A) Introduction
This is a brand new rendition of the continuing evolution of DGB Philosophical Thinking as of this fine, sunny Sunday morning, October 11th, 2008. This essay is an ongoing derrivative of my last essay on this subject matter, written exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay called:
DGB Post-Hegelian 'Sun-Planet Theory' and The DGB 'Sixteen Idols of Philosophical Extremism' (Building From Sir Francis Bacon's Four Idols)... and before that, my connected series of essays called: 'Gods, Myths, Philosophies, and Self-Energy Centres...'
........................................................................
B) Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; b) Archetypes; c) Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; and d) The Inter-Relationship Between Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' -- some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psyhological dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other -- as part of a 'mythological and/or philosophical battlefield (much like in the battles of Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad -- so too do the forces within our own personlity/personalities; and visa versa.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality -- much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies -- but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one -- the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' -- amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life -- and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
...........................................................................
C/10 essential DGB Philosophy principles, pertaining to the 'multiple-bi-polar nature of man and life and the inter-related dynamics:
1. Individual molecules come together and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate';
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind -- both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. Stage 3 sets the stage for either Stage 1 or 2 to go into effect.
5. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing process and psych-philo-chemistry of 'free-determinism' or 'deterministic freedom'.
6. 'Republicanism' and 'Democratism' is another important human bi-polarity as is 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
7. 'Capitlism' and 'socialism' make up another important human bi-polarity.
8. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
9. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
10. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of 'homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too 'status-quo', too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
-- dgb, October 11th, 2008.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A 'Multi-Bi-Polar' Model Of The Human Psyche
We cannot talk about psychology without talking about philosophy. The work of Freud (Psychoanalysis), Jung (Jungian Psychology), Perls (Gestalt Therapy), and Berne (Transactional Analysis) is intimately tied into the separate and combined philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Korzybski, even into the work of the ancient pre-Socratic philosophers, specifically Anaxamander (610-546BC) and Heraclitus (540-480BC).
In this section here, we will focus more on the subject of 'psychology' -- which we will define as the study of the human psyche in its entirety which includes the whole gamut of mind, emotions, and both covert and overt forms of behavior. Now, two types of 'covert' (hidden) behaviors can be distinguished from each other: 1. Covert, Internal, Behaviors (CIB's) such as thoughts and feelings to the extent that they are not expressed in external actions; and 2. the type of covert behaviors that are external and purposeful but designed to be hidden from social view (such as unethical, narcissistic behaviors).
The Mind As Both Structure and Process
We need to look at the mind both as structure and as process. The two are essentially the same thing but at different ends of the dialectic-polarity spectrum. Structure is very slow process (to the extent that it seems like the process is barely moving and/or even stationary). Process in the more usual sense of the word is very fast structure (to the extent that the structure may be very hard to pin point and to pin down as a moving target that may almost seem to lack substance and predictability). People generally prefer to think in terms of 'structures' and 'compartments' rather than 'processes' and 'dynamics' because the first two are more predictable. But both are necessary in order to have a decently good model or 'map' of the human mind in both its structual and process aspects. When we talk about 'structure', we often use the term 'character structure'; when we talk about 'process', we are more likely to use words like 'personality theory' and/or 'personality dynamics'.
From Model-Building/Map-Making To A Multi-Dialectic Understanding of The Human Psyche
Before we start, I want to share a little bit of what I have learned about 'theory or model building', mainly from General Semantics, but partly from Hegel as well, which expresses the idea that no theory, no model, will ever be complete or all-encompassing. In contrast to what Hegel believed however, in DGB Philosophy (Epistemology) there is no 'Absolute Knowledge' unless we want to view Absolute Knowledge as a 'Fictional Ideal', something like Plato's 'Forms' but in a whole different sense than what Plato meant. Plato was one of Western Philosophy's finest 'ethical idealists' -- and he should be revered as such -- but he was also a horrible realist, empiricist and epistemologist. He gave much to religion and little if anything to science. He had his head too far in the clouds to see the 'realness of the empirical world in front of him'. Aristotle quickly saw this, and philosophically filled in this huge gaping void in Platonic Theory (which made it no longer 'Platonic Theory' -- thus making Plato (the spiritualist) and Aristotle (the empiricist, biologist, and scientist) arguably one of the three greatest 'one-two' dialectical combinations in the evolution of Western Philosophy (the other two being Anaxamander and Heraclitus, and Hegel and Marx. See my little diatribe on Anaxamander and Heraclitus below.) From the first (Plato), we got much of what is viewed as 'spirituality, ethics, and religion' today wheras from second (Aristotle) we got much of what is viewed as science and 'grounded, common sense, logic and reason' today. The ongoing dialectic between religion and science is only a continuation and extension of the dialectic between Plato and Aristotle. Both philosophers represent deep but different, polarized dialectical tendencies in the human psyche that should be legitmately and fully represented by a map or model of the human psyche that reflects these same 'dialectical tendencies towards both the split and the reunion of spirituality and science. This is only one of many such 'dialectical polarity-homeostatic functions' in the human psyche. We will talk of many more because my map of the human psyche -- in following the lead of Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche (in The Birth of Tragedy), Freud, Jung, Perls, and Berne -- is full of converging and diverging dialectical polarities -- the essence and often the tragedy of what it means to be human.
Getting back to the theme of 'map-making' and 'model-building', some ideas that are construed as 'knowledge' are much better than other ideas that might also be construed as knowledge; indeed, we can sometimes easily, sometimes not nearly as easily, distingwuish and agree on the difference between 'healthy' and 'pathological', 'real' and 'unreal', 'fact' and 'fictional' forms of knowledge in the sense that most of us would easily agree that horses are real and unicorns are not real (we do agree on this, don't we?). Other things and/or other life processes might not be nearly as easily to divide into 'black' and 'white' -- they come in as all sorts of epistemological and ethical 'grays' -- and it is these areas that create much human epistemological controversy and disagreement. But then again, it is not only the 'grays' that create disagreement and controversy. Some people prefer 'black' to 'white' and some people prefer 'white' to 'black' and many, many people alternate between preferring both at different times. We are all 'multi-bi-polar' (which can also be reworded as 'multi-homeostatic' or 'multi-dialectic') -- and to be sure, in different words and ways, many a philosopher and psychologist before me (most of whom will be introduced to you here if you are not already familiar with them) has presented much the same point of view. It is this theme of multi-polarism, mult-dialecticism, and multi-homeostaticism (these are all new words that i just created here) that is the central theme both of this section here on man's psychology, and in this philosophical treatise as a whole that engages in ever aspect of man's self, social, culturual, economic, political, scientific, and spiritual activity. Hegel's Hotel: DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy asserts that in order to get to a point of generally stabilized 'optimal balance', we often need to better understand, and in this regard either fully or partly experience (by choice or not), what it means to live in some of man's and life's polar extremes of existence.
A Brief Historical Summary of Philosophical Influences on The DGB 'Multi-Dialectic Model of The Psyche
We will will study most of these philosophers in more detail elsewhere (such as in my historical section) but here is a brief summary of the influencers on the DGB Psyche Model.
Anaxamander (610BC-546BC)
Anaxamander's philosophy and psychology of man is basically a philosophy and psychology of 'war'. This should not be surprising as Anaxamander lived during a time in early Greek hisotry when he was exposed to war all around him -- particularly the Spartans fighting back and forth with the Athenians. From the accounts I gather, the Spartans tended to be more 'authoritative' and 'dictatorial' in spirit and philosophy; the Athenians more 'democratic'. Both lived in 'city-states' that clashed regularly with each other in what might be called in 'Nietzschean terms' a 'will to power'. And 'fighting power' was never totally settled for long -- it was always 'transitory' with first one side dominating, then the other...back and forth...
It is in this 'war context' of 'human nature and human behavior' (has it really changed one iota today?), that Anaxamander built his philosophy of 'polar opposites dueling with each other, with first one polarity dominating the other, enjoying the sunshine if you will, while the other is 'pushed' into the hidden realms of darkness (like the moon while the sun is out), but only temporarily, until this state of affairs revereses itself (such as with the moon enjoying the dominance of light while the sun is hidden in darkness)'. What we have here in effect is the birth of Gestalt Psychology and Gestalt Therapy about 2500 years before its time (which was the end of the 19th century for Gestalt Psychology, the middle of the 20 century for Gestalt Therapy). Anaxamander did not invent the terms 'figure', 'background', 'homeostasis', and 'cosmic homeostatic bio-regulation' (my term), but he very well could have -- it is not a far stretch from what he was talking about in a primitive way perhaps -- but also a very profound way -- and the respective philosophies of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Jung, Cannon, Derrida, Foucault, and Perls some 2350 to 2500 years later.
I look at Anaxamander as the great-great grandfather of all Western -- and maybe Eastern too -- dialectical philosophy and psychology. I have no trouble connecting the philosophy and psychology I am espousing here with its Anaxamanderian roots -- even if there may be a hundred dialectical philosophers and psycholgists between Anaxamader and me (DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy).
Heraclitus (535BC-475BC)
Heraclitus was born 11 years after Anaxamander died but it seems more than coincidental that Heraclitus' ideas seem to build on Anaxamander's. Heraclitus' ideas show a strong Anaxamanderian influence in his 'philosophy of dialectical opposites'. However, there is an important difference between Heraclitus discussion of opposites and Anaxamander's. Anaxamander's philosophy of opposites is a philosophy of war and competition -- a prelude to Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' and Nietzsche's 'will to power' in its corrupted Nazi embellishment. Anaxamander's was a philosophy of 'dialectical realism and determinism' that also amazingly in my opinion anticipated Hegel's philosophy of 'dialectical determinism' (thesis, anti-thesis, black, white -- without the integrative synthesis or 'compromising, middle ground gray' added yet.) Anaxamander's was an 'either/or' philosophy -- either black or white takes dominance with the other receding into the background until a 'reversal of fortune and opportunity' takes place and the whole situation of dominance and submission, foreground and background, is switched. In this regard, again amazingly in my opinion, Anaxamander also anticipated much of what Gestalt Psychology and Gestalt Therapy had to say and even Derrida's 'philosophy of deconstruction(ism)'.
What Heraclitus brought to the table that was significantly different -- and also an aniticpator of many future dialectical philosophies and psychologies was the idea of the 'unity of opposites' which at first sounds contradictory until you look at what Heraclitus was saying in the context of the idea of 'dialectical integrationism and wholism'. Thus, Anaxamander provided a dialectical 'either/or' philosophy, a philosophy of dialectical competition and war wheras Heraclitus was the first philosopher to basically introduce the idea of 'dialectical democracy' -- two opposing qualities, beliefs, values, perspectives, and/or willpowers coming together into a 'dialectically and democratically integrative whole'. Thus, Heraclitus was the first 'dialectical democrat' and an anticipator of such profound ideas and ideaa yet to come as: 1. Hegel's dialectical determinism with the 'synthesis' component now added into the 'dialectic-wholistic picture'; 2. W.F. Cannon's book and theory of 'The Wisdom of The Body' and his primary principle of 'homeostatic balance'; and 3. the type of dialectical democratic political philosophy that would start to be built in England during the Enlightement by political philosophy giants such as John Locke and others that followed him (forgive me if my British political history is a little sketchy here; I will fill in more details later); likewise in France after, I believe, Napoleoon's influence, also in the U.S. after the American Declaration of Independence and Revolution, and then as later established in the American Constitution, and also as established here in Canada under the British-North America Act (which I believe has since been tarnished by Trudeau introducing elements of 'preferential racial and sexual treatment' into the present Canadian Constitution as he reconstructed it in the 1970s -- which was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of today's 'homeostatic and dialectical imbalance in the Domestic Courts of Canada'. More on this later.)
Now it might be reasonably asked why no philosopher before me has ever made these types of extensive 'philosphical connections' between past and present day philosophies. The answer is 'I don't really know'. I can only give my rather radical perspective on this matter, which is that in the big picture, the large scope of 2600 years of Western philosophy, 'the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection' is as important -- obviously not in quantity but definitely in my opinion in quality -- as the 'Socrates-Plato-Aristotle' connection. Heraclitus' 'process thinking' is as important a foundation to present day 'scientific thinking' as Plato's ideas are to present day religion. And the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection comes much, much closer to anticipating: 1. the 'Hegelian dialectical philosophy revolution' of the 1900s'(which was followed even more dramatically by Marx); 2. the Gestalt Psychology and Therapy movement of the 1900s; 3. the Nietzschean-Freudian-Jungian-Perlsian Dialectical Psychology and Psychotherapy Revolution of the 1900s; 4. Fouccault's 'philosophy of power'; and 5. Derrida's 'Deconstruction(ism)' -- than anything that Plato or Aristotle ever wrote.
That's my more than two cents on Anaxamander and Heraclitus.
Plato (427-347BC)
Off the top of my head, there are three things I like about Plato; 1. his ethical idealism and striving for something that is 'higher' than the normal ethics of day-to-day living (whether it is in his time or ours); 2. the part of The Symposium that discusses love and particularly the 'dialectical nature' of love; 3. the part of his philosophy (and I don't even know where to find this in his work but i know that he said it) where he differentiates between 'three different energy systems' in man: 1. the mind; 2. the heart; and 3. the loins. Basically, I call the first type of energy 'Apollonian energy'; the second type of energy either 'romantic energy' and/or 'humanistic energy' depending on the context of the situation; and the third type of energy 'Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (NHD) energy. These three different forms of energy systems have made it into my DGB model of the human psyche.
Spinoza (1632-1677)
Spinoza was the ultimate 'wholist' and 'integrationist'. For Spinoza, everything was united, and God was in everything as part of this 'united wholism'. Thus, Spinoza was also the ultimate 'pantheist'.
It is partly through Spinoza and partly through Heraclitus that I get the idea of 'multi-dialectical unity' and 'multi-dialectical wholism' (the unity of many different polar opposites in a combination of tension and harmony with each other at the same time, held together by the 'precariousness of the balance' but capable of exploding apart at any time). This idea has surfaced in the respective philosophies and psychologies of Nietzsche (Birth of Tragedy), Freud (the conflict of the ego and the id, the superego and the id, the pleasure and reality principle, the life and the death instinct, the self and society...), Jung (the 'peronna' and the 'shadow'), Perls and Gestalt Therapy (the 'topdog' and the 'underdog')...and all of their respective ideas are at least partly reflected in DGB Philosophy, DGB Psychology, and The DGB model of the human psyche.
Hegel (1770-1831), Darwin (1809-1882), and W.B. Cannon (1871-1945)
Hegel's dialectical philosophy is the centerpiece of this work -- with 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' being Hegel's most important work. I own the book but haven't read it myself except for bits and pieces and assorted interpretations of it. It's one of those mind-numbing philosophical classics that not many, including myself, feel up to doing 'semantic' warfare with. Personally, I would sooner read an author who has brought Hegel down to a 'layman's' level of understanding' -- and then work with Hegel on this level. I would sooner work with Hegel on a 'pragmatic' level rather than an 'academic' level, although to be sure, I want my work to have 'academic substance' in it even if I am not jumping through all the academic hoops that might earn me some recognition in this regard.
Hegel's main book -- The Phenomenology -- and his philosophy as a whole is not often regarded as a book on 'self and social evolution' but it is exactly that -- as much so and more as Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'. Hegel and Darwin are not often compared -- I think I have seen the comparison once or twice in print such as in Peter Bowler's magnificant book on evolution, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea'.
Let's compare Hegel and Darwin for a minute -- and then add Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body' (1932) and a little 'Intelligent Design Theory' into the mix as we progress. (This whole topic will be examined in more detail elsewhere at a different time). Hegel's 'Phenomenology' was written in 1807; Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' in 1859. Hegel's 'Phenomenology' was more a book on philosophy, the history of philosophy, and the history of man in society, in culture. In contrast, Darwin's 'Origin' is more a book on biology 'and the evolution of mutating biological characteristics in different species of plants and animals. (My understanding is that 'man' was left out of this equation but that it didn't take people very long to put 'two and two' together.)
If I were re-naming Hegel's most famous book, 'The Phenomenology of Mind (Spirit)', today, I would call it this: 'Multi-Dialectical Evolution: The Evolution of Ideas, Culture, and Biological Phenomena Over Time'. In other words, Hegel's 'Phenomenology', extrapolated to the fullest, with the hind vision of a philosopher in the 21st century (that's me), has the power to supersede and encompass Darwin's 'Origin of The Species' and Cannon's masterpiece, 'The Wisdom of The Body', both at the same time.
What is homeostasis? Simply and pragmatically 'homeostasis' can be defined as a technical, scientific name for 'optimal balance'. Here's how the free internet, Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines 'homeostasis'.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable, constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms. The term was coined in 1932 by Walter Cannon from the Greek homoios (same, like, resembling) and stasis (to stand, posture).
Where am I going with this? Well, the name of my philosophy up to this point has been 'DGB Philosophy' (which includes Psychology, Politics, Biology, Medicine, Economics, Law, Religion, Art, Recreation...) where 'DGB' partly stands for the initials of my name but more importantly stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging'. Now we add the 'homeostatic' factor here, or better still, the 'multi-homeostatic' factor here, and the 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' idea perhaps starts to make more sense. Specifically, what is the purpose of a 'Dialectical Gap Bridging' philosophy. The answer is -- 'homeostasis' -- or in layman's language -- 'optimal balance'. Thus, 'DGB Philosophy' in a few more words of attempted motivational clarity becomes 'DGB Homeostatic or Optimal Balance Philosophy'. And logically speaking, in order to retain a philosophical consistentcy of purpose, DGB Homeostatic Philosophy would be expected to have a 'DGB Homeostatic or Multi-Homeostatic Model of the Psyche' that corresponds in philosophical principle to Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body' and his principle of homeostasis.
Thus, we've now made the academic connection between DGB Homeostatic Philosophy and Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body and Homeostasis'. But how do Hegel and Darwin fit into this equation? Let's back up somewhat and allow me to go on a bit of a creative rampage.
'Thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis' -- these are the three words that made Hegel famous (and yet amazingly, I think I read it somewhere, that he never actually used these three words). Now let's take these three words: 'man', 'woman', 'child'. Now we are entering into Darwin's territory of evolution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a brain surgeon nor a Kant nor a Hegel nor a Nietsche nor even a philosophy professor to make an academic -- a pragmatic -- and a rather obvious symbolic -- connection. Indeed, I am surprised that Freud didn't enter this territory before me.
1. Man (thesis)
2. Woman (anti-thesis -- and feel free if you are a feminist to reverse the order above if you wish);
3. Child (synthesis).
Now you have the connection between Hegel, Darwin, and Cannon -- as well as the soon-to-be articulated connection to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, and Perls.
Indeed, what I am doing right here, right now, could easily be called an act of 'mental copulation and/or intercourse'. Freud would say, 'it all comes back to sex'; Darwin would say, 'it all comes back genes'; Hegel would say 'it all comes back to the dialectic'; Cannon would say, 'it all comes back to 'homeostasis'; and DGB Philosophy says 'that they are all right because the whole jigsaw puzzle is wholistically connected and they all saw different pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle'.
I can remember my father using the phrase 'the cross-fertilization of ideas' in the 1970s, as well as his use of the term 'the information highway' in the same time period. His business work and his strong creative imagination -- his business entailed the manufacturing and selling of 'teaching machines' and 'video software cartridges' to go inside these teaching machines -- at least partly foreshadowed the beginning of internet technology 5 to 10 years later. What I am doing here is partly advancing his ideas, and the ideas of the all the philosophers and psychologists who you will see that grace these pages, in combination with the wonderful help of the most amazing 'information highway' my dad or anyone else could have possibly imagined -- i.e., the internet -- and on the internet the biggest 'library' that anyone could have possibly imagined, including for example, the free Wikepedia encyclopedia that I use so often for my research here -- and with the help of all this, I am trying to translate all of that into something bigger and better philosophically (while still maintaining my 50 hour a week plus 'day job' to financially support my activities here) -- and that is an extensive 2600 year plus integration of Western philosophy and psychology of which this section here is one of about 10 or 20 other significant parts (depending on how much time and energy I have to write them).
Hobbes (1588-1679), Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Thomas Hobbes and Arthur Schopenhauer were cut at least partly from the same cloth: they both appreciated arguably better than any other Western philosophers (maybe you could put Machiavelli in this category too) the significance and the dominance of the 'nasty side of human nature and human behavior'. For Hobbes, this belief in the 'nasty (narcissistic, dionysian) side of human nature and behavior' translated into the need for a very strong, authoritarian government and police force to counteract and compensate for the type of 'anarchy' and 'uncivil behavior' that would reign if such forces were not properly in place. In this regard, Hobbes is probably most noted for his rather draconian political philosophy:
Men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth living. The way out of this desperate state is to make a social contract and establish the state to keep peace and order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of the social contract. (See Hobbes on the internet.)
Schopenhauer seems to have seen the world much the same way Hobbes did but did not opt for any kind of political philosphy as any kind of solution to this problem. Whereas Hobbes was influenced by the 'new' scientific philosophy of Galileo and Gassendi which treated the world as 'matter in motion' (See Hobbes on the internet again, same place), Shopenhauer looked to art, music, literature, and Middle Eastern Philosophy (Budhism, Hinduism) for the answers to man's 'Lord of the Flies' existence.
Schopenhauer formulated a double-aspect theory to our understanding of reality, that of the world existing simultaneously but separately as will and representation. He is commonly known for having espoused a sort of philosophical pessimism that saw life as being essentially evil, futile, and full of suffering. However, upon closer inspection, in accordance with Eastern thought, especially that of Hinduism and Buddhism, he saw salvation, deliverance, or escape from suffering in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and ascetic living. His ideas profoundly influenced the fields of philosophy, psychology, music, and literature. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Any 'realistic' model of the human psyche that attempts to at least partly 'explain' and/or 'understand' human nature and human behavior needs to fully recognize and appreciate the significance of what Hobbes and Schopenhauer (and Machiavelli) were writing about, and this part of human nature/behavior was addressed by Freud in his concept of the 'id', as well as by Jung in his concept of 'the shadow'. DGB Philosophy-Psychology follows suit with its combined concept of the 'Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (NHD)Ego' -- influenced also by Nietsche's 'Birth of Tragedy' which we will get to now.
Nietzsche added something -- in fact a combination of things -- to Western Philosophy -- that up until his writing (the last half of the 1800s), had mainly been sadly missing. Mainly passion -- a completely unbridled passion and zest for living at the highest possible level of achivement (the life of a 'superman' with a strong 'will to power', or perhaps better stated as a strong 'will to self-empowerment') -- in combination with a raw rage and hatred for anything that compromised this type of living (such as Christianity). Nietzsche was the 'ultimate freedom fighter and affirmer of life at the highest level of possible self-achievement' in combination with the ultimate 'deconstructionist' who could 'philosophically and rhetorically tear to pieces' anything and anyone that/who stood in the way of his life philosophy. As a writer, there is no one I admire more than Nietzsche -- the supreme philosophical writer in Western history -- he let it all out, said what he had to say quickly and concisely, and didn't hold back anything emotionally.
There are philosophers I won't read because of the difficulty in trying to fight through their abstract terminology -- and the 'dryness' of this terminology. With Nietsche, he is hard to put down -- mesmerizing -- full of many of the best quotes in the history of Western philosophy. And everything comes in a raging torment of human pain and suffering -- as well as glory and celebration. Whenever I feel my writing becoming 'dry and arrid' (Kant and Hegel-like) -- no 'fire' and 'oxygen' in it -- I have to turn my attention back to Nietzsche to get my writing moving back in the right direction again. Call this 'The Nietzsche Effect' if you will on 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology'. Call it the 'The Perls-Gestalt Effect' (as I partly learned the spirit of Nietzsche through reading Perls and learning Gestalt Therapy). Or if you want to trace it further back to Greek Mythology via Nietzsche's classic first book: 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- then call it 'The Dionysian Effect'.
Hegel's Hotel can not survive and flourish without the passionate spirit of Dionysus, Nietzsche, and Perls -- anymore than it can survives without the organization, humanism, civility, law and order, ethics and morality of the archetype of the ancient Greek God -- 'Apollo'. Hegel's Hotel needs the homeostatic balance of Dionysus and Apollo to survive and flourish -- the spirit of Apollo in my left hand; the spirit of Dionysus in my right (or visa versa). Together they will help me provide the winning formula for the present and future energy and organization -- the homeostatic balance -- of Hegel's Hotel.
-- dgb, Oct. 20th, 2006; the last two paragraphs were updated on April 26th, 2008.
In this section here, we will focus more on the subject of 'psychology' -- which we will define as the study of the human psyche in its entirety which includes the whole gamut of mind, emotions, and both covert and overt forms of behavior. Now, two types of 'covert' (hidden) behaviors can be distinguished from each other: 1. Covert, Internal, Behaviors (CIB's) such as thoughts and feelings to the extent that they are not expressed in external actions; and 2. the type of covert behaviors that are external and purposeful but designed to be hidden from social view (such as unethical, narcissistic behaviors).
The Mind As Both Structure and Process
We need to look at the mind both as structure and as process. The two are essentially the same thing but at different ends of the dialectic-polarity spectrum. Structure is very slow process (to the extent that it seems like the process is barely moving and/or even stationary). Process in the more usual sense of the word is very fast structure (to the extent that the structure may be very hard to pin point and to pin down as a moving target that may almost seem to lack substance and predictability). People generally prefer to think in terms of 'structures' and 'compartments' rather than 'processes' and 'dynamics' because the first two are more predictable. But both are necessary in order to have a decently good model or 'map' of the human mind in both its structual and process aspects. When we talk about 'structure', we often use the term 'character structure'; when we talk about 'process', we are more likely to use words like 'personality theory' and/or 'personality dynamics'.
From Model-Building/Map-Making To A Multi-Dialectic Understanding of The Human Psyche
Before we start, I want to share a little bit of what I have learned about 'theory or model building', mainly from General Semantics, but partly from Hegel as well, which expresses the idea that no theory, no model, will ever be complete or all-encompassing. In contrast to what Hegel believed however, in DGB Philosophy (Epistemology) there is no 'Absolute Knowledge' unless we want to view Absolute Knowledge as a 'Fictional Ideal', something like Plato's 'Forms' but in a whole different sense than what Plato meant. Plato was one of Western Philosophy's finest 'ethical idealists' -- and he should be revered as such -- but he was also a horrible realist, empiricist and epistemologist. He gave much to religion and little if anything to science. He had his head too far in the clouds to see the 'realness of the empirical world in front of him'. Aristotle quickly saw this, and philosophically filled in this huge gaping void in Platonic Theory (which made it no longer 'Platonic Theory' -- thus making Plato (the spiritualist) and Aristotle (the empiricist, biologist, and scientist) arguably one of the three greatest 'one-two' dialectical combinations in the evolution of Western Philosophy (the other two being Anaxamander and Heraclitus, and Hegel and Marx. See my little diatribe on Anaxamander and Heraclitus below.) From the first (Plato), we got much of what is viewed as 'spirituality, ethics, and religion' today wheras from second (Aristotle) we got much of what is viewed as science and 'grounded, common sense, logic and reason' today. The ongoing dialectic between religion and science is only a continuation and extension of the dialectic between Plato and Aristotle. Both philosophers represent deep but different, polarized dialectical tendencies in the human psyche that should be legitmately and fully represented by a map or model of the human psyche that reflects these same 'dialectical tendencies towards both the split and the reunion of spirituality and science. This is only one of many such 'dialectical polarity-homeostatic functions' in the human psyche. We will talk of many more because my map of the human psyche -- in following the lead of Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Hegel, Nietzsche (in The Birth of Tragedy), Freud, Jung, Perls, and Berne -- is full of converging and diverging dialectical polarities -- the essence and often the tragedy of what it means to be human.
Getting back to the theme of 'map-making' and 'model-building', some ideas that are construed as 'knowledge' are much better than other ideas that might also be construed as knowledge; indeed, we can sometimes easily, sometimes not nearly as easily, distingwuish and agree on the difference between 'healthy' and 'pathological', 'real' and 'unreal', 'fact' and 'fictional' forms of knowledge in the sense that most of us would easily agree that horses are real and unicorns are not real (we do agree on this, don't we?). Other things and/or other life processes might not be nearly as easily to divide into 'black' and 'white' -- they come in as all sorts of epistemological and ethical 'grays' -- and it is these areas that create much human epistemological controversy and disagreement. But then again, it is not only the 'grays' that create disagreement and controversy. Some people prefer 'black' to 'white' and some people prefer 'white' to 'black' and many, many people alternate between preferring both at different times. We are all 'multi-bi-polar' (which can also be reworded as 'multi-homeostatic' or 'multi-dialectic') -- and to be sure, in different words and ways, many a philosopher and psychologist before me (most of whom will be introduced to you here if you are not already familiar with them) has presented much the same point of view. It is this theme of multi-polarism, mult-dialecticism, and multi-homeostaticism (these are all new words that i just created here) that is the central theme both of this section here on man's psychology, and in this philosophical treatise as a whole that engages in ever aspect of man's self, social, culturual, economic, political, scientific, and spiritual activity. Hegel's Hotel: DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy asserts that in order to get to a point of generally stabilized 'optimal balance', we often need to better understand, and in this regard either fully or partly experience (by choice or not), what it means to live in some of man's and life's polar extremes of existence.
A Brief Historical Summary of Philosophical Influences on The DGB 'Multi-Dialectic Model of The Psyche
We will will study most of these philosophers in more detail elsewhere (such as in my historical section) but here is a brief summary of the influencers on the DGB Psyche Model.
Anaxamander (610BC-546BC)
Anaxamander's philosophy and psychology of man is basically a philosophy and psychology of 'war'. This should not be surprising as Anaxamander lived during a time in early Greek hisotry when he was exposed to war all around him -- particularly the Spartans fighting back and forth with the Athenians. From the accounts I gather, the Spartans tended to be more 'authoritative' and 'dictatorial' in spirit and philosophy; the Athenians more 'democratic'. Both lived in 'city-states' that clashed regularly with each other in what might be called in 'Nietzschean terms' a 'will to power'. And 'fighting power' was never totally settled for long -- it was always 'transitory' with first one side dominating, then the other...back and forth...
It is in this 'war context' of 'human nature and human behavior' (has it really changed one iota today?), that Anaxamander built his philosophy of 'polar opposites dueling with each other, with first one polarity dominating the other, enjoying the sunshine if you will, while the other is 'pushed' into the hidden realms of darkness (like the moon while the sun is out), but only temporarily, until this state of affairs revereses itself (such as with the moon enjoying the dominance of light while the sun is hidden in darkness)'. What we have here in effect is the birth of Gestalt Psychology and Gestalt Therapy about 2500 years before its time (which was the end of the 19th century for Gestalt Psychology, the middle of the 20 century for Gestalt Therapy). Anaxamander did not invent the terms 'figure', 'background', 'homeostasis', and 'cosmic homeostatic bio-regulation' (my term), but he very well could have -- it is not a far stretch from what he was talking about in a primitive way perhaps -- but also a very profound way -- and the respective philosophies of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Darwin, Freud, Jung, Cannon, Derrida, Foucault, and Perls some 2350 to 2500 years later.
I look at Anaxamander as the great-great grandfather of all Western -- and maybe Eastern too -- dialectical philosophy and psychology. I have no trouble connecting the philosophy and psychology I am espousing here with its Anaxamanderian roots -- even if there may be a hundred dialectical philosophers and psycholgists between Anaxamader and me (DGB Optimal Balance Philosophy).
Heraclitus (535BC-475BC)
Heraclitus was born 11 years after Anaxamander died but it seems more than coincidental that Heraclitus' ideas seem to build on Anaxamander's. Heraclitus' ideas show a strong Anaxamanderian influence in his 'philosophy of dialectical opposites'. However, there is an important difference between Heraclitus discussion of opposites and Anaxamander's. Anaxamander's philosophy of opposites is a philosophy of war and competition -- a prelude to Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' and Nietzsche's 'will to power' in its corrupted Nazi embellishment. Anaxamander's was a philosophy of 'dialectical realism and determinism' that also amazingly in my opinion anticipated Hegel's philosophy of 'dialectical determinism' (thesis, anti-thesis, black, white -- without the integrative synthesis or 'compromising, middle ground gray' added yet.) Anaxamander's was an 'either/or' philosophy -- either black or white takes dominance with the other receding into the background until a 'reversal of fortune and opportunity' takes place and the whole situation of dominance and submission, foreground and background, is switched. In this regard, again amazingly in my opinion, Anaxamander also anticipated much of what Gestalt Psychology and Gestalt Therapy had to say and even Derrida's 'philosophy of deconstruction(ism)'.
What Heraclitus brought to the table that was significantly different -- and also an aniticpator of many future dialectical philosophies and psychologies was the idea of the 'unity of opposites' which at first sounds contradictory until you look at what Heraclitus was saying in the context of the idea of 'dialectical integrationism and wholism'. Thus, Anaxamander provided a dialectical 'either/or' philosophy, a philosophy of dialectical competition and war wheras Heraclitus was the first philosopher to basically introduce the idea of 'dialectical democracy' -- two opposing qualities, beliefs, values, perspectives, and/or willpowers coming together into a 'dialectically and democratically integrative whole'. Thus, Heraclitus was the first 'dialectical democrat' and an anticipator of such profound ideas and ideaa yet to come as: 1. Hegel's dialectical determinism with the 'synthesis' component now added into the 'dialectic-wholistic picture'; 2. W.F. Cannon's book and theory of 'The Wisdom of The Body' and his primary principle of 'homeostatic balance'; and 3. the type of dialectical democratic political philosophy that would start to be built in England during the Enlightement by political philosophy giants such as John Locke and others that followed him (forgive me if my British political history is a little sketchy here; I will fill in more details later); likewise in France after, I believe, Napoleoon's influence, also in the U.S. after the American Declaration of Independence and Revolution, and then as later established in the American Constitution, and also as established here in Canada under the British-North America Act (which I believe has since been tarnished by Trudeau introducing elements of 'preferential racial and sexual treatment' into the present Canadian Constitution as he reconstructed it in the 1970s -- which was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of today's 'homeostatic and dialectical imbalance in the Domestic Courts of Canada'. More on this later.)
Now it might be reasonably asked why no philosopher before me has ever made these types of extensive 'philosphical connections' between past and present day philosophies. The answer is 'I don't really know'. I can only give my rather radical perspective on this matter, which is that in the big picture, the large scope of 2600 years of Western philosophy, 'the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection' is as important -- obviously not in quantity but definitely in my opinion in quality -- as the 'Socrates-Plato-Aristotle' connection. Heraclitus' 'process thinking' is as important a foundation to present day 'scientific thinking' as Plato's ideas are to present day religion. And the Anaxamander-Heraclitus connection comes much, much closer to anticipating: 1. the 'Hegelian dialectical philosophy revolution' of the 1900s'(which was followed even more dramatically by Marx); 2. the Gestalt Psychology and Therapy movement of the 1900s; 3. the Nietzschean-Freudian-Jungian-Perlsian Dialectical Psychology and Psychotherapy Revolution of the 1900s; 4. Fouccault's 'philosophy of power'; and 5. Derrida's 'Deconstruction(ism)' -- than anything that Plato or Aristotle ever wrote.
That's my more than two cents on Anaxamander and Heraclitus.
Plato (427-347BC)
Off the top of my head, there are three things I like about Plato; 1. his ethical idealism and striving for something that is 'higher' than the normal ethics of day-to-day living (whether it is in his time or ours); 2. the part of The Symposium that discusses love and particularly the 'dialectical nature' of love; 3. the part of his philosophy (and I don't even know where to find this in his work but i know that he said it) where he differentiates between 'three different energy systems' in man: 1. the mind; 2. the heart; and 3. the loins. Basically, I call the first type of energy 'Apollonian energy'; the second type of energy either 'romantic energy' and/or 'humanistic energy' depending on the context of the situation; and the third type of energy 'Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (NHD) energy. These three different forms of energy systems have made it into my DGB model of the human psyche.
Spinoza (1632-1677)
Spinoza was the ultimate 'wholist' and 'integrationist'. For Spinoza, everything was united, and God was in everything as part of this 'united wholism'. Thus, Spinoza was also the ultimate 'pantheist'.
It is partly through Spinoza and partly through Heraclitus that I get the idea of 'multi-dialectical unity' and 'multi-dialectical wholism' (the unity of many different polar opposites in a combination of tension and harmony with each other at the same time, held together by the 'precariousness of the balance' but capable of exploding apart at any time). This idea has surfaced in the respective philosophies and psychologies of Nietzsche (Birth of Tragedy), Freud (the conflict of the ego and the id, the superego and the id, the pleasure and reality principle, the life and the death instinct, the self and society...), Jung (the 'peronna' and the 'shadow'), Perls and Gestalt Therapy (the 'topdog' and the 'underdog')...and all of their respective ideas are at least partly reflected in DGB Philosophy, DGB Psychology, and The DGB model of the human psyche.
Hegel (1770-1831), Darwin (1809-1882), and W.B. Cannon (1871-1945)
Hegel's dialectical philosophy is the centerpiece of this work -- with 'The Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit' being Hegel's most important work. I own the book but haven't read it myself except for bits and pieces and assorted interpretations of it. It's one of those mind-numbing philosophical classics that not many, including myself, feel up to doing 'semantic' warfare with. Personally, I would sooner read an author who has brought Hegel down to a 'layman's' level of understanding' -- and then work with Hegel on this level. I would sooner work with Hegel on a 'pragmatic' level rather than an 'academic' level, although to be sure, I want my work to have 'academic substance' in it even if I am not jumping through all the academic hoops that might earn me some recognition in this regard.
Hegel's main book -- The Phenomenology -- and his philosophy as a whole is not often regarded as a book on 'self and social evolution' but it is exactly that -- as much so and more as Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'. Hegel and Darwin are not often compared -- I think I have seen the comparison once or twice in print such as in Peter Bowler's magnificant book on evolution, 'Evolution: The History of an Idea'.
Let's compare Hegel and Darwin for a minute -- and then add Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body' (1932) and a little 'Intelligent Design Theory' into the mix as we progress. (This whole topic will be examined in more detail elsewhere at a different time). Hegel's 'Phenomenology' was written in 1807; Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' in 1859. Hegel's 'Phenomenology' was more a book on philosophy, the history of philosophy, and the history of man in society, in culture. In contrast, Darwin's 'Origin' is more a book on biology 'and the evolution of mutating biological characteristics in different species of plants and animals. (My understanding is that 'man' was left out of this equation but that it didn't take people very long to put 'two and two' together.)
If I were re-naming Hegel's most famous book, 'The Phenomenology of Mind (Spirit)', today, I would call it this: 'Multi-Dialectical Evolution: The Evolution of Ideas, Culture, and Biological Phenomena Over Time'. In other words, Hegel's 'Phenomenology', extrapolated to the fullest, with the hind vision of a philosopher in the 21st century (that's me), has the power to supersede and encompass Darwin's 'Origin of The Species' and Cannon's masterpiece, 'The Wisdom of The Body', both at the same time.
What is homeostasis? Simply and pragmatically 'homeostasis' can be defined as a technical, scientific name for 'optimal balance'. Here's how the free internet, Wikipedia Encyclopedia defines 'homeostasis'.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable, constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms. The term was coined in 1932 by Walter Cannon from the Greek homoios (same, like, resembling) and stasis (to stand, posture).
Where am I going with this? Well, the name of my philosophy up to this point has been 'DGB Philosophy' (which includes Psychology, Politics, Biology, Medicine, Economics, Law, Religion, Art, Recreation...) where 'DGB' partly stands for the initials of my name but more importantly stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging'. Now we add the 'homeostatic' factor here, or better still, the 'multi-homeostatic' factor here, and the 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' idea perhaps starts to make more sense. Specifically, what is the purpose of a 'Dialectical Gap Bridging' philosophy. The answer is -- 'homeostasis' -- or in layman's language -- 'optimal balance'. Thus, 'DGB Philosophy' in a few more words of attempted motivational clarity becomes 'DGB Homeostatic or Optimal Balance Philosophy'. And logically speaking, in order to retain a philosophical consistentcy of purpose, DGB Homeostatic Philosophy would be expected to have a 'DGB Homeostatic or Multi-Homeostatic Model of the Psyche' that corresponds in philosophical principle to Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body' and his principle of homeostasis.
Thus, we've now made the academic connection between DGB Homeostatic Philosophy and Cannon's 'Wisdom of the Body and Homeostasis'. But how do Hegel and Darwin fit into this equation? Let's back up somewhat and allow me to go on a bit of a creative rampage.
'Thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis' -- these are the three words that made Hegel famous (and yet amazingly, I think I read it somewhere, that he never actually used these three words). Now let's take these three words: 'man', 'woman', 'child'. Now we are entering into Darwin's territory of evolution. It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a brain surgeon nor a Kant nor a Hegel nor a Nietsche nor even a philosophy professor to make an academic -- a pragmatic -- and a rather obvious symbolic -- connection. Indeed, I am surprised that Freud didn't enter this territory before me.
1. Man (thesis)
2. Woman (anti-thesis -- and feel free if you are a feminist to reverse the order above if you wish);
3. Child (synthesis).
Now you have the connection between Hegel, Darwin, and Cannon -- as well as the soon-to-be articulated connection to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, and Perls.
Indeed, what I am doing right here, right now, could easily be called an act of 'mental copulation and/or intercourse'. Freud would say, 'it all comes back to sex'; Darwin would say, 'it all comes back genes'; Hegel would say 'it all comes back to the dialectic'; Cannon would say, 'it all comes back to 'homeostasis'; and DGB Philosophy says 'that they are all right because the whole jigsaw puzzle is wholistically connected and they all saw different pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle'.
I can remember my father using the phrase 'the cross-fertilization of ideas' in the 1970s, as well as his use of the term 'the information highway' in the same time period. His business work and his strong creative imagination -- his business entailed the manufacturing and selling of 'teaching machines' and 'video software cartridges' to go inside these teaching machines -- at least partly foreshadowed the beginning of internet technology 5 to 10 years later. What I am doing here is partly advancing his ideas, and the ideas of the all the philosophers and psychologists who you will see that grace these pages, in combination with the wonderful help of the most amazing 'information highway' my dad or anyone else could have possibly imagined -- i.e., the internet -- and on the internet the biggest 'library' that anyone could have possibly imagined, including for example, the free Wikepedia encyclopedia that I use so often for my research here -- and with the help of all this, I am trying to translate all of that into something bigger and better philosophically (while still maintaining my 50 hour a week plus 'day job' to financially support my activities here) -- and that is an extensive 2600 year plus integration of Western philosophy and psychology of which this section here is one of about 10 or 20 other significant parts (depending on how much time and energy I have to write them).
Hobbes (1588-1679), Schopenhauer (1788-1860), and Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Thomas Hobbes and Arthur Schopenhauer were cut at least partly from the same cloth: they both appreciated arguably better than any other Western philosophers (maybe you could put Machiavelli in this category too) the significance and the dominance of the 'nasty side of human nature and human behavior'. For Hobbes, this belief in the 'nasty (narcissistic, dionysian) side of human nature and behavior' translated into the need for a very strong, authoritarian government and police force to counteract and compensate for the type of 'anarchy' and 'uncivil behavior' that would reign if such forces were not properly in place. In this regard, Hobbes is probably most noted for his rather draconian political philosophy:
Men in a state of nature, that is a state without civil government, are in a war of all against all in which life is hardly worth living. The way out of this desperate state is to make a social contract and establish the state to keep peace and order. Because of his view of how nasty life is without the state, Hobbes subscribes to a very authoritarian version of the social contract. (See Hobbes on the internet.)
Schopenhauer seems to have seen the world much the same way Hobbes did but did not opt for any kind of political philosphy as any kind of solution to this problem. Whereas Hobbes was influenced by the 'new' scientific philosophy of Galileo and Gassendi which treated the world as 'matter in motion' (See Hobbes on the internet again, same place), Shopenhauer looked to art, music, literature, and Middle Eastern Philosophy (Budhism, Hinduism) for the answers to man's 'Lord of the Flies' existence.
Schopenhauer formulated a double-aspect theory to our understanding of reality, that of the world existing simultaneously but separately as will and representation. He is commonly known for having espoused a sort of philosophical pessimism that saw life as being essentially evil, futile, and full of suffering. However, upon closer inspection, in accordance with Eastern thought, especially that of Hinduism and Buddhism, he saw salvation, deliverance, or escape from suffering in aesthetic contemplation, sympathy for others, and ascetic living. His ideas profoundly influenced the fields of philosophy, psychology, music, and literature. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Any 'realistic' model of the human psyche that attempts to at least partly 'explain' and/or 'understand' human nature and human behavior needs to fully recognize and appreciate the significance of what Hobbes and Schopenhauer (and Machiavelli) were writing about, and this part of human nature/behavior was addressed by Freud in his concept of the 'id', as well as by Jung in his concept of 'the shadow'. DGB Philosophy-Psychology follows suit with its combined concept of the 'Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (NHD)Ego' -- influenced also by Nietsche's 'Birth of Tragedy' which we will get to now.
Nietzsche added something -- in fact a combination of things -- to Western Philosophy -- that up until his writing (the last half of the 1800s), had mainly been sadly missing. Mainly passion -- a completely unbridled passion and zest for living at the highest possible level of achivement (the life of a 'superman' with a strong 'will to power', or perhaps better stated as a strong 'will to self-empowerment') -- in combination with a raw rage and hatred for anything that compromised this type of living (such as Christianity). Nietzsche was the 'ultimate freedom fighter and affirmer of life at the highest level of possible self-achievement' in combination with the ultimate 'deconstructionist' who could 'philosophically and rhetorically tear to pieces' anything and anyone that/who stood in the way of his life philosophy. As a writer, there is no one I admire more than Nietzsche -- the supreme philosophical writer in Western history -- he let it all out, said what he had to say quickly and concisely, and didn't hold back anything emotionally.
There are philosophers I won't read because of the difficulty in trying to fight through their abstract terminology -- and the 'dryness' of this terminology. With Nietsche, he is hard to put down -- mesmerizing -- full of many of the best quotes in the history of Western philosophy. And everything comes in a raging torment of human pain and suffering -- as well as glory and celebration. Whenever I feel my writing becoming 'dry and arrid' (Kant and Hegel-like) -- no 'fire' and 'oxygen' in it -- I have to turn my attention back to Nietzsche to get my writing moving back in the right direction again. Call this 'The Nietzsche Effect' if you will on 'DGB Philosophy-Psychology'. Call it the 'The Perls-Gestalt Effect' (as I partly learned the spirit of Nietzsche through reading Perls and learning Gestalt Therapy). Or if you want to trace it further back to Greek Mythology via Nietzsche's classic first book: 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- then call it 'The Dionysian Effect'.
Hegel's Hotel can not survive and flourish without the passionate spirit of Dionysus, Nietzsche, and Perls -- anymore than it can survives without the organization, humanism, civility, law and order, ethics and morality of the archetype of the ancient Greek God -- 'Apollo'. Hegel's Hotel needs the homeostatic balance of Dionysus and Apollo to survive and flourish -- the spirit of Apollo in my left hand; the spirit of Dionysus in my right (or visa versa). Together they will help me provide the winning formula for the present and future energy and organization -- the homeostatic balance -- of Hegel's Hotel.
-- dgb, Oct. 20th, 2006; the last two paragraphs were updated on April 26th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
