was quite young -- and having the rest of his life to 'bemoan' this choice, while he watched her go off and marry another man. I look at the history of Western philosophy and I see what looks to be a lot of 'single' and/or 'lonely' philosophers jumping out at me from every page. There don't seem to be a lot of 'happily married philosophers with families' in these pages. And I can see why? The need to excel has far exceeded the need for balance. Or an obsessive need to excel -- and/or a lifeftime of trying to 'prove a point' -- has 'compensated for' and 'replaced' a 'life of imbalance and an emotional void' -- in most cases, probably motivated by the combination of a heart-breaking loss, grief and/or anger, and a 'transference deficiency' (i.e., carrying around the heart-breaking loss and/or the anger, compartmentalized but feeding an obsession, for a lifetime -- see Freud and 'transference'). I think of Nietzsche and losing his dad as a small boy, his two broken love affairs, and also the anger he had for the 'institutionalized religion' that had been 'introjected' into him as a child -- which he turned into a lifelong tirade against Christianity.
And then I think of Anaxamander's Fragment -- which I view as my own philosophical end to the search for 'The Holy Grail' (the starting point of Western dialectical theory in Ancient Greek philosophy which basically eventually evolved into 'Hegel's and then turned upside down by Marx's monumental, culture-shattering dialectic theory of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'). I think of Anaxamander's cosmic view of justice -- 'what goes around comes around' -- and that the cosmic pendulum of justice will correct all polar imbalances and (un)democratic transgressions eventually over time, partly or mainly because each person and/or each segment of society who or which has experienced a polar imbalance and/or a(n) (un)democratic transgression in a deep and painfully personal-social way -- will most likely obsessively focus on this transgression, and do anything and everything within his or her power to 'see to it that this personal, social, political, legal, and/or cosmic imbalance is eventually corrected'. Call this 'Anaxamander's Law' -- as supported partly by Freud's law of transference. . I believe in Anaxamander's Law. I believe at least partly in Hegel's deterministic, if not always idealistic, dialectical theory, modified into a post-Hegelian, more humanistic-existential 'Gap' rendition -- which supports Anaxamander's Fragment and Anaxamander's Law. I believe in Spinoza's 'spiritual wholism, unity, and pantheism'. I believe in Heraclitus' and much later Korzybski's 'process theory of change -- and epistemology'. I also believe in Heraclitus's theory of 'dialectical unity' which might be viewed as an extension and a modification of Anaxamander's Dialectical Theory, Fragment, and Law. I believe in Nietzsche's 'will to excel' which should be the proper -- or at least the more 'humanistic-existential -- translation of his much more controversial term, 'will to power'. And finally, I believe in a post-Freudian rendition of Freud's Law of Transference as partly supplemented by Perls' Gestalt theory of transference, and Adler's concept of 'lifestyle'. As another amazing evolutonary development of Anaxamander's Dialectial Theory, Fragment, and Law -- which is over 2500 years old! -- one can also see the foreshadowing of the core basics of Gestalt Theory and Gestalt Therapy. Specifically, in Anaxamander's brief philosophy, one can see a foreshadowing of the Gestalt terms 'gestalt-formation', 'figure', 'background', and the more general scientific, biological, and psychological concept of 'homeostasis' as originated by Cannon, The Wisdom of The Body, 1932. I do not think I am stretching my interpretation beyond reason here, and if i am not, then all I can say is that this is mind-boggling and still greatly unrecognized and undervalued in my opinion. Indeed, the legacy of Anaxamander's Dialectical Theory, Fragment and Law is mind-boggling in terms of its evolutionary effect and/or foreshadowing of Hegelian dialectical theory some 2350 years later (G.W. Hegel, 1770-1831m The Phenomenology of Mind, 1807)
.................................................................................
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
.....................................................................................
What was Anaxamander in effect saying?
What goes around comes around...
For every action there is a reaction...
For every thesis there is an anti-thesis...
And neither the thesis nor the anti-thesis will every die...
They will just take turns beating each other up and dominating each other...
One in the sun, the other in the shadow...
And switch...as the power reverses...
As it inevitably will with time...
The swinging pendulum of power...
With neither side ever disappearing...or blasting the other side into extinction...
A foreshadowing of the 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' theory that would eventually -- some 2350 years later -- become classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory...
A foreshadowing of the 'figure' and 'background' theory that would even later -- almost another century later -- become Gestalt Psychology, and then some 50 years after that -- become Gestalt Therapy.
If you want to see how everything I have mentioned here in this essay comes together into one 'multi-integrative-dialectically-unified-and-whole package', then please keep reading to see how the Gap Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existenatial system, anti-system, and integrative system of philosophy unfolds.
dgbn, Feb. 3rd-4th, updated Feb. 10th, 2007.
We all need to climb onto the Nietzschean tightrope overlooking the abyss of our existence - not all the time, but on a decently regular basis - so that we can reflect on, feel on, and act on, the dialectical contrasts between our 'non-being selves' (i.e., a composite of our aliented and alienting behaviors) as opposed to our 'being selves' (i.e, a composite of our 'contactful' behaviors where we are actually making good contact with ourselves and others -- not manipulating ourselves and/or them).
Also fitting into this dialectical contrast spectrum - but extending in a different direction - we might also look at the contrast between our 'being selves' and our 'becoming selves'. In this case, both experiences may be happening more or less simulateousnessly because as we 'behave contactfully' in a way that touches upon the outer edges of our talents and capabilities, we become something a little differently, and become someone a little different, than the 'less actualized' person that we just were before our 'self-actualizing' behavior(s). Does this make sense?
Here we might reflect, feel, and act on the actual essence of the 'tightrope of our life and our existence'. The contrast is this: Are we actually 'climbing' on the tightrope, using our mental faculties, and our passion, our adrenaline rush, and our arms and legs to actually get us to the other side, and in doing so, stretching the limits of our capabilities and potentialities - or are we simply 'hanging there', hanging onto the rope for dear life, or hanging there with someone holding onto us and supporting us, waiting for someone to come and rescue us from the rope overlooking the abyss, the big gaping void, of our existence...This is the difference between 'existential self-suffiency' and 'existential dependency'.
This is my interpretation of Nietzsche's 'Superman philosophy', and it is the starting-point of my own personally modified post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-a-lot-of-philosphers-and-ideas...'Gap Dialectical, Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'...
My name is David Bain. I am a taxi dispatcher by economic profession which generally keeps my budget reasonably balanced (until recently), and stretches my creative abilities and potentialities sometimes, at other times leaving me a little bored, lethargic, and/or non-challenged...wanting more...
The 'tightrope' formula is generally fairly simple: the more responsibilities we take on - up to a certain threshold of tolerance at least - the more we challenge our own capabilities and potentialities; in contrast, the more we seek to avoid responsibilities - at least of the kind that would legitimately challenge our abilities and potentialies - the more we are going to wrestle with (especially the older we get), the 'existential fallout' of a 'beingless existence' - or worded otherwise - an existence without meaning...
Worded otherwise again, it means that we will all end up having to 'go to trial' at some point in our lives (Franz Kafka, The Trial, 1925, "SOMEONE must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning..." ). Even though the trial may be predominantly in our own minds, this can still be the harshest trial of all - a trial about the accountability and responsibility we all must take for leading and/or having led either a meaningful, substantiated life or a life characterized by the huge, bottomless void, pit, abyss, that we see below us from the tightrope, and/or feel in the emptiness of our stomach and in the aching of our heart...
Those who continue to wait, usually fruitlessly, for someone else to rescue them and/or make their life interesting, are the ones most likely to suffer from the ineptitude of their own 'non-reaching' philosophy and their consequent alienation. (See Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, 1948.) Obviously, no person's life can be written in 'black and white', it does no one any good to 'cry over spilt milk', to whine about 'ifs' and 'buts', or to lament how we could have been -- and the positive component of this is that we all can make our life more meaningful and productive at a moment's notice. Something we say, something we do, may be all that we need to do in order to steer what may have been a partly or largely alienated life -- or period of our life -- in a more meaningful, productive direction.
As you can partly see above, reading and writing about philosophy is one of the driving forces in my life. I have an Honours B.A in psychology from too far back to remember (The University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1979) and I am considering going back to university next fall to specialize in Hegelian philosophy, and perhaps even upgrade to an M.A. in philosophy. (I am looking at The University of Guelph in Ontario.)
In the meantime, writing remains the central growing point of my philosophical passion - and integrating Hegel, Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy - Apollo vs. Dionysius, the tightrope, the abyss and the Superman philosophy...), Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious and the Han philosophers (yin-yang), Spinoza (unity, wholism, and pantheism), the Enlightement philosophers, the Romantic philsophers, the humanistic-existentialists, the deconstructionists, and the clinical psychologists (Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls...), academic philosophy and pragmatic philosophy - into a coherent, organized, 'multi-dialectic-integrative whole' - is what I both do, and continue to aim to do with more philosophical clarity and completeness.
Mainly, I am trying to stick to four philosophical paradigms and metaphysical premises as much as possible: 1. the historical paradigm of the evolution of the dialectic -- and 'multi-dialectics' -- in Western (and some non-Western) philosophy; 2. the 'scientific-process' paradigm of Heraclitus' premise of life as 'changing process; not stagnant structure' ('You cannot step into the same river twice' - Heraclitus); 3. the paradgigm of an integration of Nietzsche's, Kierkegaard's, Kafka'a, Beckett's, Sartre's, Freud's, Jung's, and Perls' humanistic-existentialism; and 4. the paradigm of Spinoza'a 'unity, wholism, and pantheism'.
To the extent that I can stick as much as possible to the integration of these four paradigms - and in the process 'climb around on the Nietzschean tightrope of my existence' as much as possible in each and every one of my essays, keeping them coming on a fairly day-to-day basis - to this extent, I expect that I should and will be happy with both the process and the outcome of my life's 'number 1 hobby'. But there is a lot of hard work and discipline that is needed in between the 'gap' of my 'promisary note' here and 'delivering the goods' of what I am promising to deliver.
You look at the careers -- and particularly the writing careers -- of famous philosophers and psychologists like Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, and you realize that success did not happen without a lot of hard work -- living and breathing what they read and wrote about, in Freud's case, usually after he had already put in more than a full day's work in his psychoanalysis room. Sometimes you ask yourself whether the type of dedication and committment to do a job like this is worth sacrificing much of everything else. Is it worth neglecting your child and/or spouse? Kierkegaard walked away from a woman he loved very much and was scheduled to marry. Was he crazy? Turning against a life of 'balance' with a potential 'soul mate' in favour of a very solitary and generally miserable life -- where he did indeed become a great writer and a great philosopher. His sole company was 'God' in a very unorthodox, un-institutional sense of practising his own unique brand of 'existentialized' religion. Was it all worth it?
I believe that 'good balance' is generally to be preferred over 'righteous and existential extremism' which in the end is likely to leave one feeling cold, alone, and empty. What is philosophy if there is no room for the love of other people in your particular brand of philosophy. Many of the greatest philosophers over the course of history have seemed to live very solitary, unsocial lives -- as if battling their whole careers with their own social -- and self -- alienation. Perhaps there was some solice, some celebration, some psychotherapy, in their intellectual achievements. But I ask again: Was it all worth it? Was it worth walking away from love and balance? In a word, I would probably say, 'No'.
Balance, love, social tolerance, and 'dialectical wholism' rather than a very personally construed need and chase for righteous extremism, unilateralism, and a battle for intellectual supremacy could have probably been achieved in these philosophers lives. But that, for better or for worse, did not seem to be many of their destinies -- Socrates, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Doestevsky, Nietzsche, and many more that do not come to the top of my head -- I include myself as an amateur trying, at least in part, to follow much the same direction as many of these famous professionals -- many of whom had to walk that usually very lonely path...down the righteous and solitary lane of the philosopher skaking his finger at the real and/or mistakes and pathologies of the society around him. (Not to be sexist but it was usually a man; and not to overgeneralize and to be sexist again but women generally seem to have a better knack for walking a 'social path' even as they may be just as 'socially critical -- or more -- than men.)
Is it worth not focusing your attention properly on the job that is paying your bills? Indeed, is the time that I need to spend on this project not violating every principle that I am trying to teach in these essays which is essentally that a person ideally needs 'good balance' in every part of his or her life to be healthy and happy? At what point does the human need for 'good balance' in his or her life conflict with the excess -- indeed obsessive -- amount of time that is required to try to be the best that you can be in the field that you are trying to excel in and bring home a performance that all your important loved ones can be pround of, only to find that all your friends and loved ones have disappeared on you because you effectively disappeared on them many years before? The choice between a 'will to balance' and a 'will to excel' is not always an easy one. You look at Nietzsche -- the 'poster boy' philosopher for the 'will to excel' -- and you see that he spent the last ten years of his life in a psychiatric institution, and you ask yourself, Was this from some sort of disease that he contacted along the way? (Syphilus has often been implicated.) And/or was it from a life of 'Dionysian excess'? And/or was it from too much 'philosophical obsession' in his life and not enough 'balance' from other areas in his life (romance, family, etc...)?, indeed, maybe even at least partly from one too many 'crushing love affairs' -- that left him with a huge 'void' in his heart? The same thing might be said about Kierkegaard -- deserting the love of his life practically at the alter for his religion and his philosophy when he was quite young -- and having the rest of his life to 'bemoan' this choice, while he watched her go off and marry another man. I look at the history of Western philosophy and I see what looks to be a lot of 'single' and/or 'lonely' philosophers jumping out at me from every page. There don't seem to be a lot of 'happily married philosophers with families' in these pages. And I can see why? The need to excel has far exceeded the need for balance. Or an obsessive need to excel -- and/or a lifeftime of trying to 'prove a point' -- has 'compensated for' and 'replaced' a 'life of imbalance and an emotional void' -- in most cases, probably motivated by the combination of a heart-breaking loss, grief and/or anger, and a 'transference deficiency' (i.e., carrying around the heart-breaking loss and/or the anger, compartmentalized but feeding an obsession, for a lifetime -- see Freud and 'transference'). I think of Nietzsche and losing his dad as a small boy, his two broken love affairs, and also the anger he had for the 'institutionalized religion' that had been 'introjected' into him as a child -- which he turned into a lifelong tirade against Christianity.
And then I think of Anaxamander's Fragment -- which I view as my own philosophical end to the search for 'The Holy Grail' (the starting point of Western dialectical theory in Ancient Greek philosophy which basically eventually evolved into 'Hegel's and then turned upside down by Marx's monumental, culture-shattering dialectic theory of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'). I think of Anaxamander's cosmic view of justice -- 'what goes around comes around' -- and that the cosmic pendulum of justice will correct all polar imbalances and (un)democratic transgressions eventually over time, partly or mainly because each person and/or each segment of society who or which has experienced a polar imbalance and/or a(n) (un)democratic transgression in a deep and painfully personal-social way -- will most likely obsessively focus on this transgression, and do anything and everything within his or her power to 'see to it that this personal, social, political, legal, and/or cosmic imbalance is eventually corrected'. Call this 'Anaxamander's Law' -- as supported partly by Freud's law of transference. . I believe in Anaxamander's Law. I believe at least partly in Hegel's deterministic, if not always idealistic, dialectical theory, modified into a post-Hegelian, more humanistic-existential 'Gap' rendition -- which supports Anaxamander's Fragment and Anaxamander's Law. I believe in Spinoza's 'spiritual wholism, unity, and pantheism'. I believe in Heraclitus' and much later Korzybski's 'process theory of change -- and epistemology'. I also believe in Heraclitus's theory of 'dialectical unity' which might be viewed as an extension and a modification of Anaxamander's Dialectical Theory, Fragment, and Law. I believe in Nietzsche's 'will to excel' which should be the proper -- or at least the more 'humanistic-existential -- translation of his much more controversial term, 'will to power'. And finally, I believe in a post-Freudian rendition of Freud's Law of Transference as partly supplemented by Perls' Gestalt theory of transference, and Adler's concept of 'lifestyle'. As another amazing evolutonary development of Anaxamander's Dialectial Theory, Fragment, and Law -- which is over 2500 years old! -- one can also see the foreshadowing of the core basics of Gestalt Theory and Gestalt Therapy. Specifically, in Anaxamander's brief philosophy, one can see a foreshadowing of the Gestalt terms 'gestalt-formation', 'figure', 'background', and the more general scientific, biological, and psychological concept of 'homeostasis' as originated by Cannon, The Wisdom of The Body, 1932. I do not think I am stretching my interpretation beyond reason here, and if i am not, then all I can say is that this is mind-boggling and still greatly unrecognized and undervalued in my opinion. Indeed, the legacy of Anaxamander's Dialectical Theory, Fragment and Law is mind-boggling in terms of its evolutionary effect and/or foreshadowing of Hegelian dialectical theory some 2350 years later (G.W. Hegel, 1770-1831m The Phenomenology of Mind, 1807)
.................................................................................
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
.....................................................................................
What was Anaxamander in effect saying?
What goes around comes around...
For every action there is a reaction...
For every thesis there is an anti-thesis...
And neither the thesis nor the anti-thesis will every die...
They will just take turns beating each other up and dominating each other...
One in the sun, the other in the shadow...
And switch...as the power reverses...
As it inevitably will with time...
The swinging pendulum of power...
With neither side ever disappearing...or blasting the other side into extinction...
A foreshadowing of the 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' theory that would eventually -- some 2350 years later -- become classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory...
A foreshadowing of the 'figure' and 'background' theory that would even later -- almost another century later -- become Gestalt Psychology, and then some 50 years after that -- become Gestalt Therapy.
If you want to see how everything I have mentioned here in this essay comes together into one 'multi-integrative-dialectically-unified-and-whole package', then please keep reading to see how the Gap Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existenatial system, anti-system, and integrative system of philosophy unfolds.
dgbn, Feb. 3rd-4th, updated Feb. 10th, 2007.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
1.7. Gap Multi-Dialectical Philosophy -- The 'Linking' Philosophy
Gap Philosophy is a linking philosophy. Linking is primarily what I wish to do here -- link ideas, link philosophers and philosophies, link psychologists and psychologies, link politics, link law, link business and economics, link medicine, link academics, link pragmatics, all of these different areas of human thought, feeling, and activity I wish to link both internally and externally -- for example, externally between business and humanism, between academics and pragmatics, between ancient philosophy and contemporary philosophy, between Science and Religion, between the Enlightenment and Romanticism, between Hegel and Nietzsche, between Freud and Adler, between Freud and Jung, between Freud and Perls, between Adler and Perls...and so on.
Ultimately, through all this work, I wish to link people together -- as best as this is possible given my belief that man (including woman) is first and foremost a 'narcissistic (selfish and self-absorbed) animal' until and/or unless he, she, and we are socially trained to either optimally balance our human narcissism with altruism, and/or we are taught to deny and/or supress our human narcissism altogether. Most religions do much of the latter -- usually with good intentions, not always with good results. GAP-DGB(N) Philosophy believes that an optimal balance of human narcissism and altruism is essential for the survival of mankind individually, socially, politically, and economically; and that human pathology begins to take place when either human narcissism is overly inflated on the one hand (no morality, ethics, integrity, law and order) and/or overly suppressed and denied on the other hand (religion, morality, and/or some forms of family teaching completely out of control).
Nietzsche ranted loud and clear on the dangers of denying and suppressing human narcissism -- or 'Dionyisianism' as he called it -- he called for a balance between human 'Apollonianism' (reason and order) and Dionyisianism (passion and sensuality) in his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, just as the Han philosophers called for a balance between 'yin' and 'yang', just as Hegel called for a balance between 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis', just as Freud later called for a balance between 'superego' and 'id', just as Jung called for a balance between 'personna' and 'shadow', just as Perls called for a balance between 'topdog' and 'underdog', and just as I am now calling for a balance between narcissism and altruism. Indeed, the 'philosophy of balance' goes a long way back -- back to the beginning of both Western and Eastern philosophy, and remains as strong or stronger in its roots, integrations, extensions, and applications, today as it ever has in philosophical history. What I would like to do is to bring all -- or at least many -- of these roots, integrations, extensions, and applications together in one place -- 'Hegel's Hotel' (named by me after one of my main philosophical mentors, G.W.Hegel) -- together in one system of philosophy -- DGB Philosophy -- in hopefully more integrative detail and clarity than has ever been accomplished before. That is my idealistic goal.
The most important concept in my philosophical system is the 'dialectic' -- a concept with long and important historical roots, not only back to Hegel and Marx in the 19th century, but also back as far as Socrates in Ancient Greece, and before him even, to the 'pre-Socratics' (primarily Anaxamander and Heraclitus) as well as to Confucious and the Han Philosophers in ancient Chinese philosophy ('yin' and 'yang'). Some of the extensions of the dialectic that I will use include: 'healthy dialectics', 'pathological dialectics', 'dialectical creativity', 'dialectical respect', 'dialectical negotiation', 'the integrative dialectic', 'dialectical unity and wholism', 'the multi-dialectic', 'multi-dialectical-unity', and so on.
I will define 'the dialectic' as any type of two way exchange -- either amicable and/or hostile -- whereby both sides are influenced by the fallout of the encounter, dialogue, negotiation, manipulation, and/or powerplay.
In distinguishing between healthy and pathological forms of dialectics, I will furhter distinguish between 'narcissistic dialectics', 'will to power dialectics', and/or 'sado-masochistic(dominant/submissive) dialectics' vs. 'humanistic-existential dialectics', the former indicating a wish to 'dominate' and 'control' the dialectics, the latter indicating a wish to 'sustain the integrity of balance between self-assertion and social sensitivity, between narcissism and altruism'.
There are times when I may take a strong philosophical 'either/or' position, but for the most part I am looking to creatively mediate, negotiate, integrate, and 'bridge the gap' between differences in perspective, lifestyle, philosophy... 'DGB' stands for the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain -- but it also stands for the essence of my philosophy -- it is a 'Dialectical Gap Bridging' philosophy (indeed, a 'multi-dialectical' gap-briding philosophy).
In addition to 'dialectics', the other strong influence on my particular brand of philosophy is 'humanistic-existentialism'. We can all call ourselves by any large or small group of names that we ideally would like to be associated with. As far as me and my philosophy, I would like to be called a 'multi-integrative-dialectical-humanistic-existentialist'. Much of my philosophy is aimed at integrating Hegel and Nietzsche. I am certainly not alone in my aiming to do this. In different ways, Freud, Jung, and Perls all aimed for and achieved a different form of creative integration between Hegel and Nietzsche in their respective philosophies and psychologies. If my form of creative multi-dialectical integration goes any further than any of these great psychologists -- the results are yet to be seen -- I can only say that I have the luxury of being younger than all of these men, and therefore having the historical advantage of philosophically standing on their shoulders.
- David Bain, Jan 10th, 2007.
Gap Philosophy is a linking philosophy. Linking is primarily what I wish to do here -- link ideas, link philosophers and philosophies, link psychologists and psychologies, link politics, link law, link business and economics, link medicine, link academics, link pragmatics, all of these different areas of human thought, feeling, and activity I wish to link both internally and externally -- for example, externally between business and humanism, between academics and pragmatics, between ancient philosophy and contemporary philosophy, between Science and Religion, between the Enlightenment and Romanticism, between Hegel and Nietzsche, between Freud and Adler, between Freud and Jung, between Freud and Perls, between Adler and Perls...and so on.
Ultimately, through all this work, I wish to link people together -- as best as this is possible given my belief that man (including woman) is first and foremost a 'narcissistic (selfish and self-absorbed) animal' until and/or unless he, she, and we are socially trained to either optimally balance our human narcissism with altruism, and/or we are taught to deny and/or supress our human narcissism altogether. Most religions do much of the latter -- usually with good intentions, not always with good results. GAP-DGB(N) Philosophy believes that an optimal balance of human narcissism and altruism is essential for the survival of mankind individually, socially, politically, and economically; and that human pathology begins to take place when either human narcissism is overly inflated on the one hand (no morality, ethics, integrity, law and order) and/or overly suppressed and denied on the other hand (religion, morality, and/or some forms of family teaching completely out of control).
Nietzsche ranted loud and clear on the dangers of denying and suppressing human narcissism -- or 'Dionyisianism' as he called it -- he called for a balance between human 'Apollonianism' (reason and order) and Dionyisianism (passion and sensuality) in his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, just as the Han philosophers called for a balance between 'yin' and 'yang', just as Hegel called for a balance between 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis', just as Freud later called for a balance between 'superego' and 'id', just as Jung called for a balance between 'personna' and 'shadow', just as Perls called for a balance between 'topdog' and 'underdog', and just as I am now calling for a balance between narcissism and altruism. Indeed, the 'philosophy of balance' goes a long way back -- back to the beginning of both Western and Eastern philosophy, and remains as strong or stronger in its roots, integrations, extensions, and applications, today as it ever has in philosophical history. What I would like to do is to bring all -- or at least many -- of these roots, integrations, extensions, and applications together in one place -- 'Hegel's Hotel' (named by me after one of my main philosophical mentors, G.W.Hegel) -- together in one system of philosophy -- DGB Philosophy -- in hopefully more integrative detail and clarity than has ever been accomplished before. That is my idealistic goal.
The most important concept in my philosophical system is the 'dialectic' -- a concept with long and important historical roots, not only back to Hegel and Marx in the 19th century, but also back as far as Socrates in Ancient Greece, and before him even, to the 'pre-Socratics' (primarily Anaxamander and Heraclitus) as well as to Confucious and the Han Philosophers in ancient Chinese philosophy ('yin' and 'yang'). Some of the extensions of the dialectic that I will use include: 'healthy dialectics', 'pathological dialectics', 'dialectical creativity', 'dialectical respect', 'dialectical negotiation', 'the integrative dialectic', 'dialectical unity and wholism', 'the multi-dialectic', 'multi-dialectical-unity', and so on.
I will define 'the dialectic' as any type of two way exchange -- either amicable and/or hostile -- whereby both sides are influenced by the fallout of the encounter, dialogue, negotiation, manipulation, and/or powerplay.
In distinguishing between healthy and pathological forms of dialectics, I will furhter distinguish between 'narcissistic dialectics', 'will to power dialectics', and/or 'sado-masochistic(dominant/submissive) dialectics' vs. 'humanistic-existential dialectics', the former indicating a wish to 'dominate' and 'control' the dialectics, the latter indicating a wish to 'sustain the integrity of balance between self-assertion and social sensitivity, between narcissism and altruism'.
There are times when I may take a strong philosophical 'either/or' position, but for the most part I am looking to creatively mediate, negotiate, integrate, and 'bridge the gap' between differences in perspective, lifestyle, philosophy... 'DGB' stands for the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain -- but it also stands for the essence of my philosophy -- it is a 'Dialectical Gap Bridging' philosophy (indeed, a 'multi-dialectical' gap-briding philosophy).
In addition to 'dialectics', the other strong influence on my particular brand of philosophy is 'humanistic-existentialism'. We can all call ourselves by any large or small group of names that we ideally would like to be associated with. As far as me and my philosophy, I would like to be called a 'multi-integrative-dialectical-humanistic-existentialist'. Much of my philosophy is aimed at integrating Hegel and Nietzsche. I am certainly not alone in my aiming to do this. In different ways, Freud, Jung, and Perls all aimed for and achieved a different form of creative integration between Hegel and Nietzsche in their respective philosophies and psychologies. If my form of creative multi-dialectical integration goes any further than any of these great psychologists -- the results are yet to be seen -- I can only say that I have the luxury of being younger than all of these men, and therefore having the historical advantage of philosophically standing on their shoulders.
- David Bain, Jan 10th, 2007.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
1.9. Multi-Bi-Polarities and A Broad Overview Of The History of The Dialectic in Western Philosophy: (Chaos-Order, Predictability-Randomness, Determinism-Freedom, Yin-Yang, Male-Female, Process-System, Hegel-Nietzsche, Subconscious-Conscious, Apollo-Dionysius, Freud-Jung, Superego-Id, Personna-Shadow, Freud-Adler, Transference-Lifestyle, Sex-Power, Conservative-Liberal, Capitalism-Socialism, Humanism-Existentialism, Construction-Deconstruction, Life-Death, Being-Becoming, Contact-Alienation, Assertiveness-Sensitivity...And The Ongoing Evolutionary Synthesis of DGB Multi-Bi-Polar, Optimal Balance) Philosophy
The creation of this philosophical 'system' -- if you will -- has been an ongoing creative process which started out as an academic project back between 1972 and 1974, and has slowly evolved into a life-hobby project. The project has moved from 'psychology' as its main field of investigation in the 1970s and 80s to 'philosophy' in the 90s and 2000s. Philosophy has become the backdrop and underlying basement foundation for my previously linked ideas in psychology that integrated elements of General Semantics, Cogntive Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, Jungian Psychology, Adlerian Psychology, Psychoanalysis (in many of its different Freudian and post-Freudian renditions), and Transactional Analysis.
The key turning point in this creative, evolutionary development for me involved moving backwards from Jung and Perls to Hegel. Hegel -- indirectly through his influence on clinical psychology and psychotherapy in the 20th century -- opened up my eyes and ears to the study and the history of philosophy from Ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy to 20th century humanistic-existentialism and Derrida's post-Nietzschean 'Deconstruction'. Since Hegel seemed to be the main door forwards from philosophy into clinical psychology, personality theory, and psychotherapy on the one hand (with a strong overlapping respect for the corollorary influence of Nietzsche), as well as Hegel providing a major door backwards into the study of all previous Western (and Eastern) philosophy leading up to Hegel, and since Hegel to me, seemed like the ultimate integrative philosopher with his evolutionary dialectical theory (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) that was the propelling theory that motivated me to study Hegel (and subsequently, much of the whole history of Western philosophy), it seemed natural in the end to call this philosophical project -- 'Hegel's Hotel' -- the central philosophical meeting place for all Western (and non-Western) philosophers, psychologists, and maybe even eventually -- politicians.
Welcome to Hegel's Hotel.
The project -- and system -- starts with one basic idea -- the idea of the dialectic which I was originally exposed to through my study of such psychologists as Freud, Jung, and Perls, then traced back to Hegel, and then through Hegel, traced further back into its philosophical infancy -- into the philosophy of Anaxamander and Heraclitus in Pre-Socratic ancient Greece, as well as across the borders of Europe to China with less clarity as to its actual origin in the philosophy of Confucious perhaps, and definitely later in the integrative philosophy of the Hans Philosophers. Whether it was Confucious or the Han philosophers, or someone before both of them, someone in China came up with the dualistic and dialectic integrative concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' which would become a vital part of Chinese philosophy -- and indeed, extended to Western general usage as well, to this day, more than 2500 years later. Amazingly, this yin-yang philosophy -- this philosophy of bi-polar, dialectical integration, unity, and wholism -- would show some remarkably strong associative similarities to the types of ideas that were being asserted by Anaxamander and Heraclitus arguably some 50 years earlier (Anaxamander, 611-547 BC; Confucious 551-479 BC; Heraclitus, 535-475 BC; the Han Philosophers, 207 BC to 9 AD) without any equivalent to the famous 'yin-yang' terminology being connected to the early dialectical ideas that were being espoused. The twin dialectical ideas of 'yin' and 'yang' were more similar to the ideas of Heraclitus than they were to those of Anaxamander. Anaxamander's dialectic was essentially a 'will-to-power dialectic' , an 'imperialist dialectic' -- not that Anaxamander was advocating and promoting imperialism, but rather Anaxamander was simply stating -- and of course interpreting and generalizing from -- what he saw around him. And what he saw around him was a 'playoff of competing bi-polar forces' (such as the 'imperialism' of Sparta vs. the 'democracy' of Athens) where one side never totally, and permanently dominated the other, but rather there seemed to be a 'cosmic, what goes around comes around' type of logic and justice that was at work in the world and that almost fatalistically and deterministically guarnateed that one side of a 'survival of the fittest competition' would never dominate forever; rather, 'mutation of the underdog into a more powerful worldly force' would always come back and knock the 'topdog' back to the sidelines, knock the topdog back to the underdog position. (This sounds like a forerunner and precursor of at least part of Hegelian theory, but even more similar to Derrida's 'Deconstruction Theory' -- over 2500 years before Derrida's philosophical theory became popular!
In contrast, Heracitus brand of ' bi-polar, dialectical theory' took an evolutionary step forward from Anaxamander's philosophy -- which is not to state that Anaxamander's 'will-to-power-and-reversal-of-fortunes-through-mutation-of-the-underdog' philosophy isn't as directly relevant today as it was over 2500 years ago (unless perhaps my philosophy critics believe that I am taking too much creative liberty with the implications and applications of Anaxamander's philosophy -- to be sure, we only have 'small, leftover fragments of his philosphy from which it is easy to go 'creatively wild' with these fragments. However, I will stick to my guns here and continue to argue that my personal interpretation of his philosophy is both grounded and as relevant today as it was over 2500 years ago.) What Heraclitus added to Anaxamander's dialectical formula was the idea of 'dialectical complementarity, negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism' -- which is an idea that exploded into Hegel's most famous of dialectical theories -- the triangular 'dance' of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'. Nietzsche built on this idea in his first (and he would say only) 'post-Hegelian work' -- The Birth of Tragedy , 1871. In my opinion, BT as we will call it from now on, was the forerunner and precursor of Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, and Gestalt Therapy. Freud may not have read Nietzsche until later in his psychoanalytic career, but regardless, BT is essentially a psychanalytic work -- some ten or eleven years before Freud met his first patient (the famous 'Anna O' -- around 1882 if I am not mistaken).
What we have in the combined philosophical forces of the pre-Socratics, Anaxamander and Heraclitus, is in essence then, the foundation of Western and (Eastern) dualistic and dialectic philosophy, which in my opinion makes up the bulk of Western philosophy. What I will say from this, and this may be considered by many to be 'philosohical blasphemy' is that the philosophical foundation provided by the combined work of Anaxamander and Heraclitus is just as important, if not more important, to the overall evolution of Western philosophy, as the combined work of Socrates and Plato. (Nietzsche has been here before and made essentially the same argument -- if not even less diplomatically). One can see the remnants of Socratean philosophy in a present day courtroom, one can see the remnants of Plato's philosophy in practically every religion in the world but there is something about Anaxamander's 'will to power and cosmic justice' dialectic and Heraclitus' 'dialectical complementarity, unity, and wholism' philosophy that supersedes the work of both Socrates and Plato. One can say that it was the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection, not the Socrates-Plato connection, that stimulated the greatest philosophical explosion in Western history from Hegel to Marx to Nietzsche to Freud to Jung to Perls to Derrida not to mention the political ramification of Marxian philosophy on the spread of (pathologically interpreted and applied) socialism and Communism in Russia and China, and Nietzsche's 'will to power' philosophy on the evolution of (pathological) German Imperialism and Nazism.
What you have read so far in the paragraphs above represents the backbone of the body of educational information I have arrived at after some 30 plus years of studying Western psychology and philosophy. The 'spinal cord' if you will of this backbone hinges around the idea of the 'dialectic' -- and more precisely, the integrated ideas of 'multi-bi-polar, creative, dialectical negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism'. This is the very essence of the philosophical system -- DGB Philosophy -- that I will be putting before you. 'DGB' stands for the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain -- and it also stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' which is another way of describing the essence of the philosophy that I am about to put before you. I put this integrative set of ideas out there before you represented both in its simpler name of 'DGB Philosophy', and in it slightly more technical name of 'DGB Integrative, Multi-Bi-Polar Philosophy'. The system is both an 'epistemological system' in that it is asserting something about human nature, and indeed, about all of life in general: specifically, that we are all multi-bi-polar, and indeed, all of life is multi-bi-polar. I take no credit for this proposition, no credit for this theory, no credit for this philosophy and psychology of man, nature, and evolution, other than perhaps for the new, integrative way in which I present it, and to state that it is a theory and a philosophy and a psychology that has run through both Western and Eastern history in different but similar costumes to the tune of some 2700 years -- from Anaxamander and Heraclitus, to Confucious and the Han philosophers, to Fichte and Hegel and Marx, to Nietzsche (in 'The Birth of Tragedy') and Freud and Jung and and Berne and Perls to the biology of W.B. Cannon and the principle of 'homeostasis', to Derrida's 'Deconstruction'. And I am just touching or shaping a part of the 'dialectical iceberg' of Western and Eastern philosophy. There are many, many renditions of this same general philosophy that I have not touched on. One could easily argue -- which I do -- that it would be impossible for one basic idea -- let's call it the idea of multi-bi-polarity -- to appear and re-appear and re-appear again in a practically an endless varieties of 'language-semantic renditions' over thousands of years of human history -- and not have some strong element of 'epistemological truth' attached to it.
However, beyond epistemology and the endless search for 'functional knowledge or truth' by which to 'base our epistemological or conceptual maps by' and live our lives by, philosophy -- and particularlily here, DGB Philosphy -- takes one giant step further and reaches into the study of 'ethics' and 'ethical idealism'. The philosophical question has been asked over time: 'Can and/or should a system of values, morals, and ethics be co-related and based on a system of epistemology? Many philosophers have said 'no'. This philosopher is saying 'yes'. From the epistemological theory of 'multi-bi-polarity' comes the ethical theory of 'homeostasis', or 'dialectical balance' or 'optimal balance' which can be used to cover science, biology, physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, medicine, psychology, philosophy, psychotherapy, politics, art, law, business and economics, politics, religion, sports and recreation, and whatever else I may have missed. And this too is the domain of DGB Integrative, Multi-Bi-Polar Philosophy.
From an ethical and a point of view of 'philosophical and psychological health', DGB Philosphy supports and promostes a style of life that operates around the 'half way point' between 'self-denial' and 'self-absorption' -- or, in the latter case, a term that became popularized by Freud and those life myself who have continued to use the term after Freud -- 'narcissism', or in its unhealthy state, 'unbridled, uncontrolled, unadulterated, narcissism'. Thus, in my opinion, Freud was essentially right to differentiate between two different types of 'neuroses' if you will which were/are essentially the 'neuroses of anxiety, guilt, and self-denial' vs. the 'neuroses of over-indulgence, narcissism, and unethical civil behavior'. I call the first brand of 'neuroses' -- if you don't mind me sticking with a psychological term that has been used for over a hundred years -- 'the existential neuroses' (or neuroses of 'not being and becoming') vs. 'the narcissisitic neuroses' which are the neuroses of over-self-indulgence, self-absorption, uncivil behavior, unethical behavior, dangerous behavior, and ultimately, self-destructive behavior.
From this, we arrive at another name for the 'ethical' side of DGB Philosophy which might also be called 'DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy'.
So again I come back to the question, 'Can man arrive at a "natural ethical system" -- one supported by scientific, philosophical, and psychological epistemological knowledge of a functional value? And I answer, 'Yes, the proof -- or at least the logical argument -- lies in 2700 years of Western and Eastern philosophy where the 'epistemological theory of multi-bi-polarity' leads to the 'ethical theory of optimal (homeostatic) balance'.
If this was a 'fictional' novel, of which this essay was the first chapter, then I would be destroying a good novel, because I would be sabotaging the 'mystery' of this novel by essentially writing the last chapter in the first. But this is not a fictional novel -- rather this essay is the culmination of 30 plus years of psychological and philosophical research on my part. So those of you who wish to 'explore the myriad of different pieces that make up the integrative, multi-bi-polar whole of this work', please, I welcome you to stay with me, through essays on epistemology, history, psychology, ethics, politics, law, business and economics, religion, art -- a combination of essays that I have already written and essays that have yet to be written, as DGB Philosophy continues to evolve. And to be sure, this is at least partly and eventually meant to be a 'multi-dialectical-integrative philosophical forum -- 'Hegel's Hotel' -- where your feedback and your essays, regardless of their editorial opinion, are welcome here as long as they meet a level of 'professionalism' and 'humanism' that, in my admittedly subjective, 'non-perfect', opinion, is moving in the same direction as what I wish to accomplish here. I am trying to promote participative democracy here, not suppress it -- even in the cases of opinions, ideas, essays, and other 'systems of philosophy' that I don't necessarily agree with. Come one, come all -- to Hegel's Hotel.
DGB, Dec. 25th-29th, 2006.
The creation of this philosophical 'system' -- if you will -- has been an ongoing creative process which started out as an academic project back between 1972 and 1974, and has slowly evolved into a life-hobby project. The project has moved from 'psychology' as its main field of investigation in the 1970s and 80s to 'philosophy' in the 90s and 2000s. Philosophy has become the backdrop and underlying basement foundation for my previously linked ideas in psychology that integrated elements of General Semantics, Cogntive Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, Jungian Psychology, Adlerian Psychology, Psychoanalysis (in many of its different Freudian and post-Freudian renditions), and Transactional Analysis.
The key turning point in this creative, evolutionary development for me involved moving backwards from Jung and Perls to Hegel. Hegel -- indirectly through his influence on clinical psychology and psychotherapy in the 20th century -- opened up my eyes and ears to the study and the history of philosophy from Ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy to 20th century humanistic-existentialism and Derrida's post-Nietzschean 'Deconstruction'. Since Hegel seemed to be the main door forwards from philosophy into clinical psychology, personality theory, and psychotherapy on the one hand (with a strong overlapping respect for the corollorary influence of Nietzsche), as well as Hegel providing a major door backwards into the study of all previous Western (and Eastern) philosophy leading up to Hegel, and since Hegel to me, seemed like the ultimate integrative philosopher with his evolutionary dialectical theory (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) that was the propelling theory that motivated me to study Hegel (and subsequently, much of the whole history of Western philosophy), it seemed natural in the end to call this philosophical project -- 'Hegel's Hotel' -- the central philosophical meeting place for all Western (and non-Western) philosophers, psychologists, and maybe even eventually -- politicians.
Welcome to Hegel's Hotel.
The project -- and system -- starts with one basic idea -- the idea of the dialectic which I was originally exposed to through my study of such psychologists as Freud, Jung, and Perls, then traced back to Hegel, and then through Hegel, traced further back into its philosophical infancy -- into the philosophy of Anaxamander and Heraclitus in Pre-Socratic ancient Greece, as well as across the borders of Europe to China with less clarity as to its actual origin in the philosophy of Confucious perhaps, and definitely later in the integrative philosophy of the Hans Philosophers. Whether it was Confucious or the Han philosophers, or someone before both of them, someone in China came up with the dualistic and dialectic integrative concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' which would become a vital part of Chinese philosophy -- and indeed, extended to Western general usage as well, to this day, more than 2500 years later. Amazingly, this yin-yang philosophy -- this philosophy of bi-polar, dialectical integration, unity, and wholism -- would show some remarkably strong associative similarities to the types of ideas that were being asserted by Anaxamander and Heraclitus arguably some 50 years earlier (Anaxamander, 611-547 BC; Confucious 551-479 BC; Heraclitus, 535-475 BC; the Han Philosophers, 207 BC to 9 AD) without any equivalent to the famous 'yin-yang' terminology being connected to the early dialectical ideas that were being espoused. The twin dialectical ideas of 'yin' and 'yang' were more similar to the ideas of Heraclitus than they were to those of Anaxamander. Anaxamander's dialectic was essentially a 'will-to-power dialectic' , an 'imperialist dialectic' -- not that Anaxamander was advocating and promoting imperialism, but rather Anaxamander was simply stating -- and of course interpreting and generalizing from -- what he saw around him. And what he saw around him was a 'playoff of competing bi-polar forces' (such as the 'imperialism' of Sparta vs. the 'democracy' of Athens) where one side never totally, and permanently dominated the other, but rather there seemed to be a 'cosmic, what goes around comes around' type of logic and justice that was at work in the world and that almost fatalistically and deterministically guarnateed that one side of a 'survival of the fittest competition' would never dominate forever; rather, 'mutation of the underdog into a more powerful worldly force' would always come back and knock the 'topdog' back to the sidelines, knock the topdog back to the underdog position. (This sounds like a forerunner and precursor of at least part of Hegelian theory, but even more similar to Derrida's 'Deconstruction Theory' -- over 2500 years before Derrida's philosophical theory became popular!
In contrast, Heracitus brand of ' bi-polar, dialectical theory' took an evolutionary step forward from Anaxamander's philosophy -- which is not to state that Anaxamander's 'will-to-power-and-reversal-of-fortunes-through-mutation-of-the-underdog' philosophy isn't as directly relevant today as it was over 2500 years ago (unless perhaps my philosophy critics believe that I am taking too much creative liberty with the implications and applications of Anaxamander's philosophy -- to be sure, we only have 'small, leftover fragments of his philosphy from which it is easy to go 'creatively wild' with these fragments. However, I will stick to my guns here and continue to argue that my personal interpretation of his philosophy is both grounded and as relevant today as it was over 2500 years ago.) What Heraclitus added to Anaxamander's dialectical formula was the idea of 'dialectical complementarity, negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism' -- which is an idea that exploded into Hegel's most famous of dialectical theories -- the triangular 'dance' of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'. Nietzsche built on this idea in his first (and he would say only) 'post-Hegelian work' -- The Birth of Tragedy , 1871. In my opinion, BT as we will call it from now on, was the forerunner and precursor of Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, and Gestalt Therapy. Freud may not have read Nietzsche until later in his psychoanalytic career, but regardless, BT is essentially a psychanalytic work -- some ten or eleven years before Freud met his first patient (the famous 'Anna O' -- around 1882 if I am not mistaken).
What we have in the combined philosophical forces of the pre-Socratics, Anaxamander and Heraclitus, is in essence then, the foundation of Western and (Eastern) dualistic and dialectic philosophy, which in my opinion makes up the bulk of Western philosophy. What I will say from this, and this may be considered by many to be 'philosohical blasphemy' is that the philosophical foundation provided by the combined work of Anaxamander and Heraclitus is just as important, if not more important, to the overall evolution of Western philosophy, as the combined work of Socrates and Plato. (Nietzsche has been here before and made essentially the same argument -- if not even less diplomatically). One can see the remnants of Socratean philosophy in a present day courtroom, one can see the remnants of Plato's philosophy in practically every religion in the world but there is something about Anaxamander's 'will to power and cosmic justice' dialectic and Heraclitus' 'dialectical complementarity, unity, and wholism' philosophy that supersedes the work of both Socrates and Plato. One can say that it was the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection, not the Socrates-Plato connection, that stimulated the greatest philosophical explosion in Western history from Hegel to Marx to Nietzsche to Freud to Jung to Perls to Derrida not to mention the political ramification of Marxian philosophy on the spread of (pathologically interpreted and applied) socialism and Communism in Russia and China, and Nietzsche's 'will to power' philosophy on the evolution of (pathological) German Imperialism and Nazism.
What you have read so far in the paragraphs above represents the backbone of the body of educational information I have arrived at after some 30 plus years of studying Western psychology and philosophy. The 'spinal cord' if you will of this backbone hinges around the idea of the 'dialectic' -- and more precisely, the integrated ideas of 'multi-bi-polar, creative, dialectical negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism'. This is the very essence of the philosophical system -- DGB Philosophy -- that I will be putting before you. 'DGB' stands for the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain -- and it also stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' which is another way of describing the essence of the philosophy that I am about to put before you. I put this integrative set of ideas out there before you represented both in its simpler name of 'DGB Philosophy', and in it slightly more technical name of 'DGB Integrative, Multi-Bi-Polar Philosophy'. The system is both an 'epistemological system' in that it is asserting something about human nature, and indeed, about all of life in general: specifically, that we are all multi-bi-polar, and indeed, all of life is multi-bi-polar. I take no credit for this proposition, no credit for this theory, no credit for this philosophy and psychology of man, nature, and evolution, other than perhaps for the new, integrative way in which I present it, and to state that it is a theory and a philosophy and a psychology that has run through both Western and Eastern history in different but similar costumes to the tune of some 2700 years -- from Anaxamander and Heraclitus, to Confucious and the Han philosophers, to Fichte and Hegel and Marx, to Nietzsche (in 'The Birth of Tragedy') and Freud and Jung and and Berne and Perls to the biology of W.B. Cannon and the principle of 'homeostasis', to Derrida's 'Deconstruction'. And I am just touching or shaping a part of the 'dialectical iceberg' of Western and Eastern philosophy. There are many, many renditions of this same general philosophy that I have not touched on. One could easily argue -- which I do -- that it would be impossible for one basic idea -- let's call it the idea of multi-bi-polarity -- to appear and re-appear and re-appear again in a practically an endless varieties of 'language-semantic renditions' over thousands of years of human history -- and not have some strong element of 'epistemological truth' attached to it.
However, beyond epistemology and the endless search for 'functional knowledge or truth' by which to 'base our epistemological or conceptual maps by' and live our lives by, philosophy -- and particularlily here, DGB Philosphy -- takes one giant step further and reaches into the study of 'ethics' and 'ethical idealism'. The philosophical question has been asked over time: 'Can and/or should a system of values, morals, and ethics be co-related and based on a system of epistemology? Many philosophers have said 'no'. This philosopher is saying 'yes'. From the epistemological theory of 'multi-bi-polarity' comes the ethical theory of 'homeostasis', or 'dialectical balance' or 'optimal balance' which can be used to cover science, biology, physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, medicine, psychology, philosophy, psychotherapy, politics, art, law, business and economics, politics, religion, sports and recreation, and whatever else I may have missed. And this too is the domain of DGB Integrative, Multi-Bi-Polar Philosophy.
From an ethical and a point of view of 'philosophical and psychological health', DGB Philosphy supports and promostes a style of life that operates around the 'half way point' between 'self-denial' and 'self-absorption' -- or, in the latter case, a term that became popularized by Freud and those life myself who have continued to use the term after Freud -- 'narcissism', or in its unhealthy state, 'unbridled, uncontrolled, unadulterated, narcissism'. Thus, in my opinion, Freud was essentially right to differentiate between two different types of 'neuroses' if you will which were/are essentially the 'neuroses of anxiety, guilt, and self-denial' vs. the 'neuroses of over-indulgence, narcissism, and unethical civil behavior'. I call the first brand of 'neuroses' -- if you don't mind me sticking with a psychological term that has been used for over a hundred years -- 'the existential neuroses' (or neuroses of 'not being and becoming') vs. 'the narcissisitic neuroses' which are the neuroses of over-self-indulgence, self-absorption, uncivil behavior, unethical behavior, dangerous behavior, and ultimately, self-destructive behavior.
From this, we arrive at another name for the 'ethical' side of DGB Philosophy which might also be called 'DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy'.
So again I come back to the question, 'Can man arrive at a "natural ethical system" -- one supported by scientific, philosophical, and psychological epistemological knowledge of a functional value? And I answer, 'Yes, the proof -- or at least the logical argument -- lies in 2700 years of Western and Eastern philosophy where the 'epistemological theory of multi-bi-polarity' leads to the 'ethical theory of optimal (homeostatic) balance'.
If this was a 'fictional' novel, of which this essay was the first chapter, then I would be destroying a good novel, because I would be sabotaging the 'mystery' of this novel by essentially writing the last chapter in the first. But this is not a fictional novel -- rather this essay is the culmination of 30 plus years of psychological and philosophical research on my part. So those of you who wish to 'explore the myriad of different pieces that make up the integrative, multi-bi-polar whole of this work', please, I welcome you to stay with me, through essays on epistemology, history, psychology, ethics, politics, law, business and economics, religion, art -- a combination of essays that I have already written and essays that have yet to be written, as DGB Philosophy continues to evolve. And to be sure, this is at least partly and eventually meant to be a 'multi-dialectical-integrative philosophical forum -- 'Hegel's Hotel' -- where your feedback and your essays, regardless of their editorial opinion, are welcome here as long as they meet a level of 'professionalism' and 'humanism' that, in my admittedly subjective, 'non-perfect', opinion, is moving in the same direction as what I wish to accomplish here. I am trying to promote participative democracy here, not suppress it -- even in the cases of opinions, ideas, essays, and other 'systems of philosophy' that I don't necessarily agree with. Come one, come all -- to Hegel's Hotel.
DGB, Dec. 25th-29th, 2006.
Monday, December 04, 2006
1.10. Either/Or Philosophy Vs. Creative-Integrative Philosophy -- Noting The Distinction and Asking The 50 Million Dollar Question: Which Type of Philosophy Is Better To Use When?
There is a sense -- actually two senses -- in which all philosophy, all culture, all creativity, all conflict, is of a dialectical nature. We will distinguish between two types of 'dialectics': 1. an 'either/or' dialectic; vs. 2. an 'integrative' dialectic -- but first we need to back up and define a 'dialectic'.
What is meant by the term 'dialectic'?
The term dialectic implies 'two'. But more than this, it implies some type of interaction between the two. By my definitional standards then, which is generally close to traditional, historical philosophical standards, a 'dialectic' implies and requires two things in some sort of interaction with each other. One difference between orthodox, linear, scientific thinking -- which I believe stretches back at least as far as the philosophy of Aristotle -- and 'Hegelian dialectical thinking (or logic)' is that in traditional scientific, linear thinking, the logical formula is basically: 'A causes B, and B is caused by A'; whereas in Hegelian dialectical thinking, the logical formula works both ways, thus: 'A both influences and is influenced by B, while B both influences and is influenced by A. This is the important difference between standard scientific, linear thinking and Hegelian dialectical thinking. In general, this philosophical presentation supports and promotes dialectical thinking as a more 'true-to-reality-approach-to-reality' than its predecessor does, the latter of which is still very much ingrained into Western thinking. Eastern thinking tends to move much more easily along the 'yin-yang-dialectical-reciprocal-polarity-axis' which is much more in line with the type of thinking that I am promoting here. But the kicker is that the 'yin-yang-reciprocating-polarity' approach to thinking, feeling, wanting, and indeed to each and everything that happens in life and death has older roots in Western philosophy than it does in Eastern philosophy -- Anaxamander (611BC-547BC) compared to let us say, Confucious (551BC-279BC). If you skip Anaxamander and move to the second oldest Western 'dialectical' philosopher -- as in a philosopher who deals with the idea of 'reciprocating opposites', then you still have a Western philospher who was developing important dialectical ideas around the same time as Confucious was in China (assuming that Confucious was the creator of 'yin-yang' philosphy which I have not positively confirmed; I have also read reports that it may have been developed about 350 years later with the work of the 'Han Synthesis' philosophers around 207BC-9AD. This in itself raises the 'dialectical question' of whether there was an 'West-East-West' line of philosophical influence going on, or visa versa, or a combination of both influencing each other (perhaps through the 'China-Egypt-Greece line of travel and communication')? Or was the similarity in evolving dialectical Western and Eastern philosophy totally coincidental? -- or only coincidental to the extent that 'similar Western and Eastern minds' were 'philosophizing' from the same basic life process, and in this regard, 'a multi-dialectical line of human thought' was simply evolving and progressing from a life process that exhibited the same basic 'multi-dialectical characteristics' as were then being sensually perceived and conceptually represented through these different but remarkably similar Western and Eastern dialectical philosophies (Anaxamander and Heraclitus vs. Confucious and the Han Synthesis Philosophers). And then both would collide together in the 'apex of the triangle' with a philosophical force that would reverberate around the world in the 'one-two-three-four dialectical combination of Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Marx (1818-1883) and Nietzsche (1844-1900) some 2000-2500 years later. This combined dialectical force -- the bottom apex of the ancient East-West dialectical triangle -- would then go on to have dramatic influence on the development of politics -- pathologically as well as democratically (Lenin, Stalin, Nazi Germany), the birth of clinical psychology (Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls...), and the further development of philosophy (humanistic-existentialism, Foucault, Derrida...)
In the context of this philosophical forum and presentation, 'DGB' stands for three things: 1. my initials -- David Gordon Bain; 2. the essence of my philosophy -- 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging' (i.e., DGB Philosophy aims to 'dialectically bridge gaps' between different philosophical systems over and over and over again); and 3. one of my philosophy's major implications and applications trumpets that -- 'Democracy Goes Beyond: 1. 'narcissitic hedonism'; 2. a 'narcissitic will to power'(both the Capitalist and Socialist brand as well as the Conservative and Liberal brand or Republican and Democratic brand); and 3. a 'traditional, orthodox, mainly Western approach to linear, scientific thinking'). These ideas will all be developed at a later date.
Arguably my most important philosophical integration is between Hegel and Nietzsche. Hegel's 'flagship' work -- his masterpiece -- is 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' published in 1807 on the eve of Napoleon's invasion of 'pre-Germany'. Now in my mind, Napoleon's invasion of pre-Germany had a huge impact of the future psychology, philosophy, and evolution of later Germany, and at least partly explains the 'cultural traumacy' that preceded and led to the 'compensatory rise' of Nazi Germany (as a national form of 'identification with the aggressor' -- the aggressor being Napoleon.) Parts of Johann Fichte's work which had a major on Hegel's work which in turn had a major influence on Nietzsche's work -- all three philosophers and their respective works have rightly or wrongly, or part of both -- been linked to the rise of Imperialist, Nazi Germany. We will investigate, analyze, and clarify these assertions at a later date.
Let us zero in on Nietzsche for a moment. For our purposes here, there are five things that stand out about Nietzsche's work that will be built upon here: 1. his first book, 'The Birth of Tragedy' published in 1871, which is remarkably 'Hegelian' in its structure -- with Nietzsche's introduction of man's 'Apollonian vs. Dionysian paradox/dichotomy (and tragedy), even as Nietzsche later divorced himself from any part of Hegelian thinking; 2. Nietzsche's 'tightrope' analogy -- Man is on a tightrope (for example, between 'being' and 'becoming'). We will build on this analogy in many essays to come -- including the next two; 3. Nietzsche's 'Superman' (sometimes translated as 'Overman' but 'Superman' will suffice for our purposes here) philosophy which basically states that man has to 're-climb onto the tightrope over and over again to maximize the best of his human potentials'; 4. Nietzsche's concept of 'Will to Power' which we will examine in all of its ambiguities, strengths, and/or weaknesses; and 5. Nietzsche's 'Deconstructionism' which is as intense and as powerful as any form of philosophical and/or political writing committed to paper, and which foreshadowed the later work of Derrida for one who created the term- concept of 'deconstruction' which I have taken the liberties of adding the 'ism' onto the end of it -- which Derrida didn't like. Sorry Mr. Derrida but this is my philosophical presentation and forum; not yours.
Now, back to the two senses of what I mean by 'dialectic'.
The first type of dialectic is of a competitive 'either/or', 'Will to Power' nature. We will call this type of dialectic a 'Sophist-Socratean-Nietzschean Dialectic' (depending on the context) -- although it could also be called a 'Kierkegaardian Dialectic' as Kierkegaard wrote a book called 'Either/Or' which is the essence of the type of dialectic I am trying to describe here (but DGB Philosophy is much more deeply entrenched in Nietzschean Dialectical (Birth of Tragedy) philosophy with the other four Nietzschean additions mentioned above than it is in Kierkegaardian philosophy. To be sure, Kierkegaard was a very important philosopher -- one might say one of the main 'bridges' between Hegel and Nietzsche (along with Schopenhauer) -- but for our purposes here, Kierkegaard plays second fiddle to Nietzsche.
The other sense of the dialectic is a co-operative, integrative nature. This I call the 'Hegelian Dialectic'. Life is a combination of competition (Nietzsche) and co-operation (Hegel) -- working hand in hand with each other, 'narcissistic hedonism and a will to power' working in one place while 'altruism, co-operation, trust, empathy, social sensitivity, and generosity' may be working in another place. These two forms of the dialectic in action -- competition vs. co-operation -- may be working at cross purposes with each other, and/or they may find a way of eventually comeing together in some sort of temporary or longer lasting 'dialectical harmony'.
One is a case of domination, outperformance and supremacy vs. submission and/or perishment (if there is no such word as 'perishment', then I just created it); the other is a case of creative, integrative, egalitarian, democratic dialectical harmony -- in short, often a case of a 'compromise' between two or more existing entities, perspectives, philosophies, and/or lifestyles seeking different ends and/or means...'Democracy' and 'justice' can be viewed as a 'dialectical compromise' between 'narcissistic hedonism and self-assertion' on the one hand ('narcissism' and 'hedonism' again, we will define with more philosophical clarity later) and 'altruism' (which includes social sensitivity, empathy, and the like). Both types of living, both types of dialectics -- the 'righteous, either/or' Sophist-Socratean-Nietzschean dialectic vs. the 'creative, integrative, co-operative Hegelian dialectic' proceed hand in hand with each other, both have made their mark on the evolution of mankind and all other forms of life, both need to be more fully understood in terms of their respective strengths, weaknesses, and impacts relative to the past and future evolution of mankind, and for each and every one of our respective ongoing evolutions as individuals. Sometimes, taking an 'either/or' stance is the right way to go -- especially if by good fortune it seems to turn out that we chose the 'right path'; other times, integrating our ideas and values with the ideas and values of others is the better way to go relative to obtaining a more harmonious indiviual and collective 'dialectical-democratic harmony'. Sometimes pushing hard for what we want -- with no compromises -- can get us what we want if we are strong, confident, and forceful enough about it; other times, it can land us in the mud -- or worse. Sometimes success in life comes from a strong 'will to power'; other times our 'will to power' can trample and self-destruct us in situations where what is more needed is a 'creative, integrative will to co-operate and compromise'. The wisdom in life comes from knowing -- or painfully learning -- which 'style of operation', is better utilized in any one particular context or life situation. A 'will to power'; or a 'will to creatively integrate and compromise'. An 'either/or' choice or a 'creative, integrative' choice. A Sophist, Socratean, and/or Nietzschean choice. Or Hegelian choice.
That is what 'Hegel's Hotel: The DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Political Forum' is all about basically -- i.e entertaining all sorts of different life situations from all different domains of life and studying life -- such as philosophy, psychology, politics, law, business and economics, science, biology, bio-chemistry, medicine, art, religion, leisure and recreation, and so on --and applying either: 1. 'dialectic either/or logic' and/or 'dialectic creative-integrative logic' to each particular life situation.
Now the irony of this whole presentation, this whole treatise and forum of philosophy, is that it practically demands participation from different sources and different perspectives. Otherwise it would not be called a 'dialectic' or a 'dialectic forum'. To be sure, I have a particular architecture, process, and message that I would like to communicate to you, the reader. However, if this was was all that my work was about -- if I was intending to exclusively practice a 'will to power' throughout this enterprise, then I would at least partly, if not mainly, be defeating its idealistic purpose. Like many a 'hypocritical' person, I would be essentially demonstrating: 'Do as I say, not what I do.' One could say that Hegel and Nietzsche are in effect, still doing 'philosophical battle' within the confines of my own philosophical (DGB)work.
One final point. We can differentiate between 'internal' and 'external' dialectics or 'self' and 'social' dialectics. The human psyche (or mind) is a complicated piece of biological, mental, and spiritual 'machinery' (if 'machinery' is the right choice of word) -- and rarely is it 'totally, unconflictually, undivisively, and unconditionaly united' in all facets of its operation. Beware the person who says that 'it' and 'he' or 'she' is 'totally unified in thinking, feeling, and action'. When things are working best for us -- both individually and relationship wise -- usually we can say that we have achieved at least a temporary state of 'dialectical harmony and balance'. But this is not an easy state of existence to achieve, let alone maintain -- it is often fleeting, to be thrown out of kilter or out of balance by some newly arriving problem, obstacle, challenge, and/or conflict in our life.
In similar and different ways, our individual and collective experiences lead us in and out of balance, in balance when things are working well for us, out of balance when something temporarily or habitually derails and/or sabotages us.
So in a nutshell, what is the goal of this philosophical work? You've heard this before probably from all sorts of different venues. 'Balance'. Individual, psychic, philosophical, relationship, biological, bio-chemical, poliitical, legal, financial, work, leisure, spiritual, religious, community, racial, international, ecological -- have I missed anything (I'm sure I have) -- balance. Which somehow, in ways that will be determined as we go along, includes the Nietzschean philosophy of the 'tightrope' and the 'Superman' (which paradoxically might throw us out of the 'complacency' of our 'balance' for a short or longer while until we become comfortable on the tightrope or get to the other side, or come back again).
Thus, DGB Philosophy essentially 'splits the difference' between much of Hegelian and Nietzschean philosophy. However, it also splits the difference between many other philosophical and psychological perspectives such as between Freud and Jung, and Perls and Adler. You will meet all the different philosophical and psychological 'bridges' and 'tightropes' as we move along.
Between a search for 'dialectical balance' (Hegel) and a search for 'stretching our human limits and potentials' (Nietzsche), hopefully, you may find some concrete and abstract results that may 'tickle your fancy' here. Or not. You can't please everyone -- nor should you try. As I heard in an interview of the long time mayor of Mississaga, Hazel McCallion, and I may be partly paraphrasing what she said: 'You can't go through life as a Mambi Pambi'. I think we get what she means. She is my ideal of a great politician, 30 years in power, through the democratic election process over and over again, she hasn't lost an election, even though she is now in her 70s or 80s. No public debt during her 30 years of power. Working for the people -- dialectically in communication with her people throughout her 30 years -- not 'narcissisitically alienated and out of the loop from the people as are most politicians today who have their noses in the air and their hands in the pockets of the people who they are supposedly serving.
Hopefully, and ideally, if and/or when this project gathers enough momentum as a viable philosophical structure, process, and force, and if you choose to become involved in its evolutionary process, then there will be a place for your work here as well. Your feedback and creative contributions are welcome -- both as a source of altering the direction of my own evolutionary dialectical thinking, and also as a viable philosophical entity in its own right. Your contributions can reach me through my email address: dgbainsky@yahoo.com I will honour and acknowledge all pieces of work -- regardless of whether I agree with you or not -- that I think advance the democratic cause of this philosophical forum. Now obviously, there is a certain amount of 'will to power' in my editorial screening process. However, I am trying to teach a process of 'particiapatory, creative, integrative democracy' here. So again, your contributions -- conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist, religious or non-relgious, as long as they are democratic -- are all welcome. Please enter 'Hegel's Hotel' with an open, flexible, evolutionary dialectical mind.
That is what this project is all about. A return to 'Enlightenment thinking' -- with a DGB evolutionary counterbalance of 'romantic-humanistic-existential-and/or-deconstructionist' philosophical thought. It has taken me roughly 30 years of my own psychological and philosophical investigation to get to this point right here. Some of the essays that follow will back-peddle where I have come from. Most of them will take off from this point here. Have a good day.
db, December 5th, modified Dec. 14th, 2006.
There is a sense -- actually two senses -- in which all philosophy, all culture, all creativity, all conflict, is of a dialectical nature. We will distinguish between two types of 'dialectics': 1. an 'either/or' dialectic; vs. 2. an 'integrative' dialectic -- but first we need to back up and define a 'dialectic'.
What is meant by the term 'dialectic'?
The term dialectic implies 'two'. But more than this, it implies some type of interaction between the two. By my definitional standards then, which is generally close to traditional, historical philosophical standards, a 'dialectic' implies and requires two things in some sort of interaction with each other. One difference between orthodox, linear, scientific thinking -- which I believe stretches back at least as far as the philosophy of Aristotle -- and 'Hegelian dialectical thinking (or logic)' is that in traditional scientific, linear thinking, the logical formula is basically: 'A causes B, and B is caused by A'; whereas in Hegelian dialectical thinking, the logical formula works both ways, thus: 'A both influences and is influenced by B, while B both influences and is influenced by A. This is the important difference between standard scientific, linear thinking and Hegelian dialectical thinking. In general, this philosophical presentation supports and promotes dialectical thinking as a more 'true-to-reality-approach-to-reality' than its predecessor does, the latter of which is still very much ingrained into Western thinking. Eastern thinking tends to move much more easily along the 'yin-yang-dialectical-reciprocal-polarity-axis' which is much more in line with the type of thinking that I am promoting here. But the kicker is that the 'yin-yang-reciprocating-polarity' approach to thinking, feeling, wanting, and indeed to each and everything that happens in life and death has older roots in Western philosophy than it does in Eastern philosophy -- Anaxamander (611BC-547BC) compared to let us say, Confucious (551BC-279BC). If you skip Anaxamander and move to the second oldest Western 'dialectical' philosopher -- as in a philosopher who deals with the idea of 'reciprocating opposites', then you still have a Western philospher who was developing important dialectical ideas around the same time as Confucious was in China (assuming that Confucious was the creator of 'yin-yang' philosphy which I have not positively confirmed; I have also read reports that it may have been developed about 350 years later with the work of the 'Han Synthesis' philosophers around 207BC-9AD. This in itself raises the 'dialectical question' of whether there was an 'West-East-West' line of philosophical influence going on, or visa versa, or a combination of both influencing each other (perhaps through the 'China-Egypt-Greece line of travel and communication')? Or was the similarity in evolving dialectical Western and Eastern philosophy totally coincidental? -- or only coincidental to the extent that 'similar Western and Eastern minds' were 'philosophizing' from the same basic life process, and in this regard, 'a multi-dialectical line of human thought' was simply evolving and progressing from a life process that exhibited the same basic 'multi-dialectical characteristics' as were then being sensually perceived and conceptually represented through these different but remarkably similar Western and Eastern dialectical philosophies (Anaxamander and Heraclitus vs. Confucious and the Han Synthesis Philosophers). And then both would collide together in the 'apex of the triangle' with a philosophical force that would reverberate around the world in the 'one-two-three-four dialectical combination of Fichte (1762-1814), Hegel (1770-1831), Marx (1818-1883) and Nietzsche (1844-1900) some 2000-2500 years later. This combined dialectical force -- the bottom apex of the ancient East-West dialectical triangle -- would then go on to have dramatic influence on the development of politics -- pathologically as well as democratically (Lenin, Stalin, Nazi Germany), the birth of clinical psychology (Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls...), and the further development of philosophy (humanistic-existentialism, Foucault, Derrida...)
In the context of this philosophical forum and presentation, 'DGB' stands for three things: 1. my initials -- David Gordon Bain; 2. the essence of my philosophy -- 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging' (i.e., DGB Philosophy aims to 'dialectically bridge gaps' between different philosophical systems over and over and over again); and 3. one of my philosophy's major implications and applications trumpets that -- 'Democracy Goes Beyond: 1. 'narcissitic hedonism'; 2. a 'narcissitic will to power'(both the Capitalist and Socialist brand as well as the Conservative and Liberal brand or Republican and Democratic brand); and 3. a 'traditional, orthodox, mainly Western approach to linear, scientific thinking'). These ideas will all be developed at a later date.
Arguably my most important philosophical integration is between Hegel and Nietzsche. Hegel's 'flagship' work -- his masterpiece -- is 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' published in 1807 on the eve of Napoleon's invasion of 'pre-Germany'. Now in my mind, Napoleon's invasion of pre-Germany had a huge impact of the future psychology, philosophy, and evolution of later Germany, and at least partly explains the 'cultural traumacy' that preceded and led to the 'compensatory rise' of Nazi Germany (as a national form of 'identification with the aggressor' -- the aggressor being Napoleon.) Parts of Johann Fichte's work which had a major on Hegel's work which in turn had a major influence on Nietzsche's work -- all three philosophers and their respective works have rightly or wrongly, or part of both -- been linked to the rise of Imperialist, Nazi Germany. We will investigate, analyze, and clarify these assertions at a later date.
Let us zero in on Nietzsche for a moment. For our purposes here, there are five things that stand out about Nietzsche's work that will be built upon here: 1. his first book, 'The Birth of Tragedy' published in 1871, which is remarkably 'Hegelian' in its structure -- with Nietzsche's introduction of man's 'Apollonian vs. Dionysian paradox/dichotomy (and tragedy), even as Nietzsche later divorced himself from any part of Hegelian thinking; 2. Nietzsche's 'tightrope' analogy -- Man is on a tightrope (for example, between 'being' and 'becoming'). We will build on this analogy in many essays to come -- including the next two; 3. Nietzsche's 'Superman' (sometimes translated as 'Overman' but 'Superman' will suffice for our purposes here) philosophy which basically states that man has to 're-climb onto the tightrope over and over again to maximize the best of his human potentials'; 4. Nietzsche's concept of 'Will to Power' which we will examine in all of its ambiguities, strengths, and/or weaknesses; and 5. Nietzsche's 'Deconstructionism' which is as intense and as powerful as any form of philosophical and/or political writing committed to paper, and which foreshadowed the later work of Derrida for one who created the term- concept of 'deconstruction' which I have taken the liberties of adding the 'ism' onto the end of it -- which Derrida didn't like. Sorry Mr. Derrida but this is my philosophical presentation and forum; not yours.
Now, back to the two senses of what I mean by 'dialectic'.
The first type of dialectic is of a competitive 'either/or', 'Will to Power' nature. We will call this type of dialectic a 'Sophist-Socratean-Nietzschean Dialectic' (depending on the context) -- although it could also be called a 'Kierkegaardian Dialectic' as Kierkegaard wrote a book called 'Either/Or' which is the essence of the type of dialectic I am trying to describe here (but DGB Philosophy is much more deeply entrenched in Nietzschean Dialectical (Birth of Tragedy) philosophy with the other four Nietzschean additions mentioned above than it is in Kierkegaardian philosophy. To be sure, Kierkegaard was a very important philosopher -- one might say one of the main 'bridges' between Hegel and Nietzsche (along with Schopenhauer) -- but for our purposes here, Kierkegaard plays second fiddle to Nietzsche.
The other sense of the dialectic is a co-operative, integrative nature. This I call the 'Hegelian Dialectic'. Life is a combination of competition (Nietzsche) and co-operation (Hegel) -- working hand in hand with each other, 'narcissistic hedonism and a will to power' working in one place while 'altruism, co-operation, trust, empathy, social sensitivity, and generosity' may be working in another place. These two forms of the dialectic in action -- competition vs. co-operation -- may be working at cross purposes with each other, and/or they may find a way of eventually comeing together in some sort of temporary or longer lasting 'dialectical harmony'.
One is a case of domination, outperformance and supremacy vs. submission and/or perishment (if there is no such word as 'perishment', then I just created it); the other is a case of creative, integrative, egalitarian, democratic dialectical harmony -- in short, often a case of a 'compromise' between two or more existing entities, perspectives, philosophies, and/or lifestyles seeking different ends and/or means...'Democracy' and 'justice' can be viewed as a 'dialectical compromise' between 'narcissistic hedonism and self-assertion' on the one hand ('narcissism' and 'hedonism' again, we will define with more philosophical clarity later) and 'altruism' (which includes social sensitivity, empathy, and the like). Both types of living, both types of dialectics -- the 'righteous, either/or' Sophist-Socratean-Nietzschean dialectic vs. the 'creative, integrative, co-operative Hegelian dialectic' proceed hand in hand with each other, both have made their mark on the evolution of mankind and all other forms of life, both need to be more fully understood in terms of their respective strengths, weaknesses, and impacts relative to the past and future evolution of mankind, and for each and every one of our respective ongoing evolutions as individuals. Sometimes, taking an 'either/or' stance is the right way to go -- especially if by good fortune it seems to turn out that we chose the 'right path'; other times, integrating our ideas and values with the ideas and values of others is the better way to go relative to obtaining a more harmonious indiviual and collective 'dialectical-democratic harmony'. Sometimes pushing hard for what we want -- with no compromises -- can get us what we want if we are strong, confident, and forceful enough about it; other times, it can land us in the mud -- or worse. Sometimes success in life comes from a strong 'will to power'; other times our 'will to power' can trample and self-destruct us in situations where what is more needed is a 'creative, integrative will to co-operate and compromise'. The wisdom in life comes from knowing -- or painfully learning -- which 'style of operation', is better utilized in any one particular context or life situation. A 'will to power'; or a 'will to creatively integrate and compromise'. An 'either/or' choice or a 'creative, integrative' choice. A Sophist, Socratean, and/or Nietzschean choice. Or Hegelian choice.
That is what 'Hegel's Hotel: The DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Political Forum' is all about basically -- i.e entertaining all sorts of different life situations from all different domains of life and studying life -- such as philosophy, psychology, politics, law, business and economics, science, biology, bio-chemistry, medicine, art, religion, leisure and recreation, and so on --and applying either: 1. 'dialectic either/or logic' and/or 'dialectic creative-integrative logic' to each particular life situation.
Now the irony of this whole presentation, this whole treatise and forum of philosophy, is that it practically demands participation from different sources and different perspectives. Otherwise it would not be called a 'dialectic' or a 'dialectic forum'. To be sure, I have a particular architecture, process, and message that I would like to communicate to you, the reader. However, if this was was all that my work was about -- if I was intending to exclusively practice a 'will to power' throughout this enterprise, then I would at least partly, if not mainly, be defeating its idealistic purpose. Like many a 'hypocritical' person, I would be essentially demonstrating: 'Do as I say, not what I do.' One could say that Hegel and Nietzsche are in effect, still doing 'philosophical battle' within the confines of my own philosophical (DGB)work.
One final point. We can differentiate between 'internal' and 'external' dialectics or 'self' and 'social' dialectics. The human psyche (or mind) is a complicated piece of biological, mental, and spiritual 'machinery' (if 'machinery' is the right choice of word) -- and rarely is it 'totally, unconflictually, undivisively, and unconditionaly united' in all facets of its operation. Beware the person who says that 'it' and 'he' or 'she' is 'totally unified in thinking, feeling, and action'. When things are working best for us -- both individually and relationship wise -- usually we can say that we have achieved at least a temporary state of 'dialectical harmony and balance'. But this is not an easy state of existence to achieve, let alone maintain -- it is often fleeting, to be thrown out of kilter or out of balance by some newly arriving problem, obstacle, challenge, and/or conflict in our life.
In similar and different ways, our individual and collective experiences lead us in and out of balance, in balance when things are working well for us, out of balance when something temporarily or habitually derails and/or sabotages us.
So in a nutshell, what is the goal of this philosophical work? You've heard this before probably from all sorts of different venues. 'Balance'. Individual, psychic, philosophical, relationship, biological, bio-chemical, poliitical, legal, financial, work, leisure, spiritual, religious, community, racial, international, ecological -- have I missed anything (I'm sure I have) -- balance. Which somehow, in ways that will be determined as we go along, includes the Nietzschean philosophy of the 'tightrope' and the 'Superman' (which paradoxically might throw us out of the 'complacency' of our 'balance' for a short or longer while until we become comfortable on the tightrope or get to the other side, or come back again).
Thus, DGB Philosophy essentially 'splits the difference' between much of Hegelian and Nietzschean philosophy. However, it also splits the difference between many other philosophical and psychological perspectives such as between Freud and Jung, and Perls and Adler. You will meet all the different philosophical and psychological 'bridges' and 'tightropes' as we move along.
Between a search for 'dialectical balance' (Hegel) and a search for 'stretching our human limits and potentials' (Nietzsche), hopefully, you may find some concrete and abstract results that may 'tickle your fancy' here. Or not. You can't please everyone -- nor should you try. As I heard in an interview of the long time mayor of Mississaga, Hazel McCallion, and I may be partly paraphrasing what she said: 'You can't go through life as a Mambi Pambi'. I think we get what she means. She is my ideal of a great politician, 30 years in power, through the democratic election process over and over again, she hasn't lost an election, even though she is now in her 70s or 80s. No public debt during her 30 years of power. Working for the people -- dialectically in communication with her people throughout her 30 years -- not 'narcissisitically alienated and out of the loop from the people as are most politicians today who have their noses in the air and their hands in the pockets of the people who they are supposedly serving.
Hopefully, and ideally, if and/or when this project gathers enough momentum as a viable philosophical structure, process, and force, and if you choose to become involved in its evolutionary process, then there will be a place for your work here as well. Your feedback and creative contributions are welcome -- both as a source of altering the direction of my own evolutionary dialectical thinking, and also as a viable philosophical entity in its own right. Your contributions can reach me through my email address: dgbainsky@yahoo.com I will honour and acknowledge all pieces of work -- regardless of whether I agree with you or not -- that I think advance the democratic cause of this philosophical forum. Now obviously, there is a certain amount of 'will to power' in my editorial screening process. However, I am trying to teach a process of 'particiapatory, creative, integrative democracy' here. So again, your contributions -- conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist, religious or non-relgious, as long as they are democratic -- are all welcome. Please enter 'Hegel's Hotel' with an open, flexible, evolutionary dialectical mind.
That is what this project is all about. A return to 'Enlightenment thinking' -- with a DGB evolutionary counterbalance of 'romantic-humanistic-existential-and/or-deconstructionist' philosophical thought. It has taken me roughly 30 years of my own psychological and philosophical investigation to get to this point right here. Some of the essays that follow will back-peddle where I have come from. Most of them will take off from this point here. Have a good day.
db, December 5th, modified Dec. 14th, 2006.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
1.11. Nietzsche -- The Abyss, The Tightrope, and The Superman Philosophy (Take 3)
Overlooking an abyss of death, man is scrambling on a tightrope of life that bridges two cliffs -- 'actuality' and 'potential' -- 'being' and 'becoming' -- but in between is all the anxiety about falling, the anxiety of death...anxiety of the unknown...anxiety of insecurity...don't look down! Be strong and keep scrambling forward until you get to where you want to be -- with a lot of hard work...rest momentarily...and then it's back to the tightrope again...man was meant to keep moving...to keep creating himself anew...between two cliffs again...to stay glued on one cliff for too long is to 'existentially die'...a certain amount of 'groundedness' and 'security' is a good thing...one does not want to live an existence that is constantly full of stress and anxiety...but one needs to optimally balance 'groundedness' with the 'tightrope'...stay on the same ground for too long and you stagnate...to relax and refresh is one thing...to stagnate is another...come on ye of failing courage...gather your strength and confidence...clarify your vision...and make it happen...your dream is on the other side of the cliff...with the tightrope your only bridge across... gather all your strength, courage, and resources because you need to bridge the gap, the abyss -- between actuality and potentiality -- between being and becoming...your creativity and the full repertoire of your resources is on the tightrope -- not on the firm ground...the firm ground is the smiling faces of your family, your friends, your community, to celebrate with you when you return...and/or when you make it to the other side...but the tightrope -- the tightrope is for you alone...or for you and your important 'other' as you both respect and grapple with the differences between you, as you both work to use the dialectic to bridge the gap or gaps between you. /strong>
I don't want to take credit for that last passage
because it is an embellishment of a famous Nietzschean
metaphor -- the tightrope and the abyss -- combined with a little of my own modified, and more moderate
'post-Hegelian, optimal balance' philosophy. I will
take credit for the embellishment of the metaphor and the integration
of Nietzsche and Hegel in a way that not even Nietzsche would have liked -- but not for the metaphor itself
because the metaphor of the tightrope and the abyss belongs to Nietzsche, probably the most intensely passionate
philosopher in Western history. In fact, I am not even
going to reference the metaphor because if you are an
experienced philosophy reader you will know where to
find the metaphor and if you are an introductory
philosophy student, then I say, 'Go find the metaphor
and keep reading Nietzsche until you find it.
Everything that you read by Nietzsche before you find
the metaphor is gravy on the meat and potatoes of
Nietzschean philosophy...the philosophy of the
Superman.
Now as for Hegel, unless you have a bottle
of aspirin, a very strong intellect, and a lot of
philosophical perseverence and determination, I think
you are better reading my own interpretations, modifications, and expansions
of Hegel, rather than Hegel himself. Or start with one of many possible 'Introductions to Hegel' which is where I invested much of my energy while 'The Phenomenology' still sits in my library daring me to challenge it.
If you are very intellectually brave -- and I cannot claim that I am -- then this is where you should go -- to Hegel himself through his greatest work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind (and/or Spirit)' -- depending on your translation of the title. If you end up in a cloud of words you don't understand, don't say I didn't warn you...Indeed, I have enough people complaining about the lack of clarity in my own writing, and, trust me, mine is a lot simpler than Hegel's. Hegel goes to abstract places -- in both words and thought -- where I turn back looking for more solid ground -- and passion. Here is where I inevitably turn to Nietzsche. Philosophy without the passion and intensity for life that Nietzsche showed and still shows us, is like life without love, and love without lust and sex. Philosophy is not all about words and reason and logic. This is where even the Enlightenment -- one of the greatest periods of Western philosophy -- failed us. It took Rousseau to first show us the limitations of 'Enlightenment thinking' -- for all its great push towards equality, democracy and freedom for everyone. It took Rousseau to first tell us that life -- and philosophy -- is not all about what is in the 'head' but also about what is in the 'heart' which sometimes, indeed often, may defy reason and logic. This opened up the whole 'Romantic' period of Western philosophy of which Nietzsche was probably its greatest culminating force and statesperson.
Hegel (1770-1831) came along before Nietzsche (1844-1900) and the former was caught half way in between Western Enlightenment and Romantic Philosophy. Hegel very much supported The French Revolution -- until it became the Reign of Terror -- but somewhat more confusingly, Hegel also supported Napoleon, the latter of whom can hardly be deemed to be an advocate of, nor a role model for, 'democratic, egalitarian, Enlightenment' thinking. There are some questions here that need to be asked about the extent to which classic Hegelian dialectical philosophy can be associated to: 1. egalitarian, democratic, Enlightenment philosophy; 2. Romantic philosophy; 3. the rise of German Imperialist philosophy; 4. the rise of Marxist philosophy; and 5. the various 'modifications' (perversions?) of Marxist philosophy in the form of Lenin and Stalin Russian 'Marxist-Fascist' philosophy and politics. (Obviously, one can see here that Hegel -- both good and bad, directly and indirectly -- had a hugely dramtic influence on 19th and 20 century philosophy and politics in Europe and Asia.)
My DGB Post-Hegelian (and Post-Nietzschean) Optimal Balance Philsophy purports to integrate the 'the best of Hegel and the best of Nietzsche' into one cumultive system of philosophy, psychology, politics -- along with every other form of human activity, culture, and evolution as well, at least to the extent that I have the time and energy to write in all the different fields I want to write in (science, medicine, law, etc.)
Now, to be sure, I am not alone in having successfully and/or unsuccessfully attempted to do this. Freud's Psychoanalysis mixes Hegel and Nietszche, as does Jungian Psychology, as does Perls' Gestalt Therapy. But I have this advantage over every philosopher and every psychologist who has gone before me -- I am writing from their shoulders. (I read that analogy from some philosopher -- forgive me if I do not know who said it, or where I found it, but I will give you the reference as soon as I find it again, which I think will be soon.)
Back to Nietsche. Unlike Nietzsche -- I like the dialectic -- indeed embrace the egalitarian, democratic dialectic -- which is why 'The Birth of Tragedy (BT)' is my favorite Nietzschean work. BT can be viewed as the precursor to Freudian Psychoanalyis as the young Nietzsche under Hegelian influence -- before he turned anti-Hegelian -- laid out the groundwork for what was to be the classic Freudian struggle in man. With Nietzsche, the struggle was between Apollonian and Dionysian man; with Freud the struggle would be reconceptualized as the struggle between civilized (moral) and non-civilized (instinctual) man.
In this philosophical project here -- Hegel's Hotel -- I aim to 'bridge the philosophical gap' not only between Hegel and Nietzsche -- but between every two or more sets of philosophers and or psychologists who I set my creative energies on. I have some 2700 years of philosophy, psychology, politics, law, science, medicine, culture, and evolution to work with. My creativity lies in the gaps -- that is why I used to call what I do here 'Gap Philosophy and Gap Psychology' but now I call it 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology' -- as in 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging Philosophy-Psychology'. It is my 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging creative abilities' that comprises my climbing attempts over the many different 'tightropes which I straddle'.
But Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy-Psychology is not all about me. The idea of the dialectic implies two or more people or sets of opposing ideas acting on the same problem or challenge. I am just here to awaken or re-awaken people to some or many of the creative, integrative possibilities of the dialectic and the multi-dialectic in action. If you have followed me to this point and I still have your interest and attention, then let us by all means -- dialectically between the two of us, you and I, as reader and writer -- and switch; -- and again, you and I, as philosopher and student -- and switch -- keep this dialectical ball rolling. Philosophy -- like everything else in life -- is about education not only in the form of one perspective dominating over all other perspectives (because this only happens for a certain period of time before other persepctives come to the forefront) but rather, in the form of many different and often opposing perspectives, each generally with its own separate truth-value, each inciting and exciting passion and motivation from those who support its truth value -- and the important need and ability, if we all want to live peacefully on this earth together in close proximity to each other, to balance opposing truths and values towards some sort of central, workable, optimally balanced philosophy of life.
Allow me some room for creative egotism -- narcissism if you will -- when I call my own particular brand of this 'dialectical-integrative' philosophy -- 'Gap-DGBN Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'. Or -- more simply labelled -- just 'Gap Philosophy'.
It could also be called 'post-Gestalt Philosophy' -- as I spent much of the 1980s learning Gestalt Therapy (which indirectly brought me to Hegel, Nietzsche and philosophy in general) -- but it has been 15 years since I was involved with the Gestalt Institute and much of what I have learned is knowledge that I learned either before I got to the Gestalt Institute (my Honours Thesis in psychology in 1979 was on the connection between Cognitve Therapy and General Semantics) and/or after I left the Gestalt Institute around 1991 (and started to focus on the study of philosophy). So even though Gestalt Therapy remains near and dear to my heart, I will call what I am doing here 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...' or just 'DGB Philosophy' and everything else that has influenced the direction, process, content, and/or structure of my thinking needs to include the word 'post'- in order to accommodate my many creative variations, integrations, and modifications with other 'schools of thought' that have influenced it too.
I am loyal to many schools of thought -- and at the same time -- to none. This is the paradox of my existence -- and my still evolving philosophy of life -- which are dialectically affected by each other.
dgb, first writing, Nov 6th-9th, 2006; second modified version, Nov. 22nd-24th, 2006.
dgbn, david gordon bain,
dgbn, dialectical gap-bridging negotiations
dgbn, democracy goes beyond narcissism.
Overlooking an abyss of death, man is scrambling on a tightrope of life that bridges two cliffs -- 'actuality' and 'potential' -- 'being' and 'becoming' -- but in between is all the anxiety about falling, the anxiety of death...anxiety of the unknown...anxiety of insecurity...don't look down! Be strong and keep scrambling forward until you get to where you want to be -- with a lot of hard work...rest momentarily...and then it's back to the tightrope again...man was meant to keep moving...to keep creating himself anew...between two cliffs again...to stay glued on one cliff for too long is to 'existentially die'...a certain amount of 'groundedness' and 'security' is a good thing...one does not want to live an existence that is constantly full of stress and anxiety...but one needs to optimally balance 'groundedness' with the 'tightrope'...stay on the same ground for too long and you stagnate...to relax and refresh is one thing...to stagnate is another...come on ye of failing courage...gather your strength and confidence...clarify your vision...and make it happen...your dream is on the other side of the cliff...with the tightrope your only bridge across... gather all your strength, courage, and resources because you need to bridge the gap, the abyss -- between actuality and potentiality -- between being and becoming...your creativity and the full repertoire of your resources is on the tightrope -- not on the firm ground...the firm ground is the smiling faces of your family, your friends, your community, to celebrate with you when you return...and/or when you make it to the other side...but the tightrope -- the tightrope is for you alone...or for you and your important 'other' as you both respect and grapple with the differences between you, as you both work to use the dialectic to bridge the gap or gaps between you. /strong>
I don't want to take credit for that last passage
because it is an embellishment of a famous Nietzschean
metaphor -- the tightrope and the abyss -- combined with a little of my own modified, and more moderate
'post-Hegelian, optimal balance' philosophy. I will
take credit for the embellishment of the metaphor and the integration
of Nietzsche and Hegel in a way that not even Nietzsche would have liked -- but not for the metaphor itself
because the metaphor of the tightrope and the abyss belongs to Nietzsche, probably the most intensely passionate
philosopher in Western history. In fact, I am not even
going to reference the metaphor because if you are an
experienced philosophy reader you will know where to
find the metaphor and if you are an introductory
philosophy student, then I say, 'Go find the metaphor
and keep reading Nietzsche until you find it.
Everything that you read by Nietzsche before you find
the metaphor is gravy on the meat and potatoes of
Nietzschean philosophy...the philosophy of the
Superman.
Now as for Hegel, unless you have a bottle
of aspirin, a very strong intellect, and a lot of
philosophical perseverence and determination, I think
you are better reading my own interpretations, modifications, and expansions
of Hegel, rather than Hegel himself. Or start with one of many possible 'Introductions to Hegel' which is where I invested much of my energy while 'The Phenomenology' still sits in my library daring me to challenge it.
If you are very intellectually brave -- and I cannot claim that I am -- then this is where you should go -- to Hegel himself through his greatest work, 'The Phenomenology of Mind (and/or Spirit)' -- depending on your translation of the title. If you end up in a cloud of words you don't understand, don't say I didn't warn you...Indeed, I have enough people complaining about the lack of clarity in my own writing, and, trust me, mine is a lot simpler than Hegel's. Hegel goes to abstract places -- in both words and thought -- where I turn back looking for more solid ground -- and passion. Here is where I inevitably turn to Nietzsche. Philosophy without the passion and intensity for life that Nietzsche showed and still shows us, is like life without love, and love without lust and sex. Philosophy is not all about words and reason and logic. This is where even the Enlightenment -- one of the greatest periods of Western philosophy -- failed us. It took Rousseau to first show us the limitations of 'Enlightenment thinking' -- for all its great push towards equality, democracy and freedom for everyone. It took Rousseau to first tell us that life -- and philosophy -- is not all about what is in the 'head' but also about what is in the 'heart' which sometimes, indeed often, may defy reason and logic. This opened up the whole 'Romantic' period of Western philosophy of which Nietzsche was probably its greatest culminating force and statesperson.
Hegel (1770-1831) came along before Nietzsche (1844-1900) and the former was caught half way in between Western Enlightenment and Romantic Philosophy. Hegel very much supported The French Revolution -- until it became the Reign of Terror -- but somewhat more confusingly, Hegel also supported Napoleon, the latter of whom can hardly be deemed to be an advocate of, nor a role model for, 'democratic, egalitarian, Enlightenment' thinking. There are some questions here that need to be asked about the extent to which classic Hegelian dialectical philosophy can be associated to: 1. egalitarian, democratic, Enlightenment philosophy; 2. Romantic philosophy; 3. the rise of German Imperialist philosophy; 4. the rise of Marxist philosophy; and 5. the various 'modifications' (perversions?) of Marxist philosophy in the form of Lenin and Stalin Russian 'Marxist-Fascist' philosophy and politics. (Obviously, one can see here that Hegel -- both good and bad, directly and indirectly -- had a hugely dramtic influence on 19th and 20 century philosophy and politics in Europe and Asia.)
My DGB Post-Hegelian (and Post-Nietzschean) Optimal Balance Philsophy purports to integrate the 'the best of Hegel and the best of Nietzsche' into one cumultive system of philosophy, psychology, politics -- along with every other form of human activity, culture, and evolution as well, at least to the extent that I have the time and energy to write in all the different fields I want to write in (science, medicine, law, etc.)
Now, to be sure, I am not alone in having successfully and/or unsuccessfully attempted to do this. Freud's Psychoanalysis mixes Hegel and Nietszche, as does Jungian Psychology, as does Perls' Gestalt Therapy. But I have this advantage over every philosopher and every psychologist who has gone before me -- I am writing from their shoulders. (I read that analogy from some philosopher -- forgive me if I do not know who said it, or where I found it, but I will give you the reference as soon as I find it again, which I think will be soon.)
Back to Nietsche. Unlike Nietzsche -- I like the dialectic -- indeed embrace the egalitarian, democratic dialectic -- which is why 'The Birth of Tragedy (BT)' is my favorite Nietzschean work. BT can be viewed as the precursor to Freudian Psychoanalyis as the young Nietzsche under Hegelian influence -- before he turned anti-Hegelian -- laid out the groundwork for what was to be the classic Freudian struggle in man. With Nietzsche, the struggle was between Apollonian and Dionysian man; with Freud the struggle would be reconceptualized as the struggle between civilized (moral) and non-civilized (instinctual) man.
In this philosophical project here -- Hegel's Hotel -- I aim to 'bridge the philosophical gap' not only between Hegel and Nietzsche -- but between every two or more sets of philosophers and or psychologists who I set my creative energies on. I have some 2700 years of philosophy, psychology, politics, law, science, medicine, culture, and evolution to work with. My creativity lies in the gaps -- that is why I used to call what I do here 'Gap Philosophy and Gap Psychology' but now I call it 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology' -- as in 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging Philosophy-Psychology'. It is my 'Dialectical-Gap-Bridging creative abilities' that comprises my climbing attempts over the many different 'tightropes which I straddle'.
But Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy-Psychology is not all about me. The idea of the dialectic implies two or more people or sets of opposing ideas acting on the same problem or challenge. I am just here to awaken or re-awaken people to some or many of the creative, integrative possibilities of the dialectic and the multi-dialectic in action. If you have followed me to this point and I still have your interest and attention, then let us by all means -- dialectically between the two of us, you and I, as reader and writer -- and switch; -- and again, you and I, as philosopher and student -- and switch -- keep this dialectical ball rolling. Philosophy -- like everything else in life -- is about education not only in the form of one perspective dominating over all other perspectives (because this only happens for a certain period of time before other persepctives come to the forefront) but rather, in the form of many different and often opposing perspectives, each generally with its own separate truth-value, each inciting and exciting passion and motivation from those who support its truth value -- and the important need and ability, if we all want to live peacefully on this earth together in close proximity to each other, to balance opposing truths and values towards some sort of central, workable, optimally balanced philosophy of life.
Allow me some room for creative egotism -- narcissism if you will -- when I call my own particular brand of this 'dialectical-integrative' philosophy -- 'Gap-DGBN Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'. Or -- more simply labelled -- just 'Gap Philosophy'.
It could also be called 'post-Gestalt Philosophy' -- as I spent much of the 1980s learning Gestalt Therapy (which indirectly brought me to Hegel, Nietzsche and philosophy in general) -- but it has been 15 years since I was involved with the Gestalt Institute and much of what I have learned is knowledge that I learned either before I got to the Gestalt Institute (my Honours Thesis in psychology in 1979 was on the connection between Cognitve Therapy and General Semantics) and/or after I left the Gestalt Institute around 1991 (and started to focus on the study of philosophy). So even though Gestalt Therapy remains near and dear to my heart, I will call what I am doing here 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...' or just 'DGB Philosophy' and everything else that has influenced the direction, process, content, and/or structure of my thinking needs to include the word 'post'- in order to accommodate my many creative variations, integrations, and modifications with other 'schools of thought' that have influenced it too.
I am loyal to many schools of thought -- and at the same time -- to none. This is the paradox of my existence -- and my still evolving philosophy of life -- which are dialectically affected by each other.
dgb, first writing, Nov 6th-9th, 2006; second modified version, Nov. 22nd-24th, 2006.
dgbn, david gordon bain,
dgbn, dialectical gap-bridging negotiations
dgbn, democracy goes beyond narcissism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
