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.