Every time I start an essay on this very provocative and controversial subject matter of 'Freud's and Masson's Seduction Theory Controversy', I keep looking for more and more interpretive and evaluative clarity, first in myself, and second in the way I convey my thinking to you -- I start in essentially the same place and end up up traveling to, and finishing up, somewhere completely, or at least partly different.
Today is no different.
The biggest problem is that I have so many different issues and ideas swirling around inside my head on this subject matter that it is very hard to present one small essay, in concise format, with one small thesis, that starts at point A and ends at point B -- without bringing in points C,D,E,F,G,H,I, J, and K -- at the same time.
Either that, or I have to be able to clearly explain to you how points C,D,E,F,G,H, I, J, and K -- are all critically important to clearly understanding the very complex problem and controversy at hand, meaning the Seduction Theory Controversy on the one hand, and the whole foundation of Psychoanalysis on the other hand.
I opt for the latter strategy even if we don't cover all of these different points in this particular essay. We will probably have to address each and every point, one by one -- and then show how they are all potentially connected.
My goal is extremely ambitious here. Basically, in as few and/or as many essays as it takes, I wish to build a new, multi-dialectic-integrative-humanistic-existential model of Psychoanalysis.
This is what you call 'thinking outside the box' -- inventing a new paradigm that partly includes most if not all of the old paradigms, models, and theories that have either been around since the beginning of Psychoanalyis, or evolved inside it, or outside it, along the way.
This is not Freud's most 'anal-retentive' Classic, orthodox version and vision of Psychoanalysis.
Rather, this is most if not all of Freud's many often paradoxical and opposing theories and sub-theories all united into one -- indeed, even with some outside further additional help from some of the main friends and later protagonists in Freud's life such as Adler, Jung, Ferenzci, Rank, Reich, and even some post-neo-and/or anti-Freudians such as: Klein, Fairbairn, Kohut, Fromm, Horney, Perls, Masson,
and probably others that I are missing off the top of my head right now.
How on earth is such a monstrous goal possible?
How on earth can we restore theoretical order from disorder and chaos?
Let us start by labeling most if not all of the most pertinent points or theories at our potential service here.
'A' is 'Traumacy Theory'.
'B' is 'Seduction (meaning Childhood Sexual Abuse) Theory.
'C' is 'Childhood and Adult Sexuality Theory'.
'D' is 'Defense Theory'
'E' is Oedipal and Internal-External Object Relations (Mother, Father, Sibling... Complex Theory'.
'F' is 'Narcissistic (Traumacy, Self-Esteem, Egotism, Fixation, Mastery, Power, Sexuality, and Revenge) Theory'.
'G' is 'Gestalt Unfinished Situation (or Business) Theory'.
'H' is 'Transference Theory'.
'I' is 'Identification with the Aggressor, Counter-Phobia, and Narcissistic Transference-Reversal Theory'
'J' is Adlerian Lifestyle, Compensation, 'Masculine Protest', 'Feminine Protest', Mastery, Superiority-Striving, and Conscious Early Recollection Theory'.
'K' is Eric Berne's Theory of 'Transactional Analysis' including his theory of different 'Ego-States or Compartments', and various types of 'Ego-Splits'.
'L' Jung's theory of 'Persona', 'Shadow', 'Archetypes', and 'The Self'.
The following quote came into my email box this morning.
'A house must be built on solid foundations if it is to last. The same principle applies to man, otherwise he too will sink back into the soft ground and be swallowed up by the world of illusion.' -- Sai Baba
The same principle can be applied to any theory -- and, in particular here, any theory of personality and/or neurosis.
Our theory of psychological health and disease (or 'neurosis') is exactly the same as our theory of physical health and disease. It is a dialectical model following in the tracks of Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Lao Tse, Hippocrates, the Han Philosophers, Aristotle ('The Golden Mean'), Hegel (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis), and Cannon (The Wisdom of The Body).
Basically, the theory is as simple as this: Disease is either caused by 'too much of a bad thing' and/or 'not enough of a good thing'. One is the disease of 'toxic or pathological or narcissistic excess', the other is the disease of 'nutritional deficiency'. Often, if not usually, both come hand to hand in the same client case.
All that remains -- in the case of psychological health and disease (or 'neurosis'
and/or 'psychosis'/'schizophrenia') -- is to establish what good and/or bad things can happen in the health and/or pathology of the individual person and personality.
Welcome to Psychoanalysis -- in the widest sense of the word, not the narrowest sense of the word.
Let us back track a bit.
I keep going over this whole 'Freud and Classical Psychoanalysis vs. Masson and the 'Psychoanalytic Deconstructionists' relative to this now 113 year old Seduction Theory Controversy' which Masson re-opened very forcefully and dramatically in the early 1980s.
I pound my head with this issue, going back over the clinical facts and the editorial conclusions from both sides, trying to establish for myself where 'right' and 'wrong' is, 'good' and 'bad', 'guilty' and 'innocent'.
One time Freud is wrong but innocent of all moral-ethical charges against him. Another time -- he is not. There is still the 'Emma Ekstein scandal' and what would seem to be Freud's almost 20 year involvement with 'cocaine' (1894-1904) in which Freud was passing out cocaine like it was aspirin to his friends, probably his wife, his patients, probably Fliess and/or visa versa, a patient died to some combination of morphine and cocaine addiction under Freud's watch...even though no one knew at the beginning what the properties of cocaine were, how dangerous it was, how addictive it was, and other doctors were experimenting with it in similar ways, still Freud was involved in some highly risky and dangerous forms of 'medical and surgical treatment' that seemed to fly in the face of (without too much concern on Freud's part) the medical establishment's Hippocratic Oath: 'First, Do the patient no harm!'
But then again, there have always been risky and dangerous forms of 'therapy' in the evolution of medical treatment, and even today, one can quite legitimately ask the question: 'How closely do radiologists and chemo-therapists adhere to The Hippocratic Oath?'
Still, Freud's involvement with cocaine between approximately 1894 and 1904 is a bigger taboo topic than even his abandonment of The Seduction Theory between 1896 and 1899, and someone has to legitimately ask the question -- no different than an athlete who is known to be, or have been, on steroids -- 'To what extent did Freud's cocaine involvement during this time period (1894-1904) affect his theoretical as well as therapeutic work?'
And more specifically, did it have any affect on Freud's abandonment of The Seduction Theory and his evolution into 'Fantasy Theory'?
Doesn't it seem rather strange that no orthodox Psychoanalyst in approximately 110 years has ever professionally touched this question, let alone attempted to answer it, not even to my knowledge, Dr. Masson?
And then there is -- the 'bull in the china shop' -- Dr. Masson. Did Dr. Masson commit any epistemological and/or ethical errors or omissions in this 'Watergate' of a Psychoanalytic controversy/scandal? Such as accusing Freud of 'losing moral courage' when none of us 80 to 100 years later can profess to know for sure what Freud's mindset was back between 1896 and 1900. Did Masson overstep his own ethical boundaries in this respect -- and kill his own career in Psychoanalysis in the process?
And then there is the question of whether Freud's 'Seduction Theory' -- meaning his 'Childhood Sexual Assault Theory' -- was ever fully justified by the clinical evidence in the first place? I have made this point this point before. Freud had a propensity for jumping to fast, provocative generalizations and theoretical conclusions (The Seduction Theory, The Oedipal Theory, The Childhood Sexuality and Sexual Fantasy Theory, The Death Instinct Theory...) that had a tendency of overstepping the boundaries of 'good epistemology' -- 'good rational-empiricism'. It almost seemed like Freud had a propensity throughout his life -- almost as if it was a 'transference repetition compulsion and/or serial behavior pattern' -- to 'shock people first', and then to 'justify' his provocative, controversial, shocking 'scientific conclusions' with 'rhetorical arguments' that were well put together and seemingly tightly argued -- almost like a prosecution or defense lawyer putting together a 'good case' -- even though, when you really delve into the case and get to the bottom of it, you find that the case, is at best, based on very 'flimsy' and 'far-stretched' clinical evidence that could just as well or better support 5 or 10 other completely different clinical theories.
Again and again, I need to impress upon you as a reader, that life offers each and every one of us a myriad of ever changing, connected and unconnected, stimuli that can be interpreted and evaluated in a multitude of different ways depending on our own personal background, our own experiences, our own narcissistic biases and interests...so to create a theory -- any theory -- is to start to 'think inside a box', 'a theoretical box of our own making' which in effect, 'leads the witness', leads the reader, in a particular direction, towards the conclusion and the theory of our own making -- which may be only one of many other possible conclusions and theories that another person could draw from the same 'myriad of connected and/or not connected stimuli'.
Furthermore, as soon as we start to abstract, as soon as we start to 'pick and choose' what evidence we will include and what evidence we will leave out we are once again, leading the witness, leading the reader, on a trip to either 'epistemological and/or ethical clarification' and/or on a trip to 'Never, Never Land' -- a 'boxed theory of our own making', good and/or bad, which for better or for worse, is a 'sound bite' or a 'visual bite' that leaves part of life out and this part of life that is left out may be either non-important to the discussion at hand or it could be critically important and, at the same time, neglected, suppressed, marginalized.
This problem of 'thinking inside a narcissistically biased theoretical box' is just as relevant to Masson and his re-trumpeting the Seduction Theory as it is relative to Freud basically abandoning the Seduction Theory and moving into his replacement theories: 1. 'The Oedipal Theory' and 2. 'Childhood/Adult Fantasy Theory'.
That is why I like, for the most part, to take a combined 'Spinozian-Hegelian' approach and go with the assumption that there is usually a 'combination of truth, distortion, and fantasy in any and every theory' -- not just The Seduction Theory, and not just the Oedipal Theory -- but both as they dialectically engage with each other and potentially come together in integrative theoretical union.
You see, I am like a conceptual, theoretical, and historical 'marriage counselor' going back into history and doing my best to 're-unite' Freud and Adler, Freud and Jung, Freud and Reich, Freud and Ferenczi, Freud and Rank, Freud and Perls, Freud and Masson...
The individual personalities may be impossible to unite -- not then, and not now.
However, the particular 'partisan' ideas which are now a valuable part of the public domain, can be re-integrated any way we want -- and that is exactly what I intend to do.
This idea of uniting seemingly dualistic and paradoxical theories is certainly not foreign to science. In the evolution of physics, 'particle' theory evolved into 'wave' theory which then evolved into a dialectically united 'particle-wave' theory which scientists now call 'quantum physics'.
I don't pretend to understand quantum physics but I certainly do understand the concept of 'dialectic union' which makes up half the essence and content of my own 'dialectic union and separation (or individuation)' theory of evolution.
Let us see what this particular website below has to say about the seemingly dualistic, paradoxical nature of matter and light.
..........................................................................
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm
On Truth & Reality
The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
This website is primarily on the subjects of truth and reality. We get about 300,000 page views each week and are one of the top philosophy / physics sites on the Internet. The central thesis is best stated in three parts;
i) We must know the truth to act wisely, and truth comes from physical reality.
ii) Our present and past societies are not founded on truth and act unwisely (overpopulation, destruction of nature, pollution, climate change, religious and economic wars, etc.).
iii) We now know the correct language for describing physical reality (all matter interactions are wave interactions in space), and this knowledge is critical for our future survival, being the source of truth & wisdom.
So how do we prove that this is true? Everyone will agree that true knowledge of reality must explain and solve the fundamental problems of knowledge in physics, philosophy and metaphysics. This website does exactly that. The above subject pages provide short summaries / simple solutions to these central problems of knowledge. To begin it is useful to read the Introduction & Summary to this Physics Philosophy Metaphysics Website.
Short Summary of Quantum Physics
These Quantum Physics pages (on either side) show how this new understanding of physical reality (that all light and matter interactions are wave interactions in Space) explains and solves the central problems of Quantum Theory.
The mistake was to work from Newton's foundation of particles and instantly acting gravity forces in space and time (many things) and then have to add more things to explain light and electricity, i.e. charged particles, continuous electromagnetic fields and waves (Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein's Special Relativity).
Thus by 1900 the central concepts of Physics were;
Matter as discrete particles with both gravitational mass and electrical charge properties (mass-charge duality).
Light as continuous electromagnetic waves (velocity of light c).
Continuous electromagnetic fields created by discrete charged particles (discrete particle-continuous field duality).
Local charge interactions limited by the velocity of electromagnetic waves (velocity of light c).
Over the next 30 years Quantum Theory destroyed these foundations by showing the exact opposite, that;
Matter has wave properties thus a particle-wave duality (de Broglie Waves, Schrodinger's wave equations).
Light has discrete particle properties thus a particle-wave duality (Light 'quanta', Max Planck, Albert Einstein)
Continuous deterministic fields are replaced by discrete statistical fields e.g. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation, Born's probability waves to predict the location of the particle.
Non-Local matter interactions (instant action-at-distance EPR Bell Aspect)
The solution to this confusion and contradiction is simple once known. Describe reality from One thing existing, Space (that we all commonly experience) and its Properties. i.e. Rather than adding matter particles to space as Newton did, we consider Space with properties of a continuous wave medium for a pure Wave Structure of Matter. This is the Most Simple Science Theory of Physical Reality (despite many claims to the contrary, science does actually work, we just needed the correct foundation of continuous Space rather than discrete matter).
Most importantly, this Dynamic Unity of Reality provides simple solutions to all the 'strangeness' of quantum physics that has resulted from this discrete / disconnected 'particle' conception of matter.
i.e.
Matter is a Wave Structure of Space - the Spherical Wave Center creates the 'particle' effect.
Light is a Wave Phenomena - however, spherical standing waves (matter) act as spherical resonators and only interact (resonantly couple) at discrete frequencies / energies which gives the effect of discrete light 'quanta'.
Reality is both Continuous (Space) and Discrete (Standing Wave Interactions).
Reality is both Local and Non-Local - matter is causally inter-connected in Space by its Spherical In and Out Waves (traveling at velocity c, i.e. Einstein's Locality).
However (and very importantly), with relative motion these matter wave interactions form de Broglie phase waves that travel at high velocities (c2/v), explaining EPR and apparent Non-Locality / Instant-Action-at-a-Distance.
Reality is Causally Connected but Non-Deterministic / Statistical. The waves in quantum theory are real waves (not abstract 'probability waves') but lack of knowledge of the interconnected whole (infinite Space) causes statistical behaviour of matter (as Einstein believed).
I realize this is a pretty abrupt / radical introduction to a new way of seeing things - that it will take some time to adjust. But the Wave Structure of Matter is simple sensible and obvious once known. Each Quantum Physics page has a short summary and important quotes, so it is easy to click around and confirm things for yourself. Enjoy! Think!
.................................................................................
DGB...cont'd..
I am reminded of a movie I recently watched -- a 'crazy' movie that I liked -- called 'Choke'. It was about a sex addict whose mother was locked up in a psychiatric institute and who was looking for some sort of cathartic conflict resolution with his mother while at the same time going around seducing women, having emotionless sex with them.
At one scene in the movie, our main character has successfully managed to seduce a female doctor at the psychiatric institute (who unbeknownst to him is actually a patient disguised as a doctor). However, at the actual point of their sexual engagement, our main character can't get it going. The doctor/patient asks him: 'How is it that you can have sex with pretty well every other female patient and/or nurse in the institute but you can't have sex with me.' And he replies, 'Well, I think it is because I am beginning to like you.' And she replies: 'Well, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the two do not have to be mutually exclusive?'
Well, this is exactly my point here also -- and the point of each and every possible or actual dialectical theory -- seemingly opposing, paradoxical theories do not have to necessarily be mutually exclusive. Rather, they may easily -- or with some dialectical creativity -- dialectically merge into each other.
Freud's Seduction, read: Childhood Sexual Assault, Theory' was too reductionistic -- quite simply, it may partly apply to a certain class of people who have been sexually assaulted (and/or 'seduced') as children but childhood sexual assault is not the root of all neurosis because not every person is sexually assaulted as a child.
Thus, Freud's early (1893-1895) 'Traumacy-Cathartic Therapeutic Release' theory was a better theory because it applied to a much broader range of people -- indeed, probably all of us. But Freud's Traumacy Theory as it stood back between 1893 and 1895 was insufficient. It needed some creative upgrading.
From my perspective, it needed some 1. 'Transference Theory', 2. some 'Adlerian Lifestyle and Conscious Early Memory Theory', 3. some 'Gestalt Unfinished Situation Theory', 4. some 'Narcissistic Fixation Theory', and 5. some 'Oedipal Theory' -- all added to the collective mix -- as well as all the other theories and sub-theories mentioned at the beginning of this essay.
So let us again call this multi-dialectic integrative model that I am proposing, 'The DGB 12 Theory Model of Humanistic-Existential Psychoanalysis, Personality Theory, and Psychopathology (Neurosis and Psychosis)'.
In the essays that follow, we will begin to unravel all the different individual and integrated parts of this rather complicated multi-dialectic model.
But it is worth the time and effort to do this.
Stay tuned...
-- dgb, Sept. 4th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process...
......................................................................
Monday, August 31, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Good and Bad of 'Conceptual Constructs' in Describing the Internal Workings of The Personality -- The 'Self', The 'Ego', The 'I'
I am an old-fashioned 'rational-empiricist' -- and student of General Semantics -- meaning that I believe in the 'representational' idea of 'conceptual constructs' reflecting some aspect of 'phenomenal reality' (and/or 'noumenal' reality in a Kantian sense).
Thus, the equation relative to words, concepts, reality, and meaning, from a DGB rational-empirical-General Semantic perspective goes something like this:
1. Words are short forms for concepts (or conceptual constructs).
2. Concepts (or ideas) are mental representations of our phenomenal or phenomenological experience which entails a combination of our observations, interpretations (or inferences) and value judgments.
3. Theories involves interrelationships between concepts which again are supposed to reflect some aspect of the way 'objective reality works', meaning a representational and structural correspondence between our theoretical constructs and what is or was 'really happening out there (or in there).
4. There will always be the so-called 'Kantian (or 'subjective-objective') Split' which means that there will always be some greater or lesser degree of 'structural and/or process error' between what we think is happening in our 'objective world of reality both inside and outside our body' and what really is happening. For example, I just had an MRI done on my liver yesterday in which doctors were trying to get a 'better picture and representational model' relative to what was happening with my liver (and liver pathology). Oftentimes, a 'picture' is worth more than a thousand speculative inferential or interpretive or assumptive guesses without the picture.
Now, when it comes to 'personality theory', concepts or conceptual constructs can be put together and pulled apart faster than a set of Legos. Why? Because we have no way of getting 'pictures' of 'mental images' or 'concepts' or 'ideas'. These things are strictly metaphysical in that they cannot be seen although they are often meant to stand for something that can be seen. For example, the word 'dog' cannot be seen although it is meant to stand for a whole host of similar but different individual dogs such as such and such a dog over here, 'Rover', who can be described more specifically in term of his or her individual characteristics.
However, one of the main problems relative to personality theory is: How do you see a 'Self' or an 'Ego' or a 'Superego' or an 'Id' or a 'Persona' or a 'Shadow'.
These concepts are meant to stand for something -- some aspect of our 'mental or phenomenological (subjective, conceptual) reality that cannot be seen. And things cannot be seen tend to create much more controversy in terms of whether they actually exist or whether we are just 'making something up' that does not exist.
Consequently, philosophers like David Hume -- being the very strict, reductionist- empiricist that he was -- denied the phenomenological concept or conceptual construct of 'The Self' as even having any kind of 'real-objective existence'. Perhaps even more so with concepts like 'The Soul' or 'God' which again have no 'observational reality'.
'Behavioral theorists' -- being strict psychological empiricists -- have also denied the 'real-objective existence' of anything that goes on within our mind in the way of 'mental, representational images'.
Strict empirical behavioral theorists deal with a 'Stimulus-Response(SR)' Model and Formula that denies any existence of any 'mental representations' inside our heads that have anything to do with 'explaining or understanding behavior'.
In contrast, 'cognitive theorists and therapists' advance a model and formula that goes more like this: 'Stimulus-Belief-Response(SBR)'. This model, in contrast to the SR model advanced by the Behavioral Theorists and Therapists takes into account our inner phenomenological process our -- 'inner cognitions or beliefs or mental representations'.
The professor at the University of Waterloo back in 1979 who was marking my Honours Thesis paper was a 'Cognitive-Behavioral Theorist and Therapist', Dr. Donald Meichenbaum, who was trying to bridge the gap (I think very successfully) between the very strict behavioral theorists (like B.F. Skinner) and the more 'rationally-empirically' based Cognitive Theories (like Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and George Kelly whose philosophy can be traced back through the Enlightenment, through philosophers like John Locke, Sir Francis Bacon, and all the way back to the ancient Roman philosopher, Epictetus and his famous saying: 'Man is not disturbed by things but by the view he takes of them.').
In 1979, I advanced a model of what now I would call 'The Central Ego' which was a 'Cognitive-Emotional-Behavioral' model influenced by my readings of the Cogntive Theorists, by the General Semanticists (primarily Alfred Korzybski and S.I., Hayakawa) and influenced partly by the 'Objectivist and Self-Esteem Philosophy' of Nathaniel Branden ('The Psychology of Self-Esteem', 1969), as well as indirectly, Ayn Rand who created Objectivist Philosophy and who strongly influenced Branden during the eighteen years they worked and were professionally and personally involved with each other (from 1950-1968).
My 1979 'Central Ego' model could/can also be referred to as a 'Stimulus-Perception or (Sensory Perception)-Interpretration-Evaluation-Response' (SPIER) -- an extension of the more basic Stimulus-Belief-Response (SBR) Cognitive Model. There is not too much about the 1979 model that I would change today except perhaps in an updated format that takes into account everything that I have learned philosophically and psychologically in the 30 years from 1979 to the present. Still, the basic 'Central Ego' model remains the same.
Now going back to the word 'Ego' which is of German origin (at least as far back as I can trace it), dating back at least to the philosophy of Johann Fichte (1762-1814), and meaning basically 'I' or 'Self', often used in an almost 'objective third party sense' as if our 'Ego' is operating outside of ourselves which can create some serious difficulties relative to 'denying accountability and responsibility for what comes out of our Ego -- which is basically just another way of saying 'I' or 'Self'.
The Classic Psychoanalytic Model, for example, tends to be very 'deterministic' with certain classes of thoughts and/or impulses and/or restraints and/or behaviors coming out of one of the three main Psychoanalytic Psychic Departments or Compartments -- 'Ego' (mediating and problem solving compartment of the personality), 'Id' (the impulsive, biological and/or instinctual compartment of the personality), or 'Superego' (the social and internal righteous-ethical conscience compartment of the personality) -- almost as if we have no, or at least, little 'free control' of what comes out of these three 'zones' of the personality, and relative to how we ultimately behave (with all of the 'historical, biological, childhood, and socially determining forces that are at play in the way that we think, feel, want, and act).
In contrast, a more 'humanistic-existential psychoanalytic model' such as the one I am trumpeting here in Hegel's Hotel, as developed from my own thinking, in conjunction with my own source of historical, philosophical, psychological, and experiential influences, adds a more 'free will' and 'first person I' perspective to the more traditional perspective of Psychoanalysis. Perhaps my main influential mentor here is the Humanistic-Existential Psychoanalyst -- Eric Fromm (1900-1980) -- who was a highly influential force on my thinking in the 1970s, and who continues to influence my work today.
Once we start 'splitting the Ego' up into 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 25 different compartments, the issue becomes all about 'functional-theoretical-therapeutic convenience' -- every 'ego-theorist' ostensibly looking for some kind of ideal balance between 'simplicity and sophistication' with almost as many different renditions of 'ego-splits' out there as there are theorists. It is all 'cognitively metaphysical' in that no one can see any picture of 'the ego' or any 'sub-compartment of the ego' whether we want to use the Classic Psychoanalytic terminology or some other different rendition of it.
In fact, in the Classic Psychoanalytic model, the 'Ego' is not even equivalent to the 'Total, Wholistic Self' but rather to a sub-component of The Self -- a mainly consciously aware part of our selves as opposed to the activities of the allegedly more unconscious and biologically/narcissistically driven 'Id'.
In contrast, I view the Ego as reflecting every aspect and every mental and emotional activity within the Self. In other words, 'Self' and 'I' and 'Ego' are all equivalent words for the same representation of our entire, wholistic, dialectically integrated and/or split subjective-objective Self -- including both our 'aware' components and our 'unaware' components, both our biologically and psychologically impulsive components and forces as well as our ethically righteous and/or safety restraining components and forces.
We can reduce our personality -- our Self, our Ego, our 'I' -- into as many different useful and/or not useful conceptual constructs as we want, put them together and/or dismantle them at a moment's notice, and/or put some reductionist 'Ego-compartments' into our 'theoretical closet' until we need to pull them back out and use them, but in the end -- like the operation of any company with few or many different 'departments' in it -- still have to come back to the main overall functioning of the company which may come down mainly to the philosophy and activity of 'The CEO' or in our case here -- 'The Central (Mediating and Executive) Ego'.
Every other 'Ego-Compartment' or 'Ego-Split' in the personality, as constructed by me -- which are like 'lobbyists', each appealing to their particular realm of specific, functional and/or dysfunctional interest -- has to, in the end, answer to the CEO of the personality -- the Central Ego -- the 'subjective-objective I' of the personality, even if the Central Ego, like a weak boss, allows itself (ourselves) to be overwhelmed by this internal lobbyist or that one -- for example, overwhelmed in the addictive personality to the hedonistic impulses of the 'Id' or as I prefer to call this portion of the personality -- our 'Dionysian Ego'.
In such instances, we simply need to find ways of 'strengthening the power' of our Central Ego and/or the activities of another conceptually constructed division of our personality -- the 'Superego' in Psychoanalytic terminology, the 'Topdog' in Gestalt Terminology, the 'Apollonian Ego' in my own DGB terminology.
In opposite instances, we may need to strengthen the 'power' of our Dionysian or Narcissistic Ego in order to increase our self-assertiveness and our ability to both say -- and get what we want. We can say that people who 'beat around the bush' all the time and/or 'allude to immediacy' without directly stating the immediacy of what they are thinking and/or wanting are people who have 'weak Dionysian and/or Narcissistic Egos'. The same goes with people who are 'pleasing' and/or 'submissive' all the time -- here we may have to 'strengthen the activities of our Righteous and/or Rebellious and/or Dionysian and/or Narcissistic Ego' in order not to be dominated all the time by someone else's 'will to power' and/or 'will to hedonism' and/or 'will to narcissism'. We need to 'step up to the plate more' unless of course we get some sort of 'Dionysian and/or approval-seeking pleasure' out of staying exactly where we are and playing the 'Submissive Ego' -- or 'Doormat' -- role.
Been there. Done that. Kicked myself for doing it. More narcissistic self-assertion needed please. Sometimes we need to fill up our 'narcissistic tank'. Other times, we need to fill up our 'altruistic tank'. Both tanks are needed for a 'healthy, well-balanced personality. Same with our Dionysian and Apollonian tanks. And our 'Enlightenment' and 'Romantic' tanks. And our 'Humanistic' (compassionate) and 'Existential' (self-accountability) tanks.
These are some of the different types of 'Polar-Ego-Compartments' or 'Polar-Ego-Splits' can be functionally used by a psychotherapist to help a client re-integrate whatever his or her particular dominant polar split is to arrive at a more balanced dialectical-democratic wholism.
Meanwhile, each and everyone of us generally goes through our particular day with one polar-ego-compartment dominating over another -- some version of our 'dominant Persona' pushing aside our 'marginalized Shadow' -- as opposed to finding and using a more ideally operative set or system of 'dual-action-dual-polarities-democratically and dialectically working with and against each other to find a healthier state of being in the middle of these two opposing internal polar lobbyists'
This can be viewed as Aristotle's version of 'the middle path' or my DGB post-Hegelian version of the middle path (even as we are bound to experiment with opposite Nietzschean and/or anti-Nietzschean extremes before we get to the place we are ultimately looking for in the middle).
Such is the 'ideal purpose' of using 'conceptual constructs' to describe and sometimes alter the inner activities of our Self, our Ego, our 'I'.
-- dgb, Aug. 26th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process...
..............................................................................
Thus, the equation relative to words, concepts, reality, and meaning, from a DGB rational-empirical-General Semantic perspective goes something like this:
1. Words are short forms for concepts (or conceptual constructs).
2. Concepts (or ideas) are mental representations of our phenomenal or phenomenological experience which entails a combination of our observations, interpretations (or inferences) and value judgments.
3. Theories involves interrelationships between concepts which again are supposed to reflect some aspect of the way 'objective reality works', meaning a representational and structural correspondence between our theoretical constructs and what is or was 'really happening out there (or in there).
4. There will always be the so-called 'Kantian (or 'subjective-objective') Split' which means that there will always be some greater or lesser degree of 'structural and/or process error' between what we think is happening in our 'objective world of reality both inside and outside our body' and what really is happening. For example, I just had an MRI done on my liver yesterday in which doctors were trying to get a 'better picture and representational model' relative to what was happening with my liver (and liver pathology). Oftentimes, a 'picture' is worth more than a thousand speculative inferential or interpretive or assumptive guesses without the picture.
Now, when it comes to 'personality theory', concepts or conceptual constructs can be put together and pulled apart faster than a set of Legos. Why? Because we have no way of getting 'pictures' of 'mental images' or 'concepts' or 'ideas'. These things are strictly metaphysical in that they cannot be seen although they are often meant to stand for something that can be seen. For example, the word 'dog' cannot be seen although it is meant to stand for a whole host of similar but different individual dogs such as such and such a dog over here, 'Rover', who can be described more specifically in term of his or her individual characteristics.
However, one of the main problems relative to personality theory is: How do you see a 'Self' or an 'Ego' or a 'Superego' or an 'Id' or a 'Persona' or a 'Shadow'.
These concepts are meant to stand for something -- some aspect of our 'mental or phenomenological (subjective, conceptual) reality that cannot be seen. And things cannot be seen tend to create much more controversy in terms of whether they actually exist or whether we are just 'making something up' that does not exist.
Consequently, philosophers like David Hume -- being the very strict, reductionist- empiricist that he was -- denied the phenomenological concept or conceptual construct of 'The Self' as even having any kind of 'real-objective existence'. Perhaps even more so with concepts like 'The Soul' or 'God' which again have no 'observational reality'.
'Behavioral theorists' -- being strict psychological empiricists -- have also denied the 'real-objective existence' of anything that goes on within our mind in the way of 'mental, representational images'.
Strict empirical behavioral theorists deal with a 'Stimulus-Response(SR)' Model and Formula that denies any existence of any 'mental representations' inside our heads that have anything to do with 'explaining or understanding behavior'.
In contrast, 'cognitive theorists and therapists' advance a model and formula that goes more like this: 'Stimulus-Belief-Response(SBR)'. This model, in contrast to the SR model advanced by the Behavioral Theorists and Therapists takes into account our inner phenomenological process our -- 'inner cognitions or beliefs or mental representations'.
The professor at the University of Waterloo back in 1979 who was marking my Honours Thesis paper was a 'Cognitive-Behavioral Theorist and Therapist', Dr. Donald Meichenbaum, who was trying to bridge the gap (I think very successfully) between the very strict behavioral theorists (like B.F. Skinner) and the more 'rationally-empirically' based Cognitive Theories (like Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck, and George Kelly whose philosophy can be traced back through the Enlightenment, through philosophers like John Locke, Sir Francis Bacon, and all the way back to the ancient Roman philosopher, Epictetus and his famous saying: 'Man is not disturbed by things but by the view he takes of them.').
In 1979, I advanced a model of what now I would call 'The Central Ego' which was a 'Cognitive-Emotional-Behavioral' model influenced by my readings of the Cogntive Theorists, by the General Semanticists (primarily Alfred Korzybski and S.I., Hayakawa) and influenced partly by the 'Objectivist and Self-Esteem Philosophy' of Nathaniel Branden ('The Psychology of Self-Esteem', 1969), as well as indirectly, Ayn Rand who created Objectivist Philosophy and who strongly influenced Branden during the eighteen years they worked and were professionally and personally involved with each other (from 1950-1968).
My 1979 'Central Ego' model could/can also be referred to as a 'Stimulus-Perception or (Sensory Perception)-Interpretration-Evaluation-Response' (SPIER) -- an extension of the more basic Stimulus-Belief-Response (SBR) Cognitive Model. There is not too much about the 1979 model that I would change today except perhaps in an updated format that takes into account everything that I have learned philosophically and psychologically in the 30 years from 1979 to the present. Still, the basic 'Central Ego' model remains the same.
Now going back to the word 'Ego' which is of German origin (at least as far back as I can trace it), dating back at least to the philosophy of Johann Fichte (1762-1814), and meaning basically 'I' or 'Self', often used in an almost 'objective third party sense' as if our 'Ego' is operating outside of ourselves which can create some serious difficulties relative to 'denying accountability and responsibility for what comes out of our Ego -- which is basically just another way of saying 'I' or 'Self'.
The Classic Psychoanalytic Model, for example, tends to be very 'deterministic' with certain classes of thoughts and/or impulses and/or restraints and/or behaviors coming out of one of the three main Psychoanalytic Psychic Departments or Compartments -- 'Ego' (mediating and problem solving compartment of the personality), 'Id' (the impulsive, biological and/or instinctual compartment of the personality), or 'Superego' (the social and internal righteous-ethical conscience compartment of the personality) -- almost as if we have no, or at least, little 'free control' of what comes out of these three 'zones' of the personality, and relative to how we ultimately behave (with all of the 'historical, biological, childhood, and socially determining forces that are at play in the way that we think, feel, want, and act).
In contrast, a more 'humanistic-existential psychoanalytic model' such as the one I am trumpeting here in Hegel's Hotel, as developed from my own thinking, in conjunction with my own source of historical, philosophical, psychological, and experiential influences, adds a more 'free will' and 'first person I' perspective to the more traditional perspective of Psychoanalysis. Perhaps my main influential mentor here is the Humanistic-Existential Psychoanalyst -- Eric Fromm (1900-1980) -- who was a highly influential force on my thinking in the 1970s, and who continues to influence my work today.
Once we start 'splitting the Ego' up into 2 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 25 different compartments, the issue becomes all about 'functional-theoretical-therapeutic convenience' -- every 'ego-theorist' ostensibly looking for some kind of ideal balance between 'simplicity and sophistication' with almost as many different renditions of 'ego-splits' out there as there are theorists. It is all 'cognitively metaphysical' in that no one can see any picture of 'the ego' or any 'sub-compartment of the ego' whether we want to use the Classic Psychoanalytic terminology or some other different rendition of it.
In fact, in the Classic Psychoanalytic model, the 'Ego' is not even equivalent to the 'Total, Wholistic Self' but rather to a sub-component of The Self -- a mainly consciously aware part of our selves as opposed to the activities of the allegedly more unconscious and biologically/narcissistically driven 'Id'.
In contrast, I view the Ego as reflecting every aspect and every mental and emotional activity within the Self. In other words, 'Self' and 'I' and 'Ego' are all equivalent words for the same representation of our entire, wholistic, dialectically integrated and/or split subjective-objective Self -- including both our 'aware' components and our 'unaware' components, both our biologically and psychologically impulsive components and forces as well as our ethically righteous and/or safety restraining components and forces.
We can reduce our personality -- our Self, our Ego, our 'I' -- into as many different useful and/or not useful conceptual constructs as we want, put them together and/or dismantle them at a moment's notice, and/or put some reductionist 'Ego-compartments' into our 'theoretical closet' until we need to pull them back out and use them, but in the end -- like the operation of any company with few or many different 'departments' in it -- still have to come back to the main overall functioning of the company which may come down mainly to the philosophy and activity of 'The CEO' or in our case here -- 'The Central (Mediating and Executive) Ego'.
Every other 'Ego-Compartment' or 'Ego-Split' in the personality, as constructed by me -- which are like 'lobbyists', each appealing to their particular realm of specific, functional and/or dysfunctional interest -- has to, in the end, answer to the CEO of the personality -- the Central Ego -- the 'subjective-objective I' of the personality, even if the Central Ego, like a weak boss, allows itself (ourselves) to be overwhelmed by this internal lobbyist or that one -- for example, overwhelmed in the addictive personality to the hedonistic impulses of the 'Id' or as I prefer to call this portion of the personality -- our 'Dionysian Ego'.
In such instances, we simply need to find ways of 'strengthening the power' of our Central Ego and/or the activities of another conceptually constructed division of our personality -- the 'Superego' in Psychoanalytic terminology, the 'Topdog' in Gestalt Terminology, the 'Apollonian Ego' in my own DGB terminology.
In opposite instances, we may need to strengthen the 'power' of our Dionysian or Narcissistic Ego in order to increase our self-assertiveness and our ability to both say -- and get what we want. We can say that people who 'beat around the bush' all the time and/or 'allude to immediacy' without directly stating the immediacy of what they are thinking and/or wanting are people who have 'weak Dionysian and/or Narcissistic Egos'. The same goes with people who are 'pleasing' and/or 'submissive' all the time -- here we may have to 'strengthen the activities of our Righteous and/or Rebellious and/or Dionysian and/or Narcissistic Ego' in order not to be dominated all the time by someone else's 'will to power' and/or 'will to hedonism' and/or 'will to narcissism'. We need to 'step up to the plate more' unless of course we get some sort of 'Dionysian and/or approval-seeking pleasure' out of staying exactly where we are and playing the 'Submissive Ego' -- or 'Doormat' -- role.
Been there. Done that. Kicked myself for doing it. More narcissistic self-assertion needed please. Sometimes we need to fill up our 'narcissistic tank'. Other times, we need to fill up our 'altruistic tank'. Both tanks are needed for a 'healthy, well-balanced personality. Same with our Dionysian and Apollonian tanks. And our 'Enlightenment' and 'Romantic' tanks. And our 'Humanistic' (compassionate) and 'Existential' (self-accountability) tanks.
These are some of the different types of 'Polar-Ego-Compartments' or 'Polar-Ego-Splits' can be functionally used by a psychotherapist to help a client re-integrate whatever his or her particular dominant polar split is to arrive at a more balanced dialectical-democratic wholism.
Meanwhile, each and everyone of us generally goes through our particular day with one polar-ego-compartment dominating over another -- some version of our 'dominant Persona' pushing aside our 'marginalized Shadow' -- as opposed to finding and using a more ideally operative set or system of 'dual-action-dual-polarities-democratically and dialectically working with and against each other to find a healthier state of being in the middle of these two opposing internal polar lobbyists'
This can be viewed as Aristotle's version of 'the middle path' or my DGB post-Hegelian version of the middle path (even as we are bound to experiment with opposite Nietzschean and/or anti-Nietzschean extremes before we get to the place we are ultimately looking for in the middle).
Such is the 'ideal purpose' of using 'conceptual constructs' to describe and sometimes alter the inner activities of our Self, our Ego, our 'I'.
-- dgb, Aug. 26th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are still in process...
..............................................................................
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A GAP-DGB Multi-Dialectic, 25-Part Model Of The Personality
Let us try this over again and get our model of the personality here down to something more easily manageable and understandable. Okham's Razor. (All else being equal, the simplest interpretation is usually the best one.) KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.
Having said this, I am trying to integrate a lot of different models here -- to integrate 'the best of the best' if you will. So this model is not going to be 'simple' but hopefully with some 'history' and 'explanation' added to it, it will be better understandable.
Synonyms for 'Personality' or 'Personality Structure' in this GAP-DGB domain here will be: 'Ego', 'Psyche', 'Self', and 'Character Structure'.
View the personality as being like a 'large government' or 'corporation' with numerous different 'departments' (or 'compartments') that have separate functions that are all designed to come together to fulfill the overall function of the government/corporation/personality.
Some of the other personality models that are out there and which I will simply skim over quickly without giving full justice to, are:
1. The Gestalt Model (Fritz Perls): '2 Department Model': a) 'Topdog'; b) 'Underdog';
2. The Adlerian Model (Alfred Adler): '2 Department Model': a) 'Inferiority Feeling' ('Self-Esteem Deficiency', 'One Down Position', 'Minus Position', 'Insecurity Feeling', 'Unstability Feeling'); b) 'Superiority Feeling' ('Leadership Position', 'One Up Position', 'Superiority Position', 'Fictional Final Goal', 'Lifestyle Goal'); c) 'Means of Moving From a Minus Position to a Plus Position, from a) to b)' ('Compensation', 'Lifestyle Complex', 'Superiority Striving')
3. The Classic Freudian Model: a) 'The Id': biological drives: such as: hunger-food, thirst-water, sexual tension-release, aggression-release, shelter, heat, some might argue stability, rootedness (Erich Fromm), creativity-destructiveness (Erich Fromm), love-hate (Erich Fromm), transcendence (Erich Fromm)...DGB extrapolations: power, money, greed, narcissism, selfishness, revenge, dance, celebration, oral-obsessive-compulsions, addictions...; b) 'The Superego': social conscience, ethical conscience, justice, fairness, reason, righteousness, rejection, 'anal-retentiveness', 'punctuality', 'cleanliness', 'neatness', sadism, dominance, arrogance, 'righteous-narcissism', abandonment, betrayal, discipline, punishment, 'guilt-giver', 'approval-demanding', 'co-operation-demanding', 'acceptance-demanding', 'The Internal Object'; c) 'The Ego': 'The Subjective Sense of Self', 'Me', co-operation-seeking, approval-seeking, pleasing, rebellious, mediating between the Id and the Superego, conflict-resolving, problem-solving, reality-based, reality-interpreting, analyzing, postponing Id gratification, compromising, bending, choosing, caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place (between the Id and the Superego -- two dialectically opposed system of 'wants and needs and gratifications' vs. 'shoulds, and should nots, responsibilities, obligations, social promises, ethics, social values, morals, laws, customs, demands...
4. The Jungian Model (Carl Jung): Includes 'The Persona' ('The Social Ego' -- 'The Face We Show Society'), 'The Shadow' ('The Dark Side of the Personality, , 'Darth Vader' 'The Alter-Ego', 'Mr. or Ms. Hyde), 'The (Potential) Self', 'The Personal Unconscious', 'The Collective Unconscious', 'The Anima', 'The Animus', and 'the rest of the Mythological Archetype Figures'...and a more or less 'assumed' 'Central, Integrative, Potentially Healthy Ego'...altogether that is about an '8 Compartment or Department Model'...although nothing is fully written in stone here...
5. The Object Relations Model(s) (Freud, Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott, Guntrip...)
Melanie Klein was the biggest creative-(destructive) neo-Psychoanalytic force here
adding such concepts as: 'External Objects', 'Internal Objects', 'The Depressive Position', 'The Paranoid-Schizoid Position, and I will add 'The Paranoid-Aggressive' and 'The Manic-Depressive Positions'...to the other more standard Classical Freudian concepts...
Ronald Fairbairn also had a model that was quite interesting which included: a) 'the exciting object'; b) 'the rejecting object'; c) 'the morally idealized and anti-libidinal parent'; d) 'the infantile, libidinal ego'; e) 'the infantile, anti-libidinal ego'; and f) 'the central ego' identifying with the morally idealized parents. Fairbairn's model is a '6 department or compartment model' of the personality. (Harry Guntrip, Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self, 1971,73, p. 98)
6. The Transactional Analysis Model (Eric Berne): Built mainly from an 'Object Relations' perspective of the personality -- and simplified for the 'lay public' -- Berne created a model that looks something like this: a) 'The Nurturing (Encouraging-positive, spoiling-negative) Parent(-Ego); b) 'The Critical, Controlling (Structuring-positive, oppressive-negative) Parent(-Ego)'; c) 'The Adult-(Ego); d) 'The Adapted (Co-operative, Compliant) Child; e) 'The Free (Spontaneous-positive, Immature-negative) Child. That would make this a '5 department or compartment model'.
From these 6 or 7 'classic personality models', I derived and created the following GAP-DGB '25 compartment or department model' below.
Beyond the 6 or 7 classic personality models listed above, this model below also shows the influence I have received by studying both the history of Western Philosophy and basic Greek Mythology -- as opened up to me by both Carl Jung (the 'archetypes' and 'mythological gods') and Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy' (1872).
..............................................................................
The GAP-DGB Model of The Personality (Psyche)
A/ 'Chief Executive Officer' and 'Advisors To The Throne'
A.1. 'The Chief Executive Officer' of The Personality (President, Prime Minister, King, Queen, Autocrat, Dictator...)
01. The Central Executive-Integrative (Hegel's) Ego
A.2. 'Advisers To The Throne'
02. The Dionysian-Egotistic-Narcissistic ('The DEN of Iniquity' (Schopenhauer's) Ego
03. The Apollonian, Enlightenment (Bacon's and Locke's) Ego
04. The Altruistic (Mother Teresa's) Ego
05. The Survival (of The Fittest) (Darwin's) Ego
06. The Liberal-Socialist's (Locke's, Marx's,) Ego
07. The Conservative-Capitalist (Smith's and Burke's) Ego
08. The Romantic (Spinoza's, Goethe's, Rousseau's, and Schelling's) Ego
09. The Creative-Constructionist's (Optimist's)Ego
10. The Destructive-Deconstructionist's (Skeptic's, Pessimist's, Cynic's) Ego
11. The Humanistic (Fromm's) Ego
12. The Existential (Nietzsche's and Sartre's 'Free-Will', 'Strive to be Superman') Ego
B/ 'The Aristocrats' (The Senate, 'Parental-Leadership Internal Objects')
13. The Oral-Demanding-Narcissistic-Dionsyisan Superego
14. The Anal-Righteous-Critical-Rejecting-Apollonian Superego
15. The Anal-Distancing-Schizoid Superego
16. The Oral-Nurturing-Accepting-Loving (Maternal/Paternal)Superego
C/ 'The Citizens' ('The Proletariat', 'The Middle Class and Peasants')
17. The Oral-Nurturing-Approval-Seeking (Excited)Ego
18. The Anal-Schizoid-Distancing-Depressive (Anti-Emotional) Ego
19. The Anal-Righteous-Rebellious-Rejecting (Exciting/Excited/Angry) Ego
20. The Oral-Demanding-Narcissistic-Dionysian Ego
D/ 'The Creative-Destructive Artists In The Personality' (The Deeper, Symbolic-Mythological, Subconscious Levels of The Personality
21. 'The Creative-Destructive Dream, Fantasy, and Nightmare Maker'
22. 'The Unconscious Lifestyle-Transference-Archetype Memory-Fantasy Template'
23. 'The Mythological-Genetic Collective Unconscious'
24. 'The Id'
25. 'The Genetic, Biological and Humanistic-Existential Potential Self' ('The Blueprint Of The Personality'
..............................................................................
Maybe I went 'overboard into the deep end' on this model. Or maybe I didn't.
Obviously, I am biased, but right now, I like it. I think it has many different pragmatic, theoretical, reality-based, and pragmatic-therapeutic applications.
We will discuss the more concrete details and applications of this model at a later date.
-- dgb, Aug. 5th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic, Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
..................................................................................
Having said this, I am trying to integrate a lot of different models here -- to integrate 'the best of the best' if you will. So this model is not going to be 'simple' but hopefully with some 'history' and 'explanation' added to it, it will be better understandable.
Synonyms for 'Personality' or 'Personality Structure' in this GAP-DGB domain here will be: 'Ego', 'Psyche', 'Self', and 'Character Structure'.
View the personality as being like a 'large government' or 'corporation' with numerous different 'departments' (or 'compartments') that have separate functions that are all designed to come together to fulfill the overall function of the government/corporation/personality.
Some of the other personality models that are out there and which I will simply skim over quickly without giving full justice to, are:
1. The Gestalt Model (Fritz Perls): '2 Department Model': a) 'Topdog'; b) 'Underdog';
2. The Adlerian Model (Alfred Adler): '2 Department Model': a) 'Inferiority Feeling' ('Self-Esteem Deficiency', 'One Down Position', 'Minus Position', 'Insecurity Feeling', 'Unstability Feeling'); b) 'Superiority Feeling' ('Leadership Position', 'One Up Position', 'Superiority Position', 'Fictional Final Goal', 'Lifestyle Goal'); c) 'Means of Moving From a Minus Position to a Plus Position, from a) to b)' ('Compensation', 'Lifestyle Complex', 'Superiority Striving')
3. The Classic Freudian Model: a) 'The Id': biological drives: such as: hunger-food, thirst-water, sexual tension-release, aggression-release, shelter, heat, some might argue stability, rootedness (Erich Fromm), creativity-destructiveness (Erich Fromm), love-hate (Erich Fromm), transcendence (Erich Fromm)...DGB extrapolations: power, money, greed, narcissism, selfishness, revenge, dance, celebration, oral-obsessive-compulsions, addictions...; b) 'The Superego': social conscience, ethical conscience, justice, fairness, reason, righteousness, rejection, 'anal-retentiveness', 'punctuality', 'cleanliness', 'neatness', sadism, dominance, arrogance, 'righteous-narcissism', abandonment, betrayal, discipline, punishment, 'guilt-giver', 'approval-demanding', 'co-operation-demanding', 'acceptance-demanding', 'The Internal Object'; c) 'The Ego': 'The Subjective Sense of Self', 'Me', co-operation-seeking, approval-seeking, pleasing, rebellious, mediating between the Id and the Superego, conflict-resolving, problem-solving, reality-based, reality-interpreting, analyzing, postponing Id gratification, compromising, bending, choosing, caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place (between the Id and the Superego -- two dialectically opposed system of 'wants and needs and gratifications' vs. 'shoulds, and should nots, responsibilities, obligations, social promises, ethics, social values, morals, laws, customs, demands...
4. The Jungian Model (Carl Jung): Includes 'The Persona' ('The Social Ego' -- 'The Face We Show Society'), 'The Shadow' ('The Dark Side of the Personality, , 'Darth Vader' 'The Alter-Ego', 'Mr. or Ms. Hyde), 'The (Potential) Self', 'The Personal Unconscious', 'The Collective Unconscious', 'The Anima', 'The Animus', and 'the rest of the Mythological Archetype Figures'...and a more or less 'assumed' 'Central, Integrative, Potentially Healthy Ego'...altogether that is about an '8 Compartment or Department Model'...although nothing is fully written in stone here...
5. The Object Relations Model(s) (Freud, Klein, Fairbairn, Winnicott, Guntrip...)
Melanie Klein was the biggest creative-(destructive) neo-Psychoanalytic force here
adding such concepts as: 'External Objects', 'Internal Objects', 'The Depressive Position', 'The Paranoid-Schizoid Position, and I will add 'The Paranoid-Aggressive' and 'The Manic-Depressive Positions'...to the other more standard Classical Freudian concepts...
Ronald Fairbairn also had a model that was quite interesting which included: a) 'the exciting object'; b) 'the rejecting object'; c) 'the morally idealized and anti-libidinal parent'; d) 'the infantile, libidinal ego'; e) 'the infantile, anti-libidinal ego'; and f) 'the central ego' identifying with the morally idealized parents. Fairbairn's model is a '6 department or compartment model' of the personality. (Harry Guntrip, Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy, and The Self, 1971,73, p. 98)
6. The Transactional Analysis Model (Eric Berne): Built mainly from an 'Object Relations' perspective of the personality -- and simplified for the 'lay public' -- Berne created a model that looks something like this: a) 'The Nurturing (Encouraging-positive, spoiling-negative) Parent(-Ego); b) 'The Critical, Controlling (Structuring-positive, oppressive-negative) Parent(-Ego)'; c) 'The Adult-(Ego); d) 'The Adapted (Co-operative, Compliant) Child; e) 'The Free (Spontaneous-positive, Immature-negative) Child. That would make this a '5 department or compartment model'.
From these 6 or 7 'classic personality models', I derived and created the following GAP-DGB '25 compartment or department model' below.
Beyond the 6 or 7 classic personality models listed above, this model below also shows the influence I have received by studying both the history of Western Philosophy and basic Greek Mythology -- as opened up to me by both Carl Jung (the 'archetypes' and 'mythological gods') and Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy' (1872).
..............................................................................
The GAP-DGB Model of The Personality (Psyche)
A/ 'Chief Executive Officer' and 'Advisors To The Throne'
A.1. 'The Chief Executive Officer' of The Personality (President, Prime Minister, King, Queen, Autocrat, Dictator...)
01. The Central Executive-Integrative (Hegel's) Ego
A.2. 'Advisers To The Throne'
02. The Dionysian-Egotistic-Narcissistic ('The DEN of Iniquity' (Schopenhauer's) Ego
03. The Apollonian, Enlightenment (Bacon's and Locke's) Ego
04. The Altruistic (Mother Teresa's) Ego
05. The Survival (of The Fittest) (Darwin's) Ego
06. The Liberal-Socialist's (Locke's, Marx's,) Ego
07. The Conservative-Capitalist (Smith's and Burke's) Ego
08. The Romantic (Spinoza's, Goethe's, Rousseau's, and Schelling's) Ego
09. The Creative-Constructionist's (Optimist's)Ego
10. The Destructive-Deconstructionist's (Skeptic's, Pessimist's, Cynic's) Ego
11. The Humanistic (Fromm's) Ego
12. The Existential (Nietzsche's and Sartre's 'Free-Will', 'Strive to be Superman') Ego
B/ 'The Aristocrats' (The Senate, 'Parental-Leadership Internal Objects')
13. The Oral-Demanding-Narcissistic-Dionsyisan Superego
14. The Anal-Righteous-Critical-Rejecting-Apollonian Superego
15. The Anal-Distancing-Schizoid Superego
16. The Oral-Nurturing-Accepting-Loving (Maternal/Paternal)Superego
C/ 'The Citizens' ('The Proletariat', 'The Middle Class and Peasants')
17. The Oral-Nurturing-Approval-Seeking (Excited)Ego
18. The Anal-Schizoid-Distancing-Depressive (Anti-Emotional) Ego
19. The Anal-Righteous-Rebellious-Rejecting (Exciting/Excited/Angry) Ego
20. The Oral-Demanding-Narcissistic-Dionysian Ego
D/ 'The Creative-Destructive Artists In The Personality' (The Deeper, Symbolic-Mythological, Subconscious Levels of The Personality
21. 'The Creative-Destructive Dream, Fantasy, and Nightmare Maker'
22. 'The Unconscious Lifestyle-Transference-Archetype Memory-Fantasy Template'
23. 'The Mythological-Genetic Collective Unconscious'
24. 'The Id'
25. 'The Genetic, Biological and Humanistic-Existential Potential Self' ('The Blueprint Of The Personality'
..............................................................................
Maybe I went 'overboard into the deep end' on this model. Or maybe I didn't.
Obviously, I am biased, but right now, I like it. I think it has many different pragmatic, theoretical, reality-based, and pragmatic-therapeutic applications.
We will discuss the more concrete details and applications of this model at a later date.
-- dgb, Aug. 5th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic, Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
..................................................................................
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Integrating Philosophy and Psychology Into A Model Of The Psyche
Which came first? Philosophy or psychology? And which spawned which? Did philosophy spawn psychology or did psycholgy spawn philosophy?
Technically and academically speaking, philosophy did, or at least 'organized, passed down, and remembered philosophy: it goe back to at least 600 B.C. in ancient Greek philosophy (Thales) -- that is as far back as our records go, and arguably much earlier here and/or other in other parts of the world like China, India, and The Middle East with or without reliable records.
As an organized field of study, psychology spawned out of philosophy. In this regard, Alexander Bain can arguably be considered to be the first psychologist with his first major work in this area being published in 1855, 'The Senses and The Intellect.
However, it could be easily argued that psychology and philosophy have both been a part of man's nature from Day 1 of his creation, and/or from as long as he has had consciousness with perhaps man's 'psychology' motivating him/her to put together a coherent 'world philosophy' and from this, the same world philosophy eventually motivitating him to look inward (Descartes, Bain, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mesmer, Charcot, Freud, Janet...) back at his/her psychology.
What I have done here is to put together my own personal verson (perspective, paradigm, theory, model, map, school...) of man's psychology based on my editorital organizing of the history and integration of both philosophy and psychology. Thus, we might call this model an integrative 'philosophy-psychology model'.
We start with the concepts of 'self', 'psyche' and 'ego' which I will use here to mean basically the same thing. For our purposes here, the concept of 'ego' -- one of Freud's main concepts that made Psychoanalysis famous -- is my concept of preference.
Now Freud only used the concept of 'ego' to mean a portion of the 'psyche' (as contrasted against the 'superego' and the 'id') whereas I am using the concept of ego to mean the full psyche or full self. Definition matters, and is at least partly arbitrary, partly dependent on the author's purposes and 'organizing desires'. Regardless of who you are reading, you have to know that all authors -- or at least those authors who are venturing into 'different phenomenal and conceptual territory' -- organize differently. It is part of their 'creative signature' and when they use the same words to describe different concepts and/or different words to describe the same or similar concepts, it can become confusing. In the name of art and science, we have to give every author enough leeway, enough creative license, to either succeed or fail at what he or she is attempting to do, gain trust and credibility -- or not, and in so doing, 'break creative barriers' -- or not, all of which is imperative to the ongoing evolution of art and/or science -- culture and life. Jung didn't use the concept of 'ego' (or 'libido') the same way that Freud did. Nor will I use the concept of ego the same way that either Freud or Jung did. I am going a partly similar direction to both of them; and a partly different direction than both of them.
Now the ego is like a piece of pie. When we first look at it after it is baked or brought home from the store, it is 'whole'. So is the ego, the psyche, the self. We are looking at an undivided, wholistic entity. Just as the pie can be cut into as many pieces as we want to, so too, for study and/or educational purposes, for matters of more focused specialization, we can divide the ego, the psyche, the self into as many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' as we want to. This is called 'reductionism' as opposed to 'wholism'. Reductionism and wholism do not have to be 'righteous either/or' conflicting philosophies. You do not have to choose one or the other. You can choose both -- and should choose both -- depending on exactly what you are studying and what you are trying to accomplish. Reductionism should be like the 'close-up lens' in a camera where as 'wholism' is like the 'panoramic lens'. Both serve different purposes but both are 'important tools' in the good photographer's tool kit. This is the same with a 'doctor specialist' who may specialize in the study of the liver but must also know how the liver functions relative to its inter-workings with the rest of the human body. Same with a good psychologist -- or 'psycho-theorist' -- who, regardless of how many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' he or she may divide the self into, must still have an organized picture of how everything comes together into a coherent, organized whole.
For study and educational purposes, I have divided the self or ego -- 'cut the pie' -- into 10 pieces or compartments, seven conscious, and three subconscious. These are:
1. The Interpretive Ego.
2. The Narcissistic Ego.
3. The Socially Sensitive Ego.
4. The Ethical Ego.
5. The Emotional-Romantic-Spiritual Ego.
6. The Dynamic, Subconscious Ego.
7. The Structural (Transference and Archetype-Driven) Subconsicous Ego.
8. The Genetic, Potential, Creative or Destructive Self.
9. The Mediating, Conflict-Resolving Ego.
10. The Executive, Action-Producing Ego.
And this is where I will stop today.
db, July 24th, 2007.
Technically and academically speaking, philosophy did, or at least 'organized, passed down, and remembered philosophy: it goe back to at least 600 B.C. in ancient Greek philosophy (Thales) -- that is as far back as our records go, and arguably much earlier here and/or other in other parts of the world like China, India, and The Middle East with or without reliable records.
As an organized field of study, psychology spawned out of philosophy. In this regard, Alexander Bain can arguably be considered to be the first psychologist with his first major work in this area being published in 1855, 'The Senses and The Intellect.
However, it could be easily argued that psychology and philosophy have both been a part of man's nature from Day 1 of his creation, and/or from as long as he has had consciousness with perhaps man's 'psychology' motivating him/her to put together a coherent 'world philosophy' and from this, the same world philosophy eventually motivitating him to look inward (Descartes, Bain, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Mesmer, Charcot, Freud, Janet...) back at his/her psychology.
What I have done here is to put together my own personal verson (perspective, paradigm, theory, model, map, school...) of man's psychology based on my editorital organizing of the history and integration of both philosophy and psychology. Thus, we might call this model an integrative 'philosophy-psychology model'.
We start with the concepts of 'self', 'psyche' and 'ego' which I will use here to mean basically the same thing. For our purposes here, the concept of 'ego' -- one of Freud's main concepts that made Psychoanalysis famous -- is my concept of preference.
Now Freud only used the concept of 'ego' to mean a portion of the 'psyche' (as contrasted against the 'superego' and the 'id') whereas I am using the concept of ego to mean the full psyche or full self. Definition matters, and is at least partly arbitrary, partly dependent on the author's purposes and 'organizing desires'. Regardless of who you are reading, you have to know that all authors -- or at least those authors who are venturing into 'different phenomenal and conceptual territory' -- organize differently. It is part of their 'creative signature' and when they use the same words to describe different concepts and/or different words to describe the same or similar concepts, it can become confusing. In the name of art and science, we have to give every author enough leeway, enough creative license, to either succeed or fail at what he or she is attempting to do, gain trust and credibility -- or not, and in so doing, 'break creative barriers' -- or not, all of which is imperative to the ongoing evolution of art and/or science -- culture and life. Jung didn't use the concept of 'ego' (or 'libido') the same way that Freud did. Nor will I use the concept of ego the same way that either Freud or Jung did. I am going a partly similar direction to both of them; and a partly different direction than both of them.
Now the ego is like a piece of pie. When we first look at it after it is baked or brought home from the store, it is 'whole'. So is the ego, the psyche, the self. We are looking at an undivided, wholistic entity. Just as the pie can be cut into as many pieces as we want to, so too, for study and/or educational purposes, for matters of more focused specialization, we can divide the ego, the psyche, the self into as many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' as we want to. This is called 'reductionism' as opposed to 'wholism'. Reductionism and wholism do not have to be 'righteous either/or' conflicting philosophies. You do not have to choose one or the other. You can choose both -- and should choose both -- depending on exactly what you are studying and what you are trying to accomplish. Reductionism should be like the 'close-up lens' in a camera where as 'wholism' is like the 'panoramic lens'. Both serve different purposes but both are 'important tools' in the good photographer's tool kit. This is the same with a 'doctor specialist' who may specialize in the study of the liver but must also know how the liver functions relative to its inter-workings with the rest of the human body. Same with a good psychologist -- or 'psycho-theorist' -- who, regardless of how many different 'pieces' or 'compartments' he or she may divide the self into, must still have an organized picture of how everything comes together into a coherent, organized whole.
For study and educational purposes, I have divided the self or ego -- 'cut the pie' -- into 10 pieces or compartments, seven conscious, and three subconscious. These are:
1. The Interpretive Ego.
2. The Narcissistic Ego.
3. The Socially Sensitive Ego.
4. The Ethical Ego.
5. The Emotional-Romantic-Spiritual Ego.
6. The Dynamic, Subconscious Ego.
7. The Structural (Transference and Archetype-Driven) Subconsicous Ego.
8. The Genetic, Potential, Creative or Destructive Self.
9. The Mediating, Conflict-Resolving Ego.
10. The Executive, Action-Producing Ego.
And this is where I will stop today.
db, July 24th, 2007.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
DGB Personality Theory: Model 1: A DGB "Greek Mythology and Soap Opera in The Sky' Model Of The Personality (Updated Mar 2, Mar 5, Mar. 6th, 8th/09)
The metaphor of Hegel's Hotel can be visualized in at least four different ways each partly similar to each other -- and each partly different.
Two are 'Wellness Hotel' models, or at least can be used as 'Wellness Hotel' models. (They can also be used pathologically and/or to 'map out' different types of pathology in the mind.) Label them respectively,
1. 'The DGB Greek Mythology-Soap Opera Hotel';
2. 'The DGB Philosophers and Psychologists Wellness Hotel;
The other two are different renditions of the two models above (using circles rather than squares and/or rectangles),
3. 'The DGB Greek Mythology Solar System Model';
4. 'The DGB Philosophers and Psychologists Solar System Model.
We will come back to the latter three models later.
In this essay, let us briefly delve into Model 1.
...........................................................................
1/ The DGB 'Greek Mythology and Soap Opera In The Sky' Model
This model draws mainly from Psychoanalysis (Sigmund Freud and others...), Jungian Psychology (Carl Jung), Adlerian Psychology (Alfred Adler), Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne), and Gestalt Therapy (Fritz Perls).
The model is to be viewed as an 'As If' or 'Metaphorical' model, not something to be taken literally or that we can physically see and/or divide.
When I refer to different 'rooms' in the personality, these can also be viewed as different 'ego states' and/or 'energy centres'.
When I refer to the concept of 'Archetypes', these can be divided into at least three types:
1. 'God-Archetypes': such as...'Zeus', 'Apollo', 'Dionysus', 'Narcissus', 'Eros', 'Aphrodite', and the rest of the 'Greek Dieties'....(Indeed, why stop at 'Greek Dieties' if we want to press onward into different cultures and historical periods?) We stop where it is convenient, functional, pragmatic to stop...with a change in our own life context perhaps neccessitating or making it pragmatic and functional for us to modify our model accordingly...
2. 'Philosopher-Archetypes': Hegel's Hotel can be divided up not only into Greek Mythological Rooms classified by each particular 'Mythological God' but also into 'Philosopher Rooms' classified by each particularly important philosopher in Western -- and/or Eastern, and/or Middle-Eastern -- history. Thus, Hegel's Hotel can be divided into: 'Anaxamander's Room', 'Heraclitus' Room', 'Parmenides Room', 'Socrates' Room', 'The Sophists' Room', 'Plato's Room', 'Aristotle's Room'...and so on....
3. 'Psychologist-Archetypes': Similarily, Hegel's Hotel can be divided into different psychologist rooms such as: 'Freud's Room', 'Adler's Room', 'Jung's Room', 'Berne's Room', 'Perls' Room'...and so on...
For our purposes here, we will limit ourselves primarily to 'The Greek Mythological God Rooms'...
The others we will take up more specifically in a different model...
When I think of Hegel's Hotel as a Greek Mythology Hotel, I visualize a place like 'Casa Loma' in Toronto, Ontario. Many different 'castles' in Europe would probably serve the same purpose.
Casa Loma is filled with many different rooms, and different types of rooms. But better still, it has 'secret passage ways' that go from different points in the castle -- perhaps an 'upper bedroom' -- down to the 'bottom' of the castle, or even into a real or imaginary 'dungeon'.
Now there are many, many 'Gods' and 'semi-Gods', 'Heros' and 'Villains' in Greek Mythology. I will only list and accentuate those that I believe to be the most important of these Gods, Semi-Gods, Heroes, and Villains for our purposes here. Others can be either added or subtracted at a moment's notice for theoretical and/or climical contextual purposes.
Hegel's Hotel in this model is made up of three floors above ground and three floors underground. 18 rooms in Hegel's Hotel are above ground and three are underground.
One floor underground (18) is a 'passage way' -- controlled by the Greek God, Hermes (Messenger to and from The Underground) -- to the other two 'deeper' floors underground -- (19) 'Freud's Personal Unconscious Floor'; and (20) 'Jung's Collective and/or Genetic Subconscious, Potential Self, and Archetype Floor'.
On the top floor of Hegel's Hotel, we have rooms for the aristocratic, the arrogant, the superior...(which is all of us at different times...)...I will call this 'Nietzsche's Floor'...
A/ Nietzsche's Floor: 1. The Narcissistic-Dionysian Topdog Room; 2. The Nurturing-Altruistic Topdog Room; and 3. The Righteous-Exciting-Rejecting-and-Anxiety-Provoking Topdog Room;
On the bottom floor just above ground, we have rooms for the meek, the mild, the insecure, the inferior, the inadequate, the underdogs, and the orthodox-co-operative...(which is all of us at different times...)...I will call this 'Adler's Floor'...
B/ Adler's Floor: 4. The Narcissistic-Dionysian ('Bad Boy' or 'Bad Girl') Underdog Room; 5. The Altruistic-Nurturing(Approval-Seeking) Underdog Room; and 6. The Rebellious (Righteous)Underdog Room.
In between the top floor and the bottom floor above ground in Hegel's Hotel, we have... "Zeus and His Lobbyists' Floor"
C/ Zeus' Floor: 7. Apollo's Room/Ego (emphasizing reason, truth, and justice); 8. Aphrodite's and Eros' Room/Ego (emphasizing romance, passion, creativity, imagination, the arts, nature...); 9. Dionysus' Room/Ego (emphasizing pleasure, hedonism, sensuality, sexuality, wine, celebration, dancing...); 10. Hera's Room/Ego (emphasizing marriage and family values, solidarity, rootedness, togetherness...); 10. Gaia's Room/Ego (emphasing the earth and environment, staying rooted on earth, and making sure that the earth and our natural environment can continue to support us...); 11. Hephestrus' Room/Ego (emphasizing fire -- and 'fire' in the personality...); 12. Poseidon's Room/Ego (emphasizng water...and the calming force of water...); 13. Hermes' Room/Ego (Messenger to and from The Underground...for good or bad reasons...); 14. Demeter's Room/Ego (emphasizing the food and agriculture that we need to continue to support us here on earth); 15. Artemis' Room/Ego (emphasing the hunt as it is needed to support us here on earth...); 16. Athena's Room/Ego (emphasizing the domestic arts and crafts); 17. Aries' Room (emphasizing war -- democratic, diplomatic, and rhetorical war when it is needed; as a last and only last resort 'the physical war of self-defence'...); 18. Zeus' Room/Ego (God of Gods, Executive Ego of all other Ego-States...)
Again, all of these different 'rooms' in Hegel's Hotel can also be viewed as 'Ego States' and/or 'Energy Centres'. They can also be viewed as being like 'political special interest or lobbyist groups' lobbying for the attention of The Central Executive Ego (Zeus) and the 'fulfillment of each ego-state's/lobbyist's particular set of wishes'.
We will sit on this model for a little while before we start to extrapolate on it more and work it through.
I think we may have a decent model to work with here.
For those of you who may be familiar with some of my other essays, you may recall that in one of my essays I asked the question:
'Where do Gods, Idols, Myths, Philosophers, and Psychologists all meet?'
Answer: 'They meet on the shores of DGB Personality Theory'.
So here we are again -- getting ready to go deeper into one of our conceptualized models of the personality.
Enough for today. I'm late for work. And tomorrow's my birthday. I've booked off work and plan to spend the day and night in Niagara Falls. No writing tomorrow. So call this my 2009 'birthday model' of the human psyche -- put together a day before the 102nd anniversary of Freud and Jung meeting together for the first time on a cold Sunday, March 3rd, 1907. (And 'polished' up on three different days after I came back.)
-- dgb, Mar. 1st-2nd, further modified and updated March 5th,6th, 8th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
Two are 'Wellness Hotel' models, or at least can be used as 'Wellness Hotel' models. (They can also be used pathologically and/or to 'map out' different types of pathology in the mind.) Label them respectively,
1. 'The DGB Greek Mythology-Soap Opera Hotel';
2. 'The DGB Philosophers and Psychologists Wellness Hotel;
The other two are different renditions of the two models above (using circles rather than squares and/or rectangles),
3. 'The DGB Greek Mythology Solar System Model';
4. 'The DGB Philosophers and Psychologists Solar System Model.
We will come back to the latter three models later.
In this essay, let us briefly delve into Model 1.
...........................................................................
1/ The DGB 'Greek Mythology and Soap Opera In The Sky' Model
This model draws mainly from Psychoanalysis (Sigmund Freud and others...), Jungian Psychology (Carl Jung), Adlerian Psychology (Alfred Adler), Transactional Analysis (Eric Berne), and Gestalt Therapy (Fritz Perls).
The model is to be viewed as an 'As If' or 'Metaphorical' model, not something to be taken literally or that we can physically see and/or divide.
When I refer to different 'rooms' in the personality, these can also be viewed as different 'ego states' and/or 'energy centres'.
When I refer to the concept of 'Archetypes', these can be divided into at least three types:
1. 'God-Archetypes': such as...'Zeus', 'Apollo', 'Dionysus', 'Narcissus', 'Eros', 'Aphrodite', and the rest of the 'Greek Dieties'....(Indeed, why stop at 'Greek Dieties' if we want to press onward into different cultures and historical periods?) We stop where it is convenient, functional, pragmatic to stop...with a change in our own life context perhaps neccessitating or making it pragmatic and functional for us to modify our model accordingly...
2. 'Philosopher-Archetypes': Hegel's Hotel can be divided up not only into Greek Mythological Rooms classified by each particular 'Mythological God' but also into 'Philosopher Rooms' classified by each particularly important philosopher in Western -- and/or Eastern, and/or Middle-Eastern -- history. Thus, Hegel's Hotel can be divided into: 'Anaxamander's Room', 'Heraclitus' Room', 'Parmenides Room', 'Socrates' Room', 'The Sophists' Room', 'Plato's Room', 'Aristotle's Room'...and so on....
3. 'Psychologist-Archetypes': Similarily, Hegel's Hotel can be divided into different psychologist rooms such as: 'Freud's Room', 'Adler's Room', 'Jung's Room', 'Berne's Room', 'Perls' Room'...and so on...
For our purposes here, we will limit ourselves primarily to 'The Greek Mythological God Rooms'...
The others we will take up more specifically in a different model...
When I think of Hegel's Hotel as a Greek Mythology Hotel, I visualize a place like 'Casa Loma' in Toronto, Ontario. Many different 'castles' in Europe would probably serve the same purpose.
Casa Loma is filled with many different rooms, and different types of rooms. But better still, it has 'secret passage ways' that go from different points in the castle -- perhaps an 'upper bedroom' -- down to the 'bottom' of the castle, or even into a real or imaginary 'dungeon'.
Now there are many, many 'Gods' and 'semi-Gods', 'Heros' and 'Villains' in Greek Mythology. I will only list and accentuate those that I believe to be the most important of these Gods, Semi-Gods, Heroes, and Villains for our purposes here. Others can be either added or subtracted at a moment's notice for theoretical and/or climical contextual purposes.
Hegel's Hotel in this model is made up of three floors above ground and three floors underground. 18 rooms in Hegel's Hotel are above ground and three are underground.
One floor underground (18) is a 'passage way' -- controlled by the Greek God, Hermes (Messenger to and from The Underground) -- to the other two 'deeper' floors underground -- (19) 'Freud's Personal Unconscious Floor'; and (20) 'Jung's Collective and/or Genetic Subconscious, Potential Self, and Archetype Floor'.
On the top floor of Hegel's Hotel, we have rooms for the aristocratic, the arrogant, the superior...(which is all of us at different times...)...I will call this 'Nietzsche's Floor'...
A/ Nietzsche's Floor: 1. The Narcissistic-Dionysian Topdog Room; 2. The Nurturing-Altruistic Topdog Room; and 3. The Righteous-Exciting-Rejecting-and-Anxiety-Provoking Topdog Room;
On the bottom floor just above ground, we have rooms for the meek, the mild, the insecure, the inferior, the inadequate, the underdogs, and the orthodox-co-operative...(which is all of us at different times...)...I will call this 'Adler's Floor'...
B/ Adler's Floor: 4. The Narcissistic-Dionysian ('Bad Boy' or 'Bad Girl') Underdog Room; 5. The Altruistic-Nurturing(Approval-Seeking) Underdog Room; and 6. The Rebellious (Righteous)Underdog Room.
In between the top floor and the bottom floor above ground in Hegel's Hotel, we have... "Zeus and His Lobbyists' Floor"
C/ Zeus' Floor: 7. Apollo's Room/Ego (emphasizing reason, truth, and justice); 8. Aphrodite's and Eros' Room/Ego (emphasizing romance, passion, creativity, imagination, the arts, nature...); 9. Dionysus' Room/Ego (emphasizing pleasure, hedonism, sensuality, sexuality, wine, celebration, dancing...); 10. Hera's Room/Ego (emphasizing marriage and family values, solidarity, rootedness, togetherness...); 10. Gaia's Room/Ego (emphasing the earth and environment, staying rooted on earth, and making sure that the earth and our natural environment can continue to support us...); 11. Hephestrus' Room/Ego (emphasizing fire -- and 'fire' in the personality...); 12. Poseidon's Room/Ego (emphasizng water...and the calming force of water...); 13. Hermes' Room/Ego (Messenger to and from The Underground...for good or bad reasons...); 14. Demeter's Room/Ego (emphasizing the food and agriculture that we need to continue to support us here on earth); 15. Artemis' Room/Ego (emphasing the hunt as it is needed to support us here on earth...); 16. Athena's Room/Ego (emphasizing the domestic arts and crafts); 17. Aries' Room (emphasizing war -- democratic, diplomatic, and rhetorical war when it is needed; as a last and only last resort 'the physical war of self-defence'...); 18. Zeus' Room/Ego (God of Gods, Executive Ego of all other Ego-States...)
Again, all of these different 'rooms' in Hegel's Hotel can also be viewed as 'Ego States' and/or 'Energy Centres'. They can also be viewed as being like 'political special interest or lobbyist groups' lobbying for the attention of The Central Executive Ego (Zeus) and the 'fulfillment of each ego-state's/lobbyist's particular set of wishes'.
We will sit on this model for a little while before we start to extrapolate on it more and work it through.
I think we may have a decent model to work with here.
For those of you who may be familiar with some of my other essays, you may recall that in one of my essays I asked the question:
'Where do Gods, Idols, Myths, Philosophers, and Psychologists all meet?'
Answer: 'They meet on the shores of DGB Personality Theory'.
So here we are again -- getting ready to go deeper into one of our conceptualized models of the personality.
Enough for today. I'm late for work. And tomorrow's my birthday. I've booked off work and plan to spend the day and night in Niagara Falls. No writing tomorrow. So call this my 2009 'birthday model' of the human psyche -- put together a day before the 102nd anniversary of Freud and Jung meeting together for the first time on a cold Sunday, March 3rd, 1907. (And 'polished' up on three different days after I came back.)
-- dgb, Mar. 1st-2nd, further modified and updated March 5th,6th, 8th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
Thursday, February 19, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
