Philosophical/Psychological Precursors Leading Up To, and Influencing, Two Different DGB Models of The Personality

(Still under construction...as of Feb. 13th, 2009)


1. Introduction


There are many different ways of viewing the personality -- and of envisioning the personality with 'picture-diagrams'. 'Squares' (My DGB 'Multi-Compartment-Box' Model)and/or 'circles' (My DGB 'Sun-Planet-Moon'/'Solar System' Model)are common visual aids in this regard.

Here is a quick summary of some of the main 'personality models' that have been used, and/or are still being used, in the field of psychology, clinical psychology, and psychotherapy.

.................................................................................


A. Nietzsche's Two Different Models of The Personality

i) Nietzsche's 'Two Compartment'-'Birth Of Tragedy' (BT) (Apollo vs. Dionysus) Model

DGB Editorial Comments: A good model; homeostatically based and balanced -- negotiating and integrating the differences between the 'ethical-restraining' and the 'impulsive-spontaneous' elements of, or 'compartments' in, the personality.

ii) Nietzsche's One Compartment 'Dionysian-Will to Power-Superman' Model

DGB Descriptive Comments: A less 'Hegelian' (dualistic and dialectic) model; a more 'existential' model -- 'go for the gusto', 'no restraint', 'live life to the fullest', 'embrace life', 'reach for the top', 'fly high -- don't look back', 'Don't be afraid of the existential abyss' -- 'use the existential abyss as your 'life challenge' -- 'embrace it' -- 'don't back away from it' -- 'don't run from the abyss' -- 'jump the abyss from being to becoming' -- and/or 'build a bridge across it' -- 'life is a process -- or at least it should be -- of constantly leaping existential abysses, or building bridges across them -- this is the life of 'The Superman' -- this is 'The Will to Power' or 'The Will to Self-Empowerment' -- the alternative is 'The Herd Mentality'.

DGB Editorial Comments: This too is a great model of the human personality -- and of living -- but it loses the idea of 'dialectic engagement, negotiation and integration -- it loses the idea of 'homeostatic balance' or 'dialectic-democratic balance' -- 'Apollo' got lost in the shuffle, Apollo is nowhere to be found -- what happened to 'ethics, morals, and social restraints'; Apollo became 'marginalized' in this model while 'Dionysus' became 'idolized' and 'pedestalized' as 'the one and only God worthy of worshipping and following' -- This Nietzschean-Dionysian-Dominating philosophy was the Philosophy of 'The Anti-Christ', a society and a system of values without morals and ethics except for the pursuit of hedonistic self-gratification and self-fulfillment (self-actualization) is a one-sided value-system which is just as bad -- only the opposite -- of what Nietzsche was complaining against, and 'deconstructing' -- the Christian value of 'self-denial'.

..............................................................................


B. Freud

Freud's Classic 'Three Compartment Model' of: 1. 'The Superego' (Social, Cultural, and Ethical-Moral Conscience'; 2. 'The Id' (Realm of Biological Instincts and Impulses Impinging On, and/or Even Bombarding, the Psyche from The Depths of The Personality, and The Sensory-Sexual Apparatus, Below; 3. 'The Ego' (Mediating, Problem-Solving, Conflict-Resolving, Reality-Testing, Negotiating and Compromising Between The Superego and The Id, Integrating, Decision-Making, Executing Action)


DGB Editorial Comments: Freud's 'Three Compartment -- Superego, Id, Ego' Model is closer to Nietzsche's BT (Dualistic, Dialectic, Post-Hegelian, Homeostatic Balance) Model than it is to Nietzsche's later 'Existential-Will-To-Power-Superman' model. We certainly do not want to throw away Nietzsche's 'Superman' Model of the Personality which is probably the cental focus of 'Existentialism' and 'Humanistic-Existentialism' and the whole 'Self-Actualization/Fulfillment' Industry... but neither do we want to throw away Nietzsche's 'BT-Apollo vs. Dionysus' model either. Under Freud, Nietzsche's 'BT' model was re-born and became the central foundation of ('Classic') Psychoanalysis.


C. Jung's 'Personna-Shadow-Archetype' Model

It took me a long time to warm up to Jung's Psychology. Jung was about the last major psychologist who I started studying. There is still much about him and his work that I do not know much about.

Coming out of university, my philosophical and psychological interests centred around General Semantics, Cognitive Therapy, Rational-Emotive Therapy, Nathaniel Branden, Ayn Rand, and Erich Fromm and his brand of Humanism...

All of this was very much of a 'rational-empirical' mindset and perspective.

And that was largely before I started to become interested in Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, Adler and Adlerian Psychotherapy, and Freud and Psychoanalysis.

There was no conscious and/or planned effort to involve myself with the work of Karl Jung -- the 'mystical' and 'mythological' man. This was too far out in left field for me. I was a rational-empricist; not a mysticist, not an alchemist, not an astrologist, not a dream interpreter, not a mythologist.

However, I could not totally avoid Jung. And my studies of both Freud and Perls brought me at least partly -- if only through the back door -- to Jung. Indeed, it was a Jungian line here that I will quote below in its larger context from one of my Gestalt books -- 'The Gestalt Therapy Book' by Joel Latner, 1973,1986 -- that really opened the door to the beginning of my study of Jung, Hegel -- and the creative birth of 'Hegel's Hotel':

..............................................................................

From 'The Gestalt Therapy Book', 1973, 1986, p. 29-30...


Polarities are deeply rooted in organismic functioning. Thirst leads to water seeking; being overheated leads to a search for a way to cool off. Being full of wastes leads to behavior to relieve ourselves of them. Gestalt formation is itself the organization of the field into the poles of figure and ground. These are biological phenomena, part of our self-regulation.

The relationship of the opposites is that the existence of one necessarily requires the existence of the other. (This philosophical statement has its roots in Anaxamander, Heraclitus, and The Han Philosophers -- 'yin' and 'yang' -- inside brackets mine, dgb). This can be seen in the experiential relationship of quantity and quality of sensations and emotions. When pleasure exceeds a certain point, it becomes unpleasant. The two are dynamically linked. This is reflected in ordinary language expressions such as, "Love is the first cousin to hatred,' and "Opposites attract."

The interaction between polarities functions as a dialectical process. The opposites become distinguished and opposed; then, in their conflict, a resolution is achieved that unites the poles in a figure that is greater than the combination of the opposites -- it is a new creation. The classic statement of this process is Hegel's conception of historical development as consisting of forces that form into a coherence called a thesis; the thesis is then opposed by the contradictions inherent in it, which cohere into its anti-thesis. The resolution of the conflict is a synthesis that transforms the opposing forces into a new and unified situation.

In dialectic thinking in Gestalt Therapy, dualities are not irreconcilable contradictions, but distinctions that will be integrated in the process of gestalt formation and destruction. If the excitement present as the field differentiates is permitted to flow into the opposites, the result will be a resolution into a figural creation that is a genuine synthesis of them, and this will eventuate in a return to commonality and the undifferentiated field.

We can see from this that the more powerful the polarizations, the more significant the synthesis. "The greater the contrast," says Jung, "the greater is the potential. Great energy only comes from corresponding great tensions between opposites." In every case, the possibilities are contained within the opposites. What is required is their interaction, so that the dialectic may be permitted to operate. (p. 29-30.)

....................................................................................


These paragraphs above from The Gestalt Therapy Book were essentially the beginning of my more serious study of Jung and Hegel. At this moment, my on again, off again, relationship with The Gestalt Institute of Toronto between 1979 and 1991 became crystalized into my evolutionary forward movement of study after and beyond The Gestalt Institute -- into the realms of Jung and Hegel. I had become a solidified 'right brain, dialectical thinker' as opposed to -- and/or as well as -- a solely 'left brain, rational-empirical thinker'. And I was starting to move ever so slowly into the more 'mystical and mythological realm' of 'Jungian dialectical thinking' as opposed to the less mythologically oriented Gestalt Therapy, and I cannot even tell you at this moment to what extent that Hegel delved into -- if at all -- mythological thinking. There is a 'gap' in my research here that needs to be filled in at some future point in time.

...............................................................................

Right Brain vs. Left Brain
Definition

This theory of the structure and functions of the mind suggests that the two different sides of the brain control two different “modes” of thinking. It also suggests that each of us prefers one mode over the other.

Discussion

Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

Left Brain Right Brain
Logical
Sequential

Rational

Analytical

Objective

Looks at parts
Random

Intuitive

Holistic
Synthesizing

Subjective

Looks at wholes


Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain ones. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity.

How Right-Brain vs. Left-Brain Thinking Impacts Learning

Curriculum–In order to be more “whole-brained” in their orientation, schools need to give equal weight to the arts, creativity, and the skills of imagination and synthesis.

Instruction–To foster a more whole-brained scholastic experience, teachers should use instruction techniques that connect with both sides of the brain. They can increase their classroom’s right-brain learning activities by incorporating more patterning, metaphors, analogies, role playing, visuals, and movement into their reading, calculation, and analytical activities.

Assessment–For a more accurate whole-brained evaluation of student learning, educators must develop new forms of assessment that honor right-brained talents and skills.

Reading

Bernice McCarthy, The 4-MAT System: Teaching to Learning Styles with Right/Left Mode Techniques.

The content on this page was written by On Purpose Associates.

ShareThis

Add a Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick Yount posted the following on December 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm.
According to John McCrone, writing in the New Scientist magazine in July 2000,the whole notion of RB-LB dichotomies has been proven false by more recent brain scan research. The lateral functions as listed above are over simplifications of reality. Both hemispheres function together in complex ways, and — in extreme cases, where half the brain is removed to treat epilepsy, persons still reflect LB and RB characteristics. McCrone calls the dichotomy “simplistic at best and nonsense at worst.”

margo posted the following on December 18, 2008 at 6:02 am.
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS

uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe
Number skills
Written language
Reasoning
Spoken language
Right hand control
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS

uses feeling
“big picture” oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can “get it” (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking
Insight
3-D forms
Art awareness
Music awareness
Left hand control

^^these are some functions that i found i hope they can help someone!!:]

Zubaidah posted the following on December 15, 2008 at 12:55 am.
It was useful and very nice. Thanks!

...........................................................................


A short, oversimplified DGB summary of Jung's terminology and conceptuology...


1. 'The Personna': that part of our personality that has adapted to the world in a particular manner and regularly show this 'part' of our character to the outside world. Some similarities to Freud's concept of 'The Ego';

2. 'The Shadow': A 'darker' side of our personality that we for the most part hide and suppress from the outside world, if not ourselves as well. Some similarities to Freud's concept of 'The Id'.

3. 'Archetypes': Mythological figures in our 'collective unconscious' some of which we may become 'fixated' on, and use regularly in our Personna or alternatively in our Shadow.

Here are a few more Jungian concepts from the internet...

............................................................................

Carl Jung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Jung" redirects here. For other uses, see Jung (disambiguation).
"Karl Jung" redirects here. For other uses, see Karl Jung (disambiguation).
Carl Gustav Jung


A recent edition of Jung's partially autobiographical work Memories, Dreams, Reflections.
Born 26 July 1875(1875-07-26)
Kesswil, Thurgau, Switzerland
Died 6 June 1961 (aged 85)
Zürich, Switzerland

Residence Switzerland
Citizenship Swiss
Fields Psychiatry, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Analytical psychology
Institutions Burghölzli
Doctoral advisor Eugen Bleuler, Sigmund Freud
Known for Analytical psychology


Carl Gustav Jung (IPA: [ˈkarl ˈgʊstaf ˈjʊŋ]) (26 July 1875 – 6 June 1961) was a Swiss psychiatrist, an influential thinker and the founder of analytical psychology. Jung's approach to psychology has been influential in the field of depth psychology and in countercultural movements across the globe. Jung is considered as the first modern psychologist to state that the human psyche is "by nature religious" and to explore it in depth.[1] He emphasized understanding the psyche through exploring the worlds of dreams, art, mythology, religion and philosophy. Although he was a theoretical psychologist and practicing clinician, much of his life's work was spent exploring other areas, including Eastern and Western philosophy, alchemy, astrology, sociology, as well as literature and the arts. His most notable ideas include the concept of psychological archetypes, the collective unconscious and synchronicity.

Jung emphasized the importance of balance and harmony. He cautioned that modern people rely too heavily on science and logic and would benefit from integrating spirituality and appreciation of unconscious realms. His overarching goal for the person, called individuation, was becoming whole (as opposed to moral or perfect) which involves a struggle to integrate and relate to the unconscious shadow side while still maintaining conscious autonomy.


......................................................................

The Jungian Concept of The Shadow
In this article I will outline some of the Jungian concepts of the Shadow, which has an important role linked closely with the Anima and Animus, the importance of which will be understood by those who have undertaken Trance Exercise 5.

As a side note, it is interesting to note that Jung's concepts of the Shadow (along with the persona, superman and the wise old man) were heavily influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, the prominent German philosopher. Jung used Nietzsche's descriptions as specific archetypal images. It is also worthy of note that Nietzsche had some deeply esoteric aspects in his philosophy, based around the concept of self-overcoming, whereby man can overcome his limitations to become the higher man, on the road to becoming the superman. Jung recognised Nietzsche's deep understanding of and willingness to confront the dark shadows and irrational forces, which lay beneath our 'civilised' humanity.

The three main archetypes, which have a major influence over the individual are the Shadow, the Anima and the Animus. The Shadow Jung notes is always the same gender as the individual. To become conscious of the Shadow takes considerable moral effort, recognising the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. Jung contended that this act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.

The Shadow is considered to be a collection of inferiorities, undeveloped, and regressive aspects of the personality. They are primarily of an emotional nature and have a kind of autonomy, displaying an obsessive or more accurately a possessive quality. Jung describes emotion as an activity that happens to the individual rather than an activity of the individual, further reinforcing the idea of the autonomy of certain aspects of the psyche such as the Shadow.

The actions of the Shadow usually happen where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time reveal the reason for its weakness – that is a degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. It is at this lower level, with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions that one behaves more or less like a primitive who is more or less a 'victim' of these emotions and is practically incapable of moral judgement.

Although with persistent effort the Shadow (to some extent) can be integrated with the conscious personality there are certain features which offer a great deal of resistance to control and prove almost impossible to influence. These aspects are generally associated with projections, which are not recognised as such, and their recognition is an achievement beyond the ordinary.

Projection is defined as "the situation in which one unconsciously invests another person (or object) with notions or characteristics of one's own: e.g. a man, fascinated by a woman because she corresponds to his anima, falls in love with her. Feelings, images, and thoughts can be projected onto others. One also projects negative feelings: e.g. a woman has a grudge against a friend, so she imagines that her friend is angry with her."

If an individual shows no inclination to recognise his projections, then the projection-making factor has a free hand and can realise its object, or bring about a situation characteristic of its power. Again is should be noted that it is not the conscious mind, but the unconscious which does the projecting. The projections are not made, they are encountered. The effect of a projection is to isolate a person from their environment as instead of a real relation to it there is only an illusory one. Projections change the world into a replica of one's own unknown face – the Shadow – and lead to an auto-erotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable. The resulting feeling of sterility are in turn explain by projection as the malevolence of the environment, and by means of this viscous circle the isolation is intensified.

At a certain point, projections are no longer the realm of the Shadow, but the contra-sexual side of the unconscious, that is the Anima in a man, or Animus in a woman.

The Shadow represents first and foremost the personal unconscious, and its content can therefore be made conscious without too much difficulty. While the Shadow can be seen through and recognised fairly easily, the Anima and Animus are much further away from consciousness and in normal circumstances are seldom if ever realised. As far as the nature of the Shadow is personal, it can be seen through, but in its greater archetypal aspect on encounters the same difficulties as with the Anima and Animus. Jung wrote, "it is a quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognise the relative evil of his own nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil."

In an supra-personal context, the mankind as a whole is also heavily influenced by unconscious powers. With the relative division of the East (e.g. Russia) and West (America) a collective projection can be seen. While the Western prides itself in its civilised behaviour and keeps its vices tucked away and hidden behind international "good manners" and diplomacy, the East (communism) in general has shamelessly and methodically thrown back in the face of the West. It is the face of its own Shadow which grins back at Western man from the other side of the "Iron Curtain."

Further reading:

Man and his Symbols by Carl Jung
The Portable Jung edited by Joseph Campbell
The Cambridge Companion to Jung edited by Polly Young-Eisendrath and Terence Dawson
The Invisible Partners by John Sanford

* Trance Exercise 5 is entitled "The Garden of the Philosophers - Wherein the Ruach and Nephesch Are Examined" and follows on from the four trance exercises given in Probatur Temporis.

Back to Esoteric Articles - Magical Path

...................................................................

The Anima
The anima is an image. When Jung writes about the anima as if it were a person, he is referring to the characteristics which it manifests in a series of dreams. The corresponding image of the masculine in a woman's dreams is the animus (see 1951, pp. 11-22). June Singer, a Jungian analyst, argues (1977) that androgyny is both the starting point and the goal of individual development. This suggests a parallel with Freud's theory of bisexuality. Jung's original concept, however, refers only to the "contrasexual other" which appears in dreams and waking fantasies.

Attitudes
Jung (1921) distinguished between two attitudes (extraversion, introversion), which refer to habitual emphases in an individual's psychic orientation. Each attitude is complimented by a tendency to emphasize one of four psychological functions: two rational (thinking, feeling) and two irrational (sensation, intuition).

Eros
By eros, Jung meant a principle of psychic relatedness, whether to another human being, or indeed anything "other"; not specifically or exclusively as sexual passion, but certainly including this. Although a key term in his ideas, his definitions of it are somewhat vague: see (1951), p. 14. The parallel with the myth of Narcissus was noted by Albeaux-Fernet (1972); he, however, makes no reference to Echo, who is central to the myth. Narcissus is a hunter, more interested in his own pursuits than in relating with a female figure (cf. Adonis, below). His love for his own reflection is a punishment given him by Nemesis, the goddess of righteous retribution, for rejecting Echo.

References
Albeaux-Fernet, M. (1972) Cantate à trois voix. Revue des Deux Mondes 1972: 564-571.

Jung, C. G. (1921) Psychological Types. Collected Works, 6, 1971.

_____. (1951) Aion. Collected Works, 9.ii, 1968.

Singer, J. (1977) Androgyny. New York: Doubleday.



............................................................................


It was back in the mid 1980s, I believe, that I first started investigating the introductory elements of Jung's Psychology. I dived in a bit, didn't spend much time there, but was left with a few lasting impressions relative to elements of Jungian Psychology that were different than anything I had studied up to that point -- the emphasis on 'mythology', my introduction to the term 'archetype', the concept of 'collective unconscious' that, as a 'rational-empirical thinker', I was extremely leery about...

Fast forward some 20 years later -- the summer or fall of 2008 -- and I am on 'Facebook'. I keep seeing this advertisement that is 'burning its mark into my brain' -- it is an advertisement for a 'Dylan t-shirt' that reads: 'Kill your idols.'

Now I am a strong, dedicated Dylan fan from my introduction to him back in junior high school or high school in the late 1960s or early 1970s by one of my best friends at the time who has gone on to develop a very stellar career as a rock music journalist, and professor on the history of rock and roll, and rhythm and blues at York University. In our teens, we used to play ping pong in my townhouse basement to the pounding rhythm of Highway 61, Revisited.

So here I am reading this message on a Dylan T-shirt for about the 5th or 10th time, and I finally decide to go to the website where it is being advertised.

Some Dylan fans are blogging on the website about the content of the message -- where did it come from? Did -- or would -- Dylan even print such a message? And so on. I comment that it reminded me of Nietzsche's 'Twilight of The Idols'. Someone else said it could be traced back to Sir Francis Bacon's 'Four Idols'.

Well that did it. I was away to the races. Back I went to the philosophy of Sir Francis Bacon which would lead to a complete change in the 'architecture of Hegel's Hotel'. From the rational-empirical thinking of Sir Francis Bacon -- and his 'Four Idols' -- I have written at least two or three extremely important essays relevant to the evolutionary development of Hegel's Hotel: 'DGB Sun-Planet Theory'; and 'Finding Truth'. But even more important perhaps than Bacon's highly sophisticated rational-empirical thinking was the 'dialectic' that developed in my own writing between Bacon's rational-empirical thinking and Jung's mythological thinking. The result was a whole string of essays that came together on 'Gods, Myths, and Philosphers...' that is still evolving. All of a sudden a DGB rendition of Jungian mythological and archetype thinking was becoming a centre piece in the structure and process of Hegel's Hotel...I was writing essays on the philosophy of 'God and Religion' that I would never have dreamed of writing even 10 years ago probably not even five years ago.

I would never have written something like this:

What are Gods?

Gods are projections -- mirror reflections -- or our own self and/or social ideals.

Gods -- and 'human idols' -- are externalized renditions of internal 'archetypes'.

What are 'archetypes'?

Archetypes are internalized renditions of external 'Gods' and/or 'human idols'.

Where do Gods, Idols, and Archetypes meet?

On the shores of personality theory.

What are Greek Gods?

Greek Gods are projections and reflections of 'human Greek soap operas, drama and tragedy' -- the inner workings of the 'conflicted-multi-dialectical Greek psyche'
-- painted across the Greek sky and down onto Greek fields. This was the work of Homer and The Iliad...

Gods intermingling with humans.

And humans intermingling with Gods.

Human Gods and Godly Humans.

Man made in the image of Gods.

Or Gods made in the image of man...

Both reflecting and mutually involved in, drama, soap operas, and tragedies...

That were very human, all too human...

Gods and humans...

It can only be concluded...

Were meeting...

On the shores of Personality Theory.

-- dgb, Feb. 13th, 2009.

........................................................................


The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&

The New Instrument of Knowledge


by Manly P. Hall

In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.

An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.



Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."



Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.

(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)



Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.




Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.


A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.



*************


After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.



It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.



The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.



Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.


Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






D. Adler's 'Lifestyle-Inferiority-Superiority Striving Model'








E. Fairbairn's 'Rejecting and Exciting Object' Transference Model







F. Perls' 'Topdog-Underdog' Model






G. Berne's 'Multi-Ego-State' Model



........................................................................

2. The DGB 'Layer-Compartment' Model of The Personality


I used to envision the personality as a 'rectangular super-structure' containing different, 'smaller boxes, compartments or rectangles' -- 'sub-structures' or 'sub-compartments' --that come together to form the full personality super-structure.

This model still has some significant function value -- borrowing from all of Freud, Adler, Jung, Fairbairn, Berne, and Frit Perls -- and I will still use it as one of two Alternative DGB Models of the Personality.

Afterwards, I will describe the second alternative DGB model that resembles the workings of the 'solar system'. I will call this model, 'The DGB Sun-Planet-Moon or Solar System Model of The Personality'. This last model can also be referred to as The DGB 'Mythological Model of The Personality'.


2A. The DGB 'Six Layer-24-Compartment' Model of The Personality


A. The 'Topdog-Parent' Layer of The Personality
B. The 'Underdog-Child' Layer of The Personality
C. The 'Adult' Layer of The Personality
D. The 'Creative-Destructive-Dynamic' Transference Layer of The Personality
E. The 'Creative-Destructive-Structural' Transference Layer of The Personality
F. The 'Genetic Potential Self' and/or 'Soul' of The Personality



A. The 'Topdog-Parent' Layer (consists of):

1. The Nurturing Topdog-Super-Ego;
2. The Narcissistic-Dionysian Topdog-Super-Ego;
3. The Righteous-Critical Topdog-Super-Ego;

B. The 'Underdog-Child' Layer (consists of):

4. The Co-operative/Approval-Seeking Underdog;
5. The Rebellious-Defiant-Underdog-Ego;
6. The Narcissistic-Dionysian-Underdog-Ego;

C. The 'Middle-Special Interest-Adult' Layer (Can be constricted or expanded depending on contextual/personal/interpersonal need):

07. Apollo's (Bacon's-Locke's-Russell's-Korzybski's) Epistemological Ego;
08. Apollo's/Kant's Ethical Ego
09. Smith's-Marx-Ayn Rand-Together Capitalist-Socialist(-Humanistic-Existential Economic-Creative Work) Ego;
10. The Leisure-Rest-Relaxation Ego;
11. Spinoza's-(Rousseau's-Schelling's) Romantic-Spiritual-Sensual Ego;
12. Hera's (Mother Teresa's) Family-Community-Altruistic Ego;
13. Locke's Political Dialectic-Democratic Ego;
14. Gaia's (Suzuki's) Environmental Ego;
15. Achilles' Physical Fitness Ego;
16. Kierkegaard's (Perls') 'Immediacy' ('Seize The Moment') Ego;
17. Nietzsche's (Confront and Embrace Your Existential Abyss) Ego;
18. Hume's-Voltaire's-Derrida's 'Positive Deconstruction' Ego;
19. The Sophist-Schopenhauerian Self-Destructive Ego;
20. The Aries Destruction-Violence-War Ego
21. Zeus' (Hegel's) Central Mediating/Executive-Action Ego;


D/22. The Sub(Pre)Conscious Dynamic-Symbolic-Mythological-Creative-Destructive-Archetype-Transference Layer

E/23. The Structural Sub(Pre)Conscious Creative-Destructive-Symbolic-Mythological-Archetype-Transference Layer

F/24. The Unconscious, Genetic Potential Self -- or 'Soul'


............................................................................


We will get into more detailed description and extrapolation of this model at a later date.

Many may find the model too 'big and cumbersome' to work with.

I would like to emphasize that the model can be broken down to practically any smaller size to emphasize and focus on that area, or those areas, that might be most relevant and pragmatic to you.

The model is not meant to 'paralyze you/me/us by analysis'.

Rather, it is meant to provide an 'overall check list' for those areas where we might be able to address and confront various 'homeostatic imbalances' in different parts of our personality and lives.

I will give various examples as we move along. The areas of greatest complexity and difficulty are the 'transference' areas.

The rest is not too hard to apply but obviously needs further amplification.

For example, here is one such amplification regarding the model above:

Regarding the 'SMART Capitalist-Socialist Ego', we come to the conclusion that Adam Smith Capitalism -- stretched to the limits of Narcissistic (Owner-Self-Interest Without Ethics) Capitalism and Globalization -- starts to collapse under the weight of its own self-contradiction. (Any theory -- taken too far -- self-contradicts and self-destructs. -- Hegel). Thus, we get 'SMART' people who embrace the 'Capitalist-Socialist' Democratic-Dialectic -- and The Philosophical Abyss Between Them -- and start negotiating and working through the apparent contradictions and self-contradictions coming from both polar ends of the spectrum while building a philosophical-humanistic-existential bridge between them. From this, ideally and pragmatically speaking, we should be able to build a better and evolutionarily-superior form of Integrative SMART (Smith-Marx-Ayn Rand-Together)Dialectic-Democratic-Humanistic-Existential Capitalsim, Economics, and Creative Work.

That in itself is one huge project left partly for Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy -- and partly or mainly for those who follow this line of democratic-dialectic reasoning.

Regarding The Sophist-Schopenhaurian Ego, this, I recognize as one of two 'anti-idealistic' ego-states in the personality. This ego state which combines Narcissistic and Dionysian elements is built mainly from deceit, manipulation, and 'walking over people'. My only comment here at this time is that the more we engage with people from this particular ego-state, the more we are making the lives and worlds of other people -- and our own life and world -- a miserable place to be in. All mutual trust, respect, and empathic caring -- comes crashing to the ground. A 'Lord of The Flies' existence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and a poor excuse for living -- or rather destroying life. The sooner we get out of this ego-state the better. Conducting our lives from this ego-state will only bring us bad things, both in the short term, and or over the longer term. What goes around, comes around. The very wise, second oldest philosopher in Western History -- Anaxamander -- basically said that. I fully concur. Human -- and/or cosmic -- justice will eventually get you. Misery -- passed out to other people -- will eventually come back to poison your own life (if it hasn't already). This, in my next model, I view symbolically as a 'Bad (Dark) Sun and Moon Rising' -- The 'Sun' representing the light and the heat of 'The Central Ego'; the 'moon' representing the the light of 'The Positive, Human Spirit and Soul' -- and both 'poisoning' each other through a 'Dark Sun and Moon Rising' from the deceitful and manipulative contents and dynamics of 'The Sophist-Schopenhaurian Ego'. More of this at another time.


-- dgbn, Dec. 30th, 2008, updated and modified Feb. 11th-13th, 2009.


David Gordon Bain

The Rationale and Logic Leading to The Ten Essential DGB Philosophical Principles Pertaining to The 'Multiple-Bi-Polar' Nature of Man and Life

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.

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.