There are some philosophers in the history of Western philosophy -- reputable philosophers -- who seem to have had virtually no other purpose in their philosophy and in the history of philosophy than to mess other philosophies and philosophers up! Call these philosophers the 'mind-benders'.
The 'Sophists' come most quickly to mind -- ancient Greece's version of the modern day lawyer -- great at debate, great at rhetoric, but philosophical mercenaries, willing and able to take any philosophical position and argue it with equal vigor and passion.
Within this school of philosophy, it is not the philosophical position itself that matters; it is winning a philosophical debate with superior argumentation, logic and rhetoric that matters.
Here the main philosophical point of view is not that 'Knowledge is power.' But rather that, 'Rhetoric is power.' We have also heard the expression, 'Money is power.' A connection can be made here: In the modern legal world, more money buys superior rhetoric ( a better lawyer) which in turn wins power (getting the type of judgment you are looking for)!
By association of philosophical position, today's modern day lawyer is basically the equivalent of Ancient Greece's Sophist -- no arguing the superiority of their rhetoric, just sometimes their integrity and the fact that you can never be sure that what they are trying to sell you is truthful knowledge -- or the illusion of truthful knowledge all wrapped up in a nice package and bow in order to seduce you and manipulate you into thinking you are gettng something 'good' and 'right'.
Until you open the package. Here the association can be made not only with today lawyers but also with today's marketers and advertisors. Again, just because you are getting a very 'sexy' package, doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to like what you get inside the package. The package might be full of worms - or the equivalent.
And now we come to Parmenides -- perhaps the biggest mind-bender in the history of Western philosophy, made worse by the fact that he strongly influenced Plato's pathological theory of epistemology. Thus, Parmenides pathological epistemology became Plato's pathological epistemology, almost as though through a process of osmosis. 'Plato -- you got seduced and reeled in by the equivalent of a Sophist...Someone who sold you on a nice sexy package -- or a nice lure -- and then reeled you in, hook, line, and sinker.'
We have lots of those types of people today. Yesterday's Sophist is today's Narcissistic Banker, Mortgage Lender, and CEO on Wall Street -- the type of person who sells you on a sub-prime mortgage rate, and then reels you in hook, line, and sinker, with those nasty 'Trojan Horses or Viruses Hidden Deep in The Bowels of The Mortgage Contract' that will come out of their hiding place a year or two later -- and effectively, kill you.
The virus is hidden in the fine print.
The virus is hidden in that sexy website.
Home of The Identification Thief.
21st Century Narcissistic Capitalism Comes All Wrapped Up In A Nice Sexy Package...
But The Integrity is Gone...
Gone in An Illinois Moment...
Everything Has A Bargaining Price...
How Much Is This Illinois Senate Position Worth To You?
It's Up For Auction To The Highest Bidder.
Ain't Democracy Sweet!
President-Elect Obama, you have your work cut out for you.
Don't compromise your integrity.
America is counting on you.
............................................................
Who Said The Trojan Horse Is Dead and Buried In The Archives of Mythological Greece?
No, The Trojan Horse is Very Much Alive and Being Used Over and Over Again In America.
And Canada.
Indeed, All Around The World.
Narcissistic Capitalism is full of Sophists -- and Trojan Horses.
The Trojan Horse -- and Virus -- Is The Favorite War-Toy of Sophists.
Watch out for the package!
Cause its What's In The Package That Counts!
What's Inside The Sexy Package Is What Will Kill You If You Are Not Careful
What You Are Opening...
Or How You Are Opening It...
The Worst Of The Sophists...
Operate With Trojan Horses...
Or Operate Inside Trojan Horses...
'America, Watch Out For Trojan Horses...
And Viruses...
They Will Kill You...
Even As They Smile and Wink At You...
America, Beware of The Sexy Package!
It Could Be a Trojan Horse!
Or Contain a Trojan Virus...
That Will Steal From You, or Sabotage You...
Someone From Africa or England Will Tell You, You've Just Won a Hundred Thousand Dollars...
And Tell You Where To Send All Your ID Information...
In Order To Collect Your Winnings.
Who Says That Sophists and Trojan Horses Are Dead and Buried in Mythological Greece?
Sophists and Trojan Horses are A Part of our Heritage,
Just Like The Boston Tea Party...
Sophists Are People Who Will Tax You and Tax You...
And Not Tell You Where Your Tax Money is Going To...
Sophists Are People Who Will Gouge You and Gouge You...
And Call It 'The Free Market' -- 'Don't Regulate The Free Market'...
Cause That Is How The Monopoly Sophists Gouge You...
Sophists Are Bankers Who Will Service Charge You and Service Charge You...
And Hide The Service Charges In Bank Books That You Don't Get Anymore...
In Chequing and Savings Accounts That You Don't Get Any Interest From Anymore...
The Sophist and The Trojan Horse Are Very Much Alive and Living in America.
...............................................................
Back To Parmenides..
How do we make sense out of Parmenides mind-bending pathological epistemology that is likely to send anyone to a psychiatric ward who tries to believe in it and abide by it?
Actually, you don't even have to believe in anything Parmenides said in order to start to feel your mind-brain make funny contortions. All you have to do is try to follow his logic -- and the logic of 'epistemological idealism' in all of its many different shapes and forms, and you will probably start to feel those funny mind-brain contortions develop.
So my suggestion to you is, if you want to try to follow with me here, then maybe you better get another coffee like I just did...You may need it. I fully confess that in trying to get into and out of this subject matter quickly, I have bumped across a quagmire of epistemological 'snakes and ladders'.
I was partly expecting this but not totally. I have Wikipedia to both thank and curse for the new twists and turns, ups and downs, that we now have to work through as we attempt to trace epistemology down to some of its ancient Greek roots.
Just look up the term-concept of 'idealism' on Wikipedia and you will start to get a feel for what I am talking about. I will start with my own philosophical distinctions and then we will aim to blend these in with some of the academic distinctions.
Firstly, distinctions can be made between 'ethical idealism' (pertaining to ethics -- values, morals, etc.), 'political idealism' (pertaining to politics), 'legal idealism' (pertaining to law) -- and the type of idealism that we are concerned about here -- 'epistemological idealism' (pertaining to knowledge).
That wasn't too bad. But next up, we run into both a semantic problem and a philosophical complication -- but they both are linked and take us to a good place.
Firstly, the semantic problem. I think about 'epistemological idealism' without looking at the philosophical literature and I think of the 'search for truth'. Ideally speaking, the search for knowledge should be the search for truth.
In other words, the knowledge we learn should be backed and supported by substance, clarity, quality, truth, integrity...What we think and say is true needs to be true, what we think and say 'exists' needs to exist -- in order to be 'epistemologically ideal' in this sense of the term-concept 'epistemologically ideal'. And this brings us right into the lap of our next philosophical problem -- the issue of 'ontology'.
Twice now I have been clotheslined by this complicating factor of 'ontology': once when I was writing my essays on Kant and one of readers -- a student of philosophy and obviously Kant -- clotheslined me with this feedback that I was left scratching my head on and trying to sort through the semantic and philosophical difficulties of what he was saying:
..................................................................................
robertc.enriquez@gmail.com said...
Your conclusion out of this problem is correct but you are forgetting two key parts of Kant's philosophy; which was not by the way the destruction of epistemology! Namely, 1. the manifold of perception which we dialectically correspond with 2. the thing in itself. Note here that that we dialectically would correspond with the thing in itself (in German it sounds like dim an zing; pounded into my head by a visiting German professor who lectured on Kant from the original German). Yet, it is much like the pure platonic forms in that we do not directly access it in its "pure form". I would argue that Kant's entire project was to look at epistemology as a point to start to move forward but again; Kant wasn't arguing the epistemology track he was arguing the ontology track. If you want to attack Kant on epistemology then the a priori is where to start not dialectics. I would argue that Hegel would not have even had a project had he not used the dialectics that Kant set up.
My two cents worth.
.....................................................................................
I think there are some hidden -- or not hidden -- gems in this feedback. I don't pretend that I am a Kantian expert and I don't pretend that I completely understood/understand what Mr. Enriquez was trying to tell me in his feedback -- but still it partly led me to here. And here, I think, is a better -- and more knowledgeable -- place than I was at when I wrote that Kantian essay back last year sometime. Others, including Mr. Enriquez, are free to disagree of course.
The second time I bumped into this 'ontology' obstacle was when I looked up 'idealism' on Wikipedia. I'm trying to sort out Parmenides epistemology, and lo and behold, there's that cursed word 'ontology' again. Was I pursuing an epistemological problem here or an ontological problem -- or both?
Or both? Voila! You think with a dialectic philosopher's mind-brain and all of a sudden, seemingly out of nowhere, dialectical solutions jump right at you and bite you in the face.
Of course! Epistemology and ontology have to travel together because they are 'dialectical bi-polarities' -- or 'binary opposites' as Derrida would call them.
The bridge between epistemology and ontology is -- 'truth'.
Let's back up here a bit. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ontology is the study of 'objects of knowledge' -- it is the study of 'what is real', 'what exists', 'what is being.'
Knowledge pertains to 'concepts' -- to ideas that we carry around in our 'conceptual mind' that is attached to our 'physiological brain'. Thus, it makes full dialectical sense to talk about each and everyone of us having a 'mind-brain' integrated together in such a spectacular dialectic fashion that concepts and brain synapses can live side by side with each other, each supplementing the function of the other.
Physiology, epistemology, ethics, psychology, and philosophy -- all dialectically or 'multi-laterally' united.
Knowledge -- in order to have 'substance' and 'truth' attached to it -- has to have an 'ontological referent' that the knowledge is correctly referring to and attached to.
What good is knowledge that doesn't have an ontological referent attached to it? Knowledge without an ontological referent is not knowledge. It's balderdash. Smoke and mirrors. A mirage. As David Hume would write, take such knowledge and -- 'Commit it to flames!'
Which brings us to Parmenides and 'Parmenides Poison' (my editorial take on his work).
Commit it to flames! Quickly -- before Plato gets a hold of it. Too late. Plato did get a hold of it -- and it ruined Plato's epistemology-ontology just as it ruined Parmenides'.
And since then, these two intertwined epistemologists in the history of Western philosophy -- Parmenides and Plato -- have probably driven thousands and thousands of philosophers and philosophy students close to the 'nut-house' and back. Did Kant and Hegel at least partly fall under their collective spell? It is quite possible. Mr. Enriquez seems to think -- unless I am misinterpreting him -- that there might have been a Platonic influence on Kant's term-concept of 'noumenal world'. Let us see if we can bring some clarity to this issue.
This chair that I am sitting on. Metaphysically (another philosophical snake to talk about at a later date) and assumptively speaking, this chair has an 'ontological existence' in its own right. If I leave the room, assumptively speaking, it is still here in the room that I left. If I come back into the room, unless someone has taken it away, it will still be here when I come back from the other room. If I have a heart attack and die (touch wood that I don't) assumptively speaking, the chair will still be here tomorrow for someone else to sit on and take advantage of its function -- of holding a person who wants to sit down and use this computer.
The chair doesn't need to have either my sensory perception involved and/or my epistemology involved in order for it to have an 'ontological existence in its own right'. Same with everything else in this room. And the same with the birds who are using my birdfeeder outside my living room window. Every object in this room and every plant, animal, and mineral outside my window -- assumptively speaking, using common sense, they all have an ontological existence in their own respective right.
I am not so self-centered as to try to argue that if or when I die, then everything that used to ontologically exist in this room, and everything that used to ontologically exist outside my window -- would then ontologically cease to exist. Maybe for me they would -- but ontology -- assumptively speaking again -- entails an existence of other things in the world beside me that each have an existence in their own respective right beyond the limitations and imperfections of my own sensory perceptions, logic and power of reasoning, and evaluation process.
Ontology -- just 'is'. Now unfortunately, there is another quagmire of snakes here again. A 'Catch 22' -- the age-old 'subjective-objective' paradox that has also driven many a philosopher close to the brink of insanity...A few have gone over...
How can you verify that something exists unless there is someone or something there to verify its existence? Scratch your head on that one. This is presumably about where Kant came up with his term-concept of 'noumenal world' as distinguished from 'phenomenal world'. If you are having trouble finding meaning for these two term-concepts then try my modification of them: 'subjective-phenomenal world' and 'objective-noumenal world'. Kantian scholars may object but here's how I understand these two term-concepts.
I walk across the room to turn down the volume on the radio-cd player. My 50 year old eyes can't find the volume sign. 'Phenomenally and subjectively speaking', the volume sign on the radio-cd player 'does not exist'. But assumptively, noumenally, and objectively, I do know that the volume sign exists. So I curse and I go up to my bedroom to fetch my glasses. I come back to the living room, I look at the radio-cd player, and now all of a sudden, phenomenally and subjectively speaking, perceptually and epistemologically speaking, the volume sign -- does exist! My subjective-phenomenal world meets my objective-noumenal world -- with my glasses acting as the bridge between us. Generalizing, our senses function as the bridge between our subjective-phenomenal-epistemological world and objective-noumenal world.
Obviously, it is equally appropriate to argue that our senses are a major part of our subjective-phenomenal-epistemological world -- and as our senses deteriorate over time, so does the functioning of our subjective-phenomenal-epistemological worlds as a 'map' and 'structural-process representation' of the objective-noumenal-ontological world it is supposed to be representing.
Compris?
We keep losing Parmenides.
What did Parmenides say that was so horrifically wrong? What was 'Parmenides (Epistemological-Ontological) Poison?
He said this: that the sensory-phenomenal world we live in -- is an illusion. Try to get your head around that one.
He said that -- and I am paraphrasing: there is a truer and more perfect world somewhere else. (Where? In our heads? In outer space? In the sky? Is he talking about 'heaven'? Exactly where is the perfect world that he is talking about? Parmenides must have been a rhetorical genius because he fooled a lot of people, a lot of philosophers, including one of the most highly respected philosophers of all -- Plato. He lured Plato into his 'spider's web' or nailed him with his 'spider's poison' -- and the rest is history: specifically, Plato's metaphor of 'The Caves' and his 'Theory of Ideal Forms' -- both full of Parmenidean Poison.)
...................................................................................
Parmenides of Elea (Greek: Παρμενίδης ο Ἐλεάτης, early 5th century BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy, his only known work is a poem which has survived only in fragmentary form. In it, Parmenides describes two views of reality. In the Way of Truth, he explained how reality is one; change is impossible; and existence is timeless, uniform, and unchanging. In the Way of Seeming, he explained the world of appearences, which is false and deceitful. These thoughts strongly influenced Plato, and through him, the whole of western philosophy.
.....................................................................................
Two more final distinctions: 'Empirical Ontology' vs. 'Metaphysical Ontology'.
If you want to 'empirically (subjectively, phenomenally, perceptively, existentially...) verify' that this chair I am sitting on 'ontologically exists', then you just have to visit my townhouse. Come here, knock on the door, identify yourself, and you can empirically verify that my computer chair that I have sat on for the last 5 hours or so to write this essay -- does indeed 'ontologically exist'. You and I can both point at the chair and 'empirically verify' its ontological existence.
However, if you want to argue that 'God exists' then 'sensory-perceptive-empirical validation' does not work. You are going to have to come up with some other form of 'metaphysical (above physics) argumentation' to support your case. You are arguing a 'metaphysical' case if you want to try to convince me or someone else that 'God ontologically exists'.
The same goes with Parmenides. Like Parmenides did, you will have to come up with some kind of 'metaphysical argumentation' to support his case for the type of 'perfect-Utopian-noumenal world' that he was trying to get us to believe in (it worked with Plato) -- shall we just call it 'heaven'? This was a completely metaphysical world that nobody, including himself, could point to or at, in order to validate its 'empirical-ontological existence'.
Now if you want to argue about the metaphysical existence of God, then I will allow you some latitude and flexibility in your argumentation.
But I grant you no such latitude and flexibility with Parmenides Epistemological and Ontological Poison. This was the true illusion -- the true mirage.
What do you do with epistemological and ontological illusions.
Back to the famous words of David Hume.
'Commit them to flames!
Quickly, before they poison anyone else!
-- dgb, Feb. 19th, 2008, modified and updated December 15th, 2008.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On The Bi-Polar -- Narcissistic and Social -- Nature of Words and Their Meaning
This essay was originally written almost a year ago to the day until I freshly modified, edited, and updated the essay today. -- dgb, Dec. 14th, 2008.
................................................................................
Words and their meaning can be viewed as dialectic, bi-polar projections and extensions of the human psyche -- and the human individual operating in a social field or social context.
This is no different than any other element of human behavior and culture including philosophy, history, evolution, art, science and medicine, religion, politics and more...
Following in the footsteps of G.W. Hegel, the famous German idealistic dialectic philosopher, and many philosophers less famously before him including Anaxmander, Heraclitus, the Han philosophers, and more -- DGBN Philosophy focuses on one particularly important characteristic of the human psyche -- it's 'dialectic' or 'bi-polar' nature.
Dialectic, bi-polar integration is a key, central facet of every aspect of human -- and non-human -- functioning. When functioning properly, it leads to what biologists and psychologists call 'homeostatic balance'. DGB Philosophy synonyms include 'dialectic balance', 'dialectic-democratic balance', and 'bi-polar balance'.
Philosophical homeostasis -- the principle of the mind and body using 'bi-polar feedback' and 'dialectic idealism' in an integrative, partly conflictual and competitive, partly co-operative and socially sensitive fashion to bring about 'cohesive dialectical unity, wholism, evolution, and balance' -- this is what 'Hegel's Hotel: DGBN Philosophy' is all about.
The DGBN network of some 30 plus inter-connected blogsites that I am building here of which this is one -- are all meant to focus on the inter-related life -- and particularly human -- characteristics and concepts of 'bi-polarity', 'dialectical realism', 'dialectical idealism', 'dialectical wholism', 'dialectical evolution', and 'dialectical harmony' as a means of describing both the many problems and the many potential solutions to human disharmony, disagreement and conflict.
'Dialectic' and 'bi-polar' as words with meaning can be viewed as being partly synonymous with each other, but 'dialectic' in the sense that I am using it here is the more abstract of the two words. It has a broader range of meaning(s). 'Bi-polar' in the sense that it is being used here has a more specific meaning. Bi-polar as used here means 'the opposite ends of a polarity spectrum such as 'black and 'white', or 'male and female' -- brought together in harmonious or partly harmonious unity and wholism through a successful utilization of the democratic-dialectic negotiation and integration process.
Hegel was arguably the first philosopher to really make the 'dialectic' -- both as a phenomenon and as a concept -- famous. Connected to the idea of the dialectic was the idea of bi-polarity -- not used by Hegel but the semantic connection is readily apparent.
'Thesis' and 'anti-thesis' -- two opposing sets of ideas or philosophies or characterics on opposite sides of the 'polar spectrum' facing off against each other, coming into interaction with each other, both attracting and conflicting with each other...this is the nature of the bi-polar, dialectical encounter.
'Great tension creates great energy' writes Carl Jung, the famous psychologist, but in order for this energy to become focused and harnessed in its most productive fashion, the two conflicting bi-polarities -- ideologies, passions, goals, energies -- have to meet democratically and dialectically to work towards establishing a common, harmonious direction of movement.
Paradoxically, this is both the ultimate achievement and the ultimate failure of mankind.
We can become better at achieving integrative dialectic success stories while leaving more and more of the 'either/or power and control game' behind us which creates more divisionism, alienation, separation, divorce, and war -- than the successful 'win-win, dialectical integrationism and wholism' that we are looking for primarily here.
Words, in this sense, are just another of many various extensions and applications of this repetitive dialectical phenomenon. Like every other element of life, we as humans can either 'win big' or 'lose big' around the dialectical phenomenon of words -- and their dialectic, bi-polar range and focus of meaning. What do I mean by this?
Words and their meaning are dialectic and bi-polar in nature. More specifically, they have both 'narcissistic (selfish) meanings' on the one hand and 'more general, social meanings' on the other hand.
Further complicating this matter is the fact that not only do I have a set of narcissistic meanings for any particular word that I may draw out of the more general, social pool of meaning that might be found in -- let's say a dictionary or in the broader and/or more specific context of everyday social usage -- but so do you.
It is here that the dialectical, bi-polar nature of words may clash and conflict -- just like on evry other projective playground of the human psyche. The human psyche is dialectic or bi-polar. So too, is the meaning of words.
My interpreted meaning of a word does not have to be hugely or oppositely different than yours for the same word. It just has to be a little bit different -- and that can mean all the difference in the world.
How many thousands of communication breakdowns used to happen -- and still happen -- when two people trying to meet up with each other at a particular time and place don't have a cell phone?
What the cell phone allows for in the arena of communication when and where two people are not in the same time and place -- is 'dialectical feedback'.
This may not seem readily important but it is hugely important when two people are trying to meet up with each other and haven't been totally concrete and exact with each other -- let us say before they leave their respective homes -- in terms of the details of their 'time and place' meeting.
The other day I went to work and forgot my cell phone at home. I shared email details over the internet with my girlfriend in terms of our usual time and meeting place at Yonge and Highway 7 at the VIVA bus terminal at 4:45pm. This may all seem simple and straightforward -- until one person doesn't have a cell phone. And then 'little gremlins' start to get into one person's or the other's head if something doesn't go exactly according to the pre-stated plan. One person is late. And the gremlins start to build. Maybe she wanted me to come down to Yonge and Finch to get her at the subway station. Of course, none of these intersections will mean didley squat to you if you do not know the 'actual territory' -- and their relationship to each other -- that my words are talking about. 5 minutes late. 10 minutes late. 15 minutes late. And now the little gremlins have become huge gremlins in my head. Where is she? Yonge and Finch? Yonge and Steeles? She probably turned around and went home when she couldn't get me on her cell phone...One time on another meeting when I did or didn't have my cell phone, she walked up to The Silver City Movie Theatre and walked inside to get warm after waiting too long in the VIVA bus shelter.
You start to get what I am talking about. None of this would happen with cell phone contact -- where you can get your dialectic feedback -- 'I'm still on the bus honey but will be there in 5 minutes - and thus push the little and big gremlins back into their many hiding places in your head to resurface on another day (when you forget your cell phone again -- or become victimized by a different type of communication breakdown).
If you and I cannot 'get it together' on what a word means -- which may entail some amount of greater or lesser semantic specification, asscociation, distinction, negotiation, and integration -- then we 'have failed dialectically to communicate'.
A communication breakdown is a 'dialectical communication breakdown' meaning that you and I both have different 'narcissistic meanings' relative to what a word means in a particular context -- and we are either unaware or ignorant as to this 'narcissistic difference' or we are 'unwilling to compromise' relative to this narcissistic difference.
We may be stuck in a 'Righteous, Either/Or, Power/Control 'One Word-One Meaning' Game. 'My meaning is right; yours is wrong.' 'No, I'm right; you're wrong. Let's look it up in the dictionary. Of course, even dictionaries have multiple meanings for words. And they just get the main, broad, and socially popular ones. The more concrete meanings and finesse meanings and unorthodox meanings, and newer 'sub-culture' meanings, and individual meanings...are all left out of the dictionary. They are the vast array of individual, narcissistic meanings that lay people and technical people use in similar and different contexts with constantly changing ranges and focuses of meaning -- every day, and indeed, from moment to moment.
Words and their vast array of social, group and individual, narcissistic meanings are like 'jellyfish'. They change their shape and size all the time. If individual people in dialogue with each other don't catch these various changes in shape and size, range and focus -- then in many instances they 'miss the boat with each other'. They miss each other's individual meanings in the 'nuance' of something that was said but not meant. Not interpreted in the same fashion that it was meant.
This happens all the time -- with or without cell phones -- but in general, the less dialectic dialogue there is in 'danger zones of easily or even less easily misinterpreted word meanings', the more likely we are to 'go for a communication flip and fall'. Hard angry, and/or hurt, upset emotional feelings are often the result -- particularly in areas of interpreted and/or intended greater intimacy.
Words are simply symbolic extensions of the dialectic, bi-polar nature of the human psyche -- and two or more individuals in a social context. The meaning of words can collide narcissistically in a social, cultural forum -- intentionally or unintentionally -- when people don't give dialectic feedback to each other relative to ambiguous words, abstract words, any type of word that is ripe for potential miscommunication.
Take the time when the time is important to 'come down the ladder of abstraction' and enter into a dialogue of 'association' and 'distinction' around the particular usage of a word -- and even 'pointing' if the circumstances require it.
If I am teaching English to a roomful of people who don't speak English, then I will probably need a lot of 'pictures' and 'concrete objects' and I will probably do a lot of 'pointing'.
This is not a bad thing. Sometimes it is a very important, absolutely necessary thing.
If you want to share the same meaning.
dgb, December 15h, 2007, modfied, edited, and updated December 14th, 2008, unknowingly and amazingly almost a year ago to the day that I originally wrote this essay. Or maybe that's just me.
-- DGBN, December 14th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain.
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism.
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
................................................................................
Words and their meaning can be viewed as dialectic, bi-polar projections and extensions of the human psyche -- and the human individual operating in a social field or social context.
This is no different than any other element of human behavior and culture including philosophy, history, evolution, art, science and medicine, religion, politics and more...
Following in the footsteps of G.W. Hegel, the famous German idealistic dialectic philosopher, and many philosophers less famously before him including Anaxmander, Heraclitus, the Han philosophers, and more -- DGBN Philosophy focuses on one particularly important characteristic of the human psyche -- it's 'dialectic' or 'bi-polar' nature.
Dialectic, bi-polar integration is a key, central facet of every aspect of human -- and non-human -- functioning. When functioning properly, it leads to what biologists and psychologists call 'homeostatic balance'. DGB Philosophy synonyms include 'dialectic balance', 'dialectic-democratic balance', and 'bi-polar balance'.
Philosophical homeostasis -- the principle of the mind and body using 'bi-polar feedback' and 'dialectic idealism' in an integrative, partly conflictual and competitive, partly co-operative and socially sensitive fashion to bring about 'cohesive dialectical unity, wholism, evolution, and balance' -- this is what 'Hegel's Hotel: DGBN Philosophy' is all about.
The DGBN network of some 30 plus inter-connected blogsites that I am building here of which this is one -- are all meant to focus on the inter-related life -- and particularly human -- characteristics and concepts of 'bi-polarity', 'dialectical realism', 'dialectical idealism', 'dialectical wholism', 'dialectical evolution', and 'dialectical harmony' as a means of describing both the many problems and the many potential solutions to human disharmony, disagreement and conflict.
'Dialectic' and 'bi-polar' as words with meaning can be viewed as being partly synonymous with each other, but 'dialectic' in the sense that I am using it here is the more abstract of the two words. It has a broader range of meaning(s). 'Bi-polar' in the sense that it is being used here has a more specific meaning. Bi-polar as used here means 'the opposite ends of a polarity spectrum such as 'black and 'white', or 'male and female' -- brought together in harmonious or partly harmonious unity and wholism through a successful utilization of the democratic-dialectic negotiation and integration process.
Hegel was arguably the first philosopher to really make the 'dialectic' -- both as a phenomenon and as a concept -- famous. Connected to the idea of the dialectic was the idea of bi-polarity -- not used by Hegel but the semantic connection is readily apparent.
'Thesis' and 'anti-thesis' -- two opposing sets of ideas or philosophies or characterics on opposite sides of the 'polar spectrum' facing off against each other, coming into interaction with each other, both attracting and conflicting with each other...this is the nature of the bi-polar, dialectical encounter.
'Great tension creates great energy' writes Carl Jung, the famous psychologist, but in order for this energy to become focused and harnessed in its most productive fashion, the two conflicting bi-polarities -- ideologies, passions, goals, energies -- have to meet democratically and dialectically to work towards establishing a common, harmonious direction of movement.
Paradoxically, this is both the ultimate achievement and the ultimate failure of mankind.
We can become better at achieving integrative dialectic success stories while leaving more and more of the 'either/or power and control game' behind us which creates more divisionism, alienation, separation, divorce, and war -- than the successful 'win-win, dialectical integrationism and wholism' that we are looking for primarily here.
Words, in this sense, are just another of many various extensions and applications of this repetitive dialectical phenomenon. Like every other element of life, we as humans can either 'win big' or 'lose big' around the dialectical phenomenon of words -- and their dialectic, bi-polar range and focus of meaning. What do I mean by this?
Words and their meaning are dialectic and bi-polar in nature. More specifically, they have both 'narcissistic (selfish) meanings' on the one hand and 'more general, social meanings' on the other hand.
Further complicating this matter is the fact that not only do I have a set of narcissistic meanings for any particular word that I may draw out of the more general, social pool of meaning that might be found in -- let's say a dictionary or in the broader and/or more specific context of everyday social usage -- but so do you.
It is here that the dialectical, bi-polar nature of words may clash and conflict -- just like on evry other projective playground of the human psyche. The human psyche is dialectic or bi-polar. So too, is the meaning of words.
My interpreted meaning of a word does not have to be hugely or oppositely different than yours for the same word. It just has to be a little bit different -- and that can mean all the difference in the world.
How many thousands of communication breakdowns used to happen -- and still happen -- when two people trying to meet up with each other at a particular time and place don't have a cell phone?
What the cell phone allows for in the arena of communication when and where two people are not in the same time and place -- is 'dialectical feedback'.
This may not seem readily important but it is hugely important when two people are trying to meet up with each other and haven't been totally concrete and exact with each other -- let us say before they leave their respective homes -- in terms of the details of their 'time and place' meeting.
The other day I went to work and forgot my cell phone at home. I shared email details over the internet with my girlfriend in terms of our usual time and meeting place at Yonge and Highway 7 at the VIVA bus terminal at 4:45pm. This may all seem simple and straightforward -- until one person doesn't have a cell phone. And then 'little gremlins' start to get into one person's or the other's head if something doesn't go exactly according to the pre-stated plan. One person is late. And the gremlins start to build. Maybe she wanted me to come down to Yonge and Finch to get her at the subway station. Of course, none of these intersections will mean didley squat to you if you do not know the 'actual territory' -- and their relationship to each other -- that my words are talking about. 5 minutes late. 10 minutes late. 15 minutes late. And now the little gremlins have become huge gremlins in my head. Where is she? Yonge and Finch? Yonge and Steeles? She probably turned around and went home when she couldn't get me on her cell phone...One time on another meeting when I did or didn't have my cell phone, she walked up to The Silver City Movie Theatre and walked inside to get warm after waiting too long in the VIVA bus shelter.
You start to get what I am talking about. None of this would happen with cell phone contact -- where you can get your dialectic feedback -- 'I'm still on the bus honey but will be there in 5 minutes - and thus push the little and big gremlins back into their many hiding places in your head to resurface on another day (when you forget your cell phone again -- or become victimized by a different type of communication breakdown).
If you and I cannot 'get it together' on what a word means -- which may entail some amount of greater or lesser semantic specification, asscociation, distinction, negotiation, and integration -- then we 'have failed dialectically to communicate'.
A communication breakdown is a 'dialectical communication breakdown' meaning that you and I both have different 'narcissistic meanings' relative to what a word means in a particular context -- and we are either unaware or ignorant as to this 'narcissistic difference' or we are 'unwilling to compromise' relative to this narcissistic difference.
We may be stuck in a 'Righteous, Either/Or, Power/Control 'One Word-One Meaning' Game. 'My meaning is right; yours is wrong.' 'No, I'm right; you're wrong. Let's look it up in the dictionary. Of course, even dictionaries have multiple meanings for words. And they just get the main, broad, and socially popular ones. The more concrete meanings and finesse meanings and unorthodox meanings, and newer 'sub-culture' meanings, and individual meanings...are all left out of the dictionary. They are the vast array of individual, narcissistic meanings that lay people and technical people use in similar and different contexts with constantly changing ranges and focuses of meaning -- every day, and indeed, from moment to moment.
Words and their vast array of social, group and individual, narcissistic meanings are like 'jellyfish'. They change their shape and size all the time. If individual people in dialogue with each other don't catch these various changes in shape and size, range and focus -- then in many instances they 'miss the boat with each other'. They miss each other's individual meanings in the 'nuance' of something that was said but not meant. Not interpreted in the same fashion that it was meant.
This happens all the time -- with or without cell phones -- but in general, the less dialectic dialogue there is in 'danger zones of easily or even less easily misinterpreted word meanings', the more likely we are to 'go for a communication flip and fall'. Hard angry, and/or hurt, upset emotional feelings are often the result -- particularly in areas of interpreted and/or intended greater intimacy.
Words are simply symbolic extensions of the dialectic, bi-polar nature of the human psyche -- and two or more individuals in a social context. The meaning of words can collide narcissistically in a social, cultural forum -- intentionally or unintentionally -- when people don't give dialectic feedback to each other relative to ambiguous words, abstract words, any type of word that is ripe for potential miscommunication.
Take the time when the time is important to 'come down the ladder of abstraction' and enter into a dialogue of 'association' and 'distinction' around the particular usage of a word -- and even 'pointing' if the circumstances require it.
If I am teaching English to a roomful of people who don't speak English, then I will probably need a lot of 'pictures' and 'concrete objects' and I will probably do a lot of 'pointing'.
This is not a bad thing. Sometimes it is a very important, absolutely necessary thing.
If you want to share the same meaning.
dgb, December 15h, 2007, modfied, edited, and updated December 14th, 2008, unknowingly and amazingly almost a year ago to the day that I originally wrote this essay. Or maybe that's just me.
-- DGBN, December 14th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain.
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism.
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. Hume and Kant: On Hume and 'Causality'; and Kant's 'Subjective A Priori Categories'
One of my readers, Srikala, said...
Kant used to say that Hume's idea that there was only sequence not cause as such suffered from a defect. Kant gets round Humean skepticism by introducing cause as a concept of the understanding. Neither was it the only concept. It was one among several. The concepts of the understanding like the forms of intuition are introduced in the Kantian schema as a priori subjective categories. This would of course naturally bring back the Self. For more, if you like, refer http://www.eloquentbooks.com/Kant.html
.........................................................................
Thank you Srikala for your knowledgeable feedback and your insights into both the philosophical thoughts of Hume and Kant. I'd also like to know your own opinions relative to what both Hume and Kant have said. Because your opinions matter too!
Personally and philosophically, I -- and by extension DGB Philosophy -- stand somewhere between both Hume and Kant: not a full Humean skeptic by any means. I am comfortable using the concept of 'self' or 'Self' and believing that this concept represents a 'real subjective-objective entity' with a 'Will to Self-Empowerment and Self-Fulfillment Acting in A Partly Friendly, Partly Hostile Natural and Social Environment'. I view DGB Philosophy as a 'humanistic-existential philosophy-psychology' in this regard.
However, at the same time, I have a real big problem with at least 3 of Kant's 'subjective a priori categories' -- and either you will have to remind me or I will have to go back and look up exactly how many 'a priori categories' Kant theorized.
But here is the problem I have with this type of categorization. And it brings us back to the same 'subjective-objective dialectic split' that Kant was battling with and trying to overcome. In this regard, as another reader has written me, Kant indeed lead Hegel right into the middle of 'dialectic philosophy'.
But irrespective of both Kant and Hegel (and I am certainly closer in my thinking to Hegel than Kant), I view these 3 a priori subjective categories that Kant was talking about not as such but rather as 'subjective-objective categories' and/or as both 'subjective' and 'objective' categories' where it is the responsibility of man -- from a survival and evolution point of view -- to represent accurately in his mind the same (or the structually similar) categories that also exist outside his mind in the 'real, objective world' -- which as Kant stated we can never 'know' and as I would correct Kant and say we can never 'fully know'. Still, our existence both indivdually and collectively as a human species absolutely depends on our being close enough to 'right' and close enough to 'truth' to continue to be alive -- and not dead. This is my Ayn Rand and my Nathaniel Branden and my Alfred Korzybski and my S.I. Hayakawa and my Bertrand Russell influence coming alive and excited within me -- at the expense of both Hume and Kant. And in the middle of all these philosophical and human influences is 'me' -- the one and only unique 'me'. 'My Self' My 'Will to Self-Empowerment'. My 'Individual Willpower to Philosophically Enlighten the world'. (I say that partly tongue in cheek.). More specifically stated, my 'Individual Self-Willpower to Dialectically -- and Multi-Dialectically -- Enlighten The World'...
Man's continued existence -- both individually and collectively -- absolutely demands that he be closer to 'epistemologically right' than to 'epistemologically wrong', especially in contexts/situations of absolute danger.
Like if I step out into the middle of a busy highway, do you really think that I am only going to believe that the issues of 'time' and 'space' and 'cause' are only subjective figments of my imagination? Or is reality going to have the last word on me if I get my so called a priori categories all messed up and out of wack with what might be best referred to as 'accurate representation' of the 'real, objective world' outside my either accurate or inaccurate representation (or parts of both).
Now relative to 'causes' -- causes may be 'causal generalalizations and interpretations and judgments' that we pick out of a crowd amongst a host of other 'dialectical and multi-dialectical factors' but still 'causal factors' exist not only subjectively in our heads but also realistically outside our minds in the world -- regardless, of what kind of horsebleep that Hume wants to try to throw at us in the name of 'logical and philosophical technicalities'.
To be sure, there are many causal factors and co-factors that may be tied up in a 'death' for instance.
For example, if I was an elephant and not a man, I might have more of a chance of living through a car or a truck hitting me at 60 or 80 or 100kms an hour. We can view a car vs. a truck, a human vs. an elephant, and the speed of the oncoming vehicle as all being 'causally relevant' in the result or consequence of the accident -- specifically, whether I am lying dead on the pavement or whether the elephant shakes his head and walks away from the accident.
But whether you are the legendary David Hume or the legendary Immanuel Kant don't try to tell me that all this 'causal' stuff and all this 'subjective a priori' stuff is all in my 'head'. Because if you do, I will say to you: I have a 'bat' here and a 'pillow'. Which one would you like me to hit you with?
And one more thing. I want to once again point out the very important difference between 'unilateral philosophy' and 'bilateral-dialectic philosophy'.
An informed, intelligent feedback comment and/or question from one of my readers and it allows me to make a better distinction between the differences between Hume, Kant, and DGB Philosophy. It's obviously not the same thing as a full-blown philosophical debate, and yet the one short feedback comment allows both you -- my reader -- and me, the author and creator of DGB Philosophy -- to take DGB Philosophy to another level of 'distinctive understanding' that would not have happened otherwise. You may or may not agree with my philosophical perspective but for all of us there is a 'heightened level of epistemological clarity' after a common sense and/or philosophically informed reader has created a 'dialectical point of resistance' around which DGB Philosophy can state a significant difference in its philosophical -- and epistemological -- boundaries.
In other words, keep bringing on the feedback. I love it! It brings me alive!
-- dgb, Dec. 14th, 2008.
Kant used to say that Hume's idea that there was only sequence not cause as such suffered from a defect. Kant gets round Humean skepticism by introducing cause as a concept of the understanding. Neither was it the only concept. It was one among several. The concepts of the understanding like the forms of intuition are introduced in the Kantian schema as a priori subjective categories. This would of course naturally bring back the Self. For more, if you like, refer http://www.eloquentbooks.com/Kant.html
.........................................................................
Thank you Srikala for your knowledgeable feedback and your insights into both the philosophical thoughts of Hume and Kant. I'd also like to know your own opinions relative to what both Hume and Kant have said. Because your opinions matter too!
Personally and philosophically, I -- and by extension DGB Philosophy -- stand somewhere between both Hume and Kant: not a full Humean skeptic by any means. I am comfortable using the concept of 'self' or 'Self' and believing that this concept represents a 'real subjective-objective entity' with a 'Will to Self-Empowerment and Self-Fulfillment Acting in A Partly Friendly, Partly Hostile Natural and Social Environment'. I view DGB Philosophy as a 'humanistic-existential philosophy-psychology' in this regard.
However, at the same time, I have a real big problem with at least 3 of Kant's 'subjective a priori categories' -- and either you will have to remind me or I will have to go back and look up exactly how many 'a priori categories' Kant theorized.
But here is the problem I have with this type of categorization. And it brings us back to the same 'subjective-objective dialectic split' that Kant was battling with and trying to overcome. In this regard, as another reader has written me, Kant indeed lead Hegel right into the middle of 'dialectic philosophy'.
But irrespective of both Kant and Hegel (and I am certainly closer in my thinking to Hegel than Kant), I view these 3 a priori subjective categories that Kant was talking about not as such but rather as 'subjective-objective categories' and/or as both 'subjective' and 'objective' categories' where it is the responsibility of man -- from a survival and evolution point of view -- to represent accurately in his mind the same (or the structually similar) categories that also exist outside his mind in the 'real, objective world' -- which as Kant stated we can never 'know' and as I would correct Kant and say we can never 'fully know'. Still, our existence both indivdually and collectively as a human species absolutely depends on our being close enough to 'right' and close enough to 'truth' to continue to be alive -- and not dead. This is my Ayn Rand and my Nathaniel Branden and my Alfred Korzybski and my S.I. Hayakawa and my Bertrand Russell influence coming alive and excited within me -- at the expense of both Hume and Kant. And in the middle of all these philosophical and human influences is 'me' -- the one and only unique 'me'. 'My Self' My 'Will to Self-Empowerment'. My 'Individual Willpower to Philosophically Enlighten the world'. (I say that partly tongue in cheek.). More specifically stated, my 'Individual Self-Willpower to Dialectically -- and Multi-Dialectically -- Enlighten The World'...
Man's continued existence -- both individually and collectively -- absolutely demands that he be closer to 'epistemologically right' than to 'epistemologically wrong', especially in contexts/situations of absolute danger.
Like if I step out into the middle of a busy highway, do you really think that I am only going to believe that the issues of 'time' and 'space' and 'cause' are only subjective figments of my imagination? Or is reality going to have the last word on me if I get my so called a priori categories all messed up and out of wack with what might be best referred to as 'accurate representation' of the 'real, objective world' outside my either accurate or inaccurate representation (or parts of both).
Now relative to 'causes' -- causes may be 'causal generalalizations and interpretations and judgments' that we pick out of a crowd amongst a host of other 'dialectical and multi-dialectical factors' but still 'causal factors' exist not only subjectively in our heads but also realistically outside our minds in the world -- regardless, of what kind of horsebleep that Hume wants to try to throw at us in the name of 'logical and philosophical technicalities'.
To be sure, there are many causal factors and co-factors that may be tied up in a 'death' for instance.
For example, if I was an elephant and not a man, I might have more of a chance of living through a car or a truck hitting me at 60 or 80 or 100kms an hour. We can view a car vs. a truck, a human vs. an elephant, and the speed of the oncoming vehicle as all being 'causally relevant' in the result or consequence of the accident -- specifically, whether I am lying dead on the pavement or whether the elephant shakes his head and walks away from the accident.
But whether you are the legendary David Hume or the legendary Immanuel Kant don't try to tell me that all this 'causal' stuff and all this 'subjective a priori' stuff is all in my 'head'. Because if you do, I will say to you: I have a 'bat' here and a 'pillow'. Which one would you like me to hit you with?
And one more thing. I want to once again point out the very important difference between 'unilateral philosophy' and 'bilateral-dialectic philosophy'.
An informed, intelligent feedback comment and/or question from one of my readers and it allows me to make a better distinction between the differences between Hume, Kant, and DGB Philosophy. It's obviously not the same thing as a full-blown philosophical debate, and yet the one short feedback comment allows both you -- my reader -- and me, the author and creator of DGB Philosophy -- to take DGB Philosophy to another level of 'distinctive understanding' that would not have happened otherwise. You may or may not agree with my philosophical perspective but for all of us there is a 'heightened level of epistemological clarity' after a common sense and/or philosophically informed reader has created a 'dialectical point of resistance' around which DGB Philosophy can state a significant difference in its philosophical -- and epistemological -- boundaries.
In other words, keep bringing on the feedback. I love it! It brings me alive!
-- dgb, Dec. 14th, 2008.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Three Inter-Connected Areas of DGB Epistemology: 1. DGB Cognitive Theory; 2. DGB Dialectic Theory; and 3. DGB Cognitive-Dialectic Theory
In constructive process...
In this essay, we will begin to explore two different areas of DGB Epistemology: 1. DGB Cognitive Theory; and 2. DGB Dialectic Theory; and 3. the synthesis of these two ideas: DGB Cognitive-Dialectic Theory.
You can see the three different areas or components of 'The Hegelian Dialectic Cycle' here: 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3. synthesis.
DGB Philosophy holds the belief -- in standard Hegelian style -- that whenever two theories stand in opposition to each other, and both seem to have an element of 'truth' and/or 'value' in them, the reality of the situation is such that both probably do have and an element of both 'truth' and 'value' in them -- even as they seemingly contradict each other -- and in effect the two polar or differential theories are crying for a good 'Hegelian' or 'post-Hegelian' philosopher (or set of philosophers, set of philosopher-business-men(women), set of philosopher-politicians, etc. such as Parliament and/or The Senate, and/or The Senate and House of Representatives) to enter the situation and work on the two theories -- dialectically and democratically -- negotiate their respective strengths and weaknesses -- and start to synthesize them, in the process, coming up with an integrative theory that is superior to either of the two paradoxical, polar, and/or differential theories or philosphies standing on its own.
This is the heart of Hegelian Dialectic Theory. And it is also the heart of DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory. The only difference between the two is about '200 years of further evolution' in which DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy has integrated some elements of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, 'Enligtenment-Romanticism', 'Apollonian-Dionysianism', 'Subjective-Objectivism', 'Free-Will-Determinism, Freud, Adler, Jung, Perls, Sartre, Korzybski, Hayakawa, Foucault, Derrida, Branden, Rand, and others...along the way to where I sit right now...
DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory is basically more of a 'free-will-determinist-humanistic-existential' theory than Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory. 'Free-will' and 'Determinism' are two polar theories whereby DGB Dialectic Theory splits the difference and integrates the two theories. Similarly, 'Humanism' and 'Existentialism' -- in DGB Philosophy at least -- are two polar theories, the first emphasizing 'compassion and empathy' and the second emphasizing 'existential accountability' whereby DGB Dialectic Theory again splits the difference and integrates the two theories.
One can easily see how -- politically -- Hegelian Dialectic Theory became split between 'Left-Wing Hegelian Dialectic Theory' and 'Right Wing Hegelian Dialectic Theory. Indeed, Hegel has often been at least partly blamed for 'Left Wing Marxist Dialectic Extremism' and at the same time, 'Right Wing Nazi-Fascist Dialectic Extremism'.
In the view of DGB Philosophy, both of these editorial viewpoints miss the Hegelian Dialectic Point. Specifically, neither Hegelian Classic Dialectic Theory nor DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory advocate or trumpet any form of 'philosophical and/or behavioral extremism'.
Now obviously, I can speak more for myself than for Hegel, and Hegel seemed to be very 'non-committal' and/or 'diplomatic' when it came to his political points of view. Correct me if I am wrong on this opinion -- any of you Hegelian scholars out there -- but from what I have read, it seemed like Hegel didn't want to 'upset the political apple cart'. There seemed to be a certain element of -- shall we say 'political lobbyism' (The American and Canadian people would know something about that) -- between Hegel who was being 'treated kindly by the 'Prussian Aristocrats' in exchange for Hegel calling the 'Prussian Goverment the best in evolutionary history'. Private, personal narcissism rears its ugly head again -- and undermines 'philosophical integrity' shall we say. Maybe I am not being fair to Hegel here. I will search for 'scholarly references' and perhaps come back to this point.
Similarily, if in my political essays, I have been fairly hard on the American Republic Party it is not because I don't have some strong 'Republcan Ideals' -- because I do; I just don't share any taste for the type of 'negative campaigning' that McCain and Palin have emphasized in their speeches and ads, believing that the closer we come to the actual voting, and the further McCain has fallen behind in the polls, the more he has gone to a 'right-wing extremist, almost Fascist-Nazi style, hate-division rheoric that I see no place for in any form of Republican Idealism that I advocate and/or trumpet.
Similarily, if Obama does become President and takes America even deeper and deeper into debt with increased spending, larger government, and no compensatory savings to get America out of the huge debt abyss that it is in, then I will start to come down hard on Obama as well. But we haven't got there yet.
That is why I view myself as a 'Republican-Democratic, Conservative-Liberal, Integrative Idealist-Realist'. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. We haven't got there yet. Back to epistemology...and the influence of 'General Semantics' on DGB Epistemology.
In this essay, we will begin to explore two different areas of DGB Epistemology: 1. DGB Cognitive Theory; and 2. DGB Dialectic Theory; and 3. the synthesis of these two ideas: DGB Cognitive-Dialectic Theory.
You can see the three different areas or components of 'The Hegelian Dialectic Cycle' here: 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3. synthesis.
DGB Philosophy holds the belief -- in standard Hegelian style -- that whenever two theories stand in opposition to each other, and both seem to have an element of 'truth' and/or 'value' in them, the reality of the situation is such that both probably do have and an element of both 'truth' and 'value' in them -- even as they seemingly contradict each other -- and in effect the two polar or differential theories are crying for a good 'Hegelian' or 'post-Hegelian' philosopher (or set of philosophers, set of philosopher-business-men(women), set of philosopher-politicians, etc. such as Parliament and/or The Senate, and/or The Senate and House of Representatives) to enter the situation and work on the two theories -- dialectically and democratically -- negotiate their respective strengths and weaknesses -- and start to synthesize them, in the process, coming up with an integrative theory that is superior to either of the two paradoxical, polar, and/or differential theories or philosphies standing on its own.
This is the heart of Hegelian Dialectic Theory. And it is also the heart of DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory. The only difference between the two is about '200 years of further evolution' in which DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy has integrated some elements of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, 'Enligtenment-Romanticism', 'Apollonian-Dionysianism', 'Subjective-Objectivism', 'Free-Will-Determinism, Freud, Adler, Jung, Perls, Sartre, Korzybski, Hayakawa, Foucault, Derrida, Branden, Rand, and others...along the way to where I sit right now...
DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory is basically more of a 'free-will-determinist-humanistic-existential' theory than Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory. 'Free-will' and 'Determinism' are two polar theories whereby DGB Dialectic Theory splits the difference and integrates the two theories. Similarly, 'Humanism' and 'Existentialism' -- in DGB Philosophy at least -- are two polar theories, the first emphasizing 'compassion and empathy' and the second emphasizing 'existential accountability' whereby DGB Dialectic Theory again splits the difference and integrates the two theories.
One can easily see how -- politically -- Hegelian Dialectic Theory became split between 'Left-Wing Hegelian Dialectic Theory' and 'Right Wing Hegelian Dialectic Theory. Indeed, Hegel has often been at least partly blamed for 'Left Wing Marxist Dialectic Extremism' and at the same time, 'Right Wing Nazi-Fascist Dialectic Extremism'.
In the view of DGB Philosophy, both of these editorial viewpoints miss the Hegelian Dialectic Point. Specifically, neither Hegelian Classic Dialectic Theory nor DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic Theory advocate or trumpet any form of 'philosophical and/or behavioral extremism'.
Now obviously, I can speak more for myself than for Hegel, and Hegel seemed to be very 'non-committal' and/or 'diplomatic' when it came to his political points of view. Correct me if I am wrong on this opinion -- any of you Hegelian scholars out there -- but from what I have read, it seemed like Hegel didn't want to 'upset the political apple cart'. There seemed to be a certain element of -- shall we say 'political lobbyism' (The American and Canadian people would know something about that) -- between Hegel who was being 'treated kindly by the 'Prussian Aristocrats' in exchange for Hegel calling the 'Prussian Goverment the best in evolutionary history'. Private, personal narcissism rears its ugly head again -- and undermines 'philosophical integrity' shall we say. Maybe I am not being fair to Hegel here. I will search for 'scholarly references' and perhaps come back to this point.
Similarily, if in my political essays, I have been fairly hard on the American Republic Party it is not because I don't have some strong 'Republcan Ideals' -- because I do; I just don't share any taste for the type of 'negative campaigning' that McCain and Palin have emphasized in their speeches and ads, believing that the closer we come to the actual voting, and the further McCain has fallen behind in the polls, the more he has gone to a 'right-wing extremist, almost Fascist-Nazi style, hate-division rheoric that I see no place for in any form of Republican Idealism that I advocate and/or trumpet.
Similarily, if Obama does become President and takes America even deeper and deeper into debt with increased spending, larger government, and no compensatory savings to get America out of the huge debt abyss that it is in, then I will start to come down hard on Obama as well. But we haven't got there yet.
That is why I view myself as a 'Republican-Democratic, Conservative-Liberal, Integrative Idealist-Realist'. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. We haven't got there yet. Back to epistemology...and the influence of 'General Semantics' on DGB Epistemology.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Alfred Korzybski
Alfred Korzybski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)
Alfred Korzybski
Born July 3, 1879(1879-07-03)
Warsaw, Congress Poland
Died March 1, 1950 (aged 70)
Lakeville, Connecticut, USA
Occupation Engineer, philosopher, mathematician
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (pronounced /kɔ'ʐɨpski/) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American philosopher and scientist. He is most remembered for developing the theory of general semantics.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life and career
2 General semantics
3 Korzybski and to be
4 Anecdote about Korzybski
5 Criticisms
6 Impact
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
[edit] Early life and career
Alfred Korzybski's family coat-of-arms (Habdank).He was born in Warsaw, Congress Poland. He came from an aristocratic family whose members had worked as mathematicians, scientists, and engineers for generations. He learned Polish at home and Russian in the schools; and having a French governess and a German governess, he became fluent in four languages as a child. As an adult, he chose to train as an engineer.
Korzybski was educated at the Warsaw University of Technology. During the First World War Korzybski served as an intelligence officer in the Russian Army. After being wounded in his leg and suffering other injuries, he came to North America in 1916 (first to Canada, then the United States) to coordinate the shipment of artillery to the war front. He also lectured to Polish-American audiences about the conflict, promoting the sale of war bonds. Following the war, he decided to remain in the United States, becoming a naturalized citizen in 1940. His first book, Manhood of Humanity, was published in 1921. In the book, he proposed and explained in detail a new theory of humankind: mankind as a time-binding class of life.
[edit] General semantics
Korzybski's work culminated in the founding of a discipline that he called general semantics (GS). As Korzybski explicitly said, GS should not be confused with semantics, a different subject. The basic principles of general semantics, which include time-binding, are outlined in Science and Sanity, published in 1933. In 1938 Korzybski founded the Institute of General Semantics and directed it until his death in Lakeville, Connecticut, USA.
Korzybski's work held a view that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is going on sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually going on. He stressed training in awareness of abstracting, using techniques that he had derived from his study of mathematics and science. He called this awareness, this goal of his system, "consciousness of abstracting." His system included modifying the way we approach the world, e.g., with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see," to better discover or reflect its realities as shown by modern science. One of these techniques involved becoming inwardly and outwardly quiet, an experience that he called, "silence on the objective levels."
[edit] Korzybski and to be
Many supporters and critics of Korzybski reduced his rather complex system to a simple matter of what he said about the verb 'to be.' His system, however, is based primarily on such terminology as the different 'orders of abstraction,' and formulations such as 'consciousness of abstracting.' It is often said that Korzybski opposed the use of the verb "to be," an unfortunate exaggeration (see 'Criticisms' below). He thought that certain uses of the verb "to be," called the "is of identity" and the "is of predication," were faulty in structure, e.g., a statement such as, "Joe is a fool" (said of a person named 'Joe' who has done something that we regard as foolish). In Korzybski's system, one's assessment of Joe belongs to a higher order of abstraction than Joe himself. Korzybski's remedy was to deny identity; in this example, to be continually aware that 'Joe' is not what we call him. We find Joe not in the verbal domain, the world of words, but the nonverbal domain (the two, he said, amount to different orders of abstraction). This was expressed in Korzybski's most famous premise, "the map is not the territory." Note that this premise uses the phrase "is not", a form of "to be"; this and many other examples show that he did not intend to abandon "to be" as such. In fact, he expressly said that there were no structural problems with the verb "to be" when used as an auxiliary verb or when used to state existence or location. It was even 'OK' sometimes to use the faulty forms of the verb 'to be,' as long as one was aware of their structural limitations. This was developed into E-prime by one of his students 15 years after his death.
[edit] Anecdote about Korzybski
One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he suddenly interrupted the lesson in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row, if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think", said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies". The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to throw up, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see, ladies and gentlemen", Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter." Apparently his prank aimed to illustrate how some human suffering originates from the confusion or conflation of linguistic representations of reality and reality itself.[1]
[edit] Criticisms
See the criticism section of the main General Semantics article.
[edit] Impact
Korzybski's work influenced Gestalt Therapy[citation needed], Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy[2], and Neuro-linguistic programming[3] (especially the Meta model and ideas behind human modeling for performance). As reported in the Third Edition of Science and Sanity, The U.S. Army in World War II used his system to treat battle fatigue in Europe under the supervision of Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, who also became the psychiatrist in charge of the Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg. Other individuals influenced by Korzybski include Kenneth Burke, William S. Burroughs, Frank Herbert, Albert Ellis, Gregory Bateson, John Grinder, Buckminster Fuller, Douglas Engelbart, Stuart Chase, Alvin Toffler, Robert A. Heinlein (Korzybski is mentioned in the 1949 novella Gulf), L. Ron Hubbard, A. E. van Vogt, Robert Anton Wilson, entertainer Steve Allen, and Tommy Hall (lyricist for the 13th Floor Elevators); and scientists such as William Alanson White (psychiatry), physicist P. W. Bridgman, and researcher W. Horsley Gantt (a former student and colleague of Pavlov). He also influenced the Belgian surrealist writer of comics Jan Bucquoy in the seventh part of the comics series Jaunes: Labyrinthe, with explicit reference in the plot to Korzybski's "the map is not the territory."
In part the General Semantics tradition was upheld by Samuel I. Hayakawa, who did have a falling out with Korzybski. When asked over what, Hayakawa is said to have replied: "Words".
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Alfred Korzybski
[edit] See also
General Semantics
The map is not the territory
Structural differential
E-Prime
Institute of General Semantics
Robert Pula
Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture
Science and Sanity Complete work online.
[edit] References
^ R. Diekstra, Haarlemmer Dagblad, 1993, cited by L. Derks & J. Hollander, Essenties van NLP (Utrecht: Servire, 1996), p. 58.
^ http://time-binding.org/misc/akml/akmls/58-ellis.pdf
^ Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1975). The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
[edit] Further reading
Manhood of Humanity, Alfred Korzybski, forward by Edward Kasner, notes by M. Kendig, Institute of General Semantics, 1950, hardcover, 2nd edition, 391 pages, ISBN 0-937298-00-X. (Copy of the first edition)
Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, Preface by Robert P. Pula, Institute of General Semantics, 1994, hardcover, 5th edition, ISBN 0-937298-01-8, (full text online)
Alfred Korzybski: Collected Writings 1920-1950, Institute of General Semantics, 1990, hardcover, ISBN 0-685-40616-4
Montagu, M. F. A. (1953). Time-binding and the concept of culture. The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Sep., 1953), pp. 148-155.
Murray, E. (1950). In memoriam: Alfred H. Korzybski. Sociometry, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Feb., 1950), pp. 76-77.
[edit] External links
Institute of General Semantics
Alfred Korzybski and Gestalt Therapy Website
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski"
Categories: 1879 births | 1950 deaths | General semantics | Naturalized citizens of the United States | Neuro-Linguistic Programming predecessors | Americans of Polish descent | Polish engineers | Polish philosophers | Polish mathematicians | Polish linguists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2007)
Alfred Korzybski
Born July 3, 1879(1879-07-03)
Warsaw, Congress Poland
Died March 1, 1950 (aged 70)
Lakeville, Connecticut, USA
Occupation Engineer, philosopher, mathematician
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (pronounced /kɔ'ʐɨpski/) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950) was a Polish-American philosopher and scientist. He is most remembered for developing the theory of general semantics.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life and career
2 General semantics
3 Korzybski and to be
4 Anecdote about Korzybski
5 Criticisms
6 Impact
7 See also
8 References
9 Further reading
10 External links
[edit] Early life and career
Alfred Korzybski's family coat-of-arms (Habdank).He was born in Warsaw, Congress Poland. He came from an aristocratic family whose members had worked as mathematicians, scientists, and engineers for generations. He learned Polish at home and Russian in the schools; and having a French governess and a German governess, he became fluent in four languages as a child. As an adult, he chose to train as an engineer.
Korzybski was educated at the Warsaw University of Technology. During the First World War Korzybski served as an intelligence officer in the Russian Army. After being wounded in his leg and suffering other injuries, he came to North America in 1916 (first to Canada, then the United States) to coordinate the shipment of artillery to the war front. He also lectured to Polish-American audiences about the conflict, promoting the sale of war bonds. Following the war, he decided to remain in the United States, becoming a naturalized citizen in 1940. His first book, Manhood of Humanity, was published in 1921. In the book, he proposed and explained in detail a new theory of humankind: mankind as a time-binding class of life.
[edit] General semantics
Korzybski's work culminated in the founding of a discipline that he called general semantics (GS). As Korzybski explicitly said, GS should not be confused with semantics, a different subject. The basic principles of general semantics, which include time-binding, are outlined in Science and Sanity, published in 1933. In 1938 Korzybski founded the Institute of General Semantics and directed it until his death in Lakeville, Connecticut, USA.
Korzybski's work held a view that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language). Sometimes our perceptions and our languages actually mislead us as to the "facts" with which we must deal. Our understanding of what is going on sometimes lacks similarity of structure with what is actually going on. He stressed training in awareness of abstracting, using techniques that he had derived from his study of mathematics and science. He called this awareness, this goal of his system, "consciousness of abstracting." His system included modifying the way we approach the world, e.g., with an attitude of "I don't know; let's see," to better discover or reflect its realities as shown by modern science. One of these techniques involved becoming inwardly and outwardly quiet, an experience that he called, "silence on the objective levels."
[edit] Korzybski and to be
Many supporters and critics of Korzybski reduced his rather complex system to a simple matter of what he said about the verb 'to be.' His system, however, is based primarily on such terminology as the different 'orders of abstraction,' and formulations such as 'consciousness of abstracting.' It is often said that Korzybski opposed the use of the verb "to be," an unfortunate exaggeration (see 'Criticisms' below). He thought that certain uses of the verb "to be," called the "is of identity" and the "is of predication," were faulty in structure, e.g., a statement such as, "Joe is a fool" (said of a person named 'Joe' who has done something that we regard as foolish). In Korzybski's system, one's assessment of Joe belongs to a higher order of abstraction than Joe himself. Korzybski's remedy was to deny identity; in this example, to be continually aware that 'Joe' is not what we call him. We find Joe not in the verbal domain, the world of words, but the nonverbal domain (the two, he said, amount to different orders of abstraction). This was expressed in Korzybski's most famous premise, "the map is not the territory." Note that this premise uses the phrase "is not", a form of "to be"; this and many other examples show that he did not intend to abandon "to be" as such. In fact, he expressly said that there were no structural problems with the verb "to be" when used as an auxiliary verb or when used to state existence or location. It was even 'OK' sometimes to use the faulty forms of the verb 'to be,' as long as one was aware of their structural limitations. This was developed into E-prime by one of his students 15 years after his death.
[edit] Anecdote about Korzybski
One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he suddenly interrupted the lesson in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row, if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think", said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies". The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to throw up, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see, ladies and gentlemen", Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter." Apparently his prank aimed to illustrate how some human suffering originates from the confusion or conflation of linguistic representations of reality and reality itself.[1]
[edit] Criticisms
See the criticism section of the main General Semantics article.
[edit] Impact
Korzybski's work influenced Gestalt Therapy[citation needed], Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy[2], and Neuro-linguistic programming[3] (especially the Meta model and ideas behind human modeling for performance). As reported in the Third Edition of Science and Sanity, The U.S. Army in World War II used his system to treat battle fatigue in Europe under the supervision of Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, who also became the psychiatrist in charge of the Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg. Other individuals influenced by Korzybski include Kenneth Burke, William S. Burroughs, Frank Herbert, Albert Ellis, Gregory Bateson, John Grinder, Buckminster Fuller, Douglas Engelbart, Stuart Chase, Alvin Toffler, Robert A. Heinlein (Korzybski is mentioned in the 1949 novella Gulf), L. Ron Hubbard, A. E. van Vogt, Robert Anton Wilson, entertainer Steve Allen, and Tommy Hall (lyricist for the 13th Floor Elevators); and scientists such as William Alanson White (psychiatry), physicist P. W. Bridgman, and researcher W. Horsley Gantt (a former student and colleague of Pavlov). He also influenced the Belgian surrealist writer of comics Jan Bucquoy in the seventh part of the comics series Jaunes: Labyrinthe, with explicit reference in the plot to Korzybski's "the map is not the territory."
In part the General Semantics tradition was upheld by Samuel I. Hayakawa, who did have a falling out with Korzybski. When asked over what, Hayakawa is said to have replied: "Words".
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Alfred Korzybski
[edit] See also
General Semantics
The map is not the territory
Structural differential
E-Prime
Institute of General Semantics
Robert Pula
Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture
Science and Sanity Complete work online.
[edit] References
^ R. Diekstra, Haarlemmer Dagblad, 1993, cited by L. Derks & J. Hollander, Essenties van NLP (Utrecht: Servire, 1996), p. 58.
^ http://time-binding.org/misc/akml/akmls/58-ellis.pdf
^ Bandler, Richard & John Grinder (1975). The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
[edit] Further reading
Manhood of Humanity, Alfred Korzybski, forward by Edward Kasner, notes by M. Kendig, Institute of General Semantics, 1950, hardcover, 2nd edition, 391 pages, ISBN 0-937298-00-X. (Copy of the first edition)
Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, Preface by Robert P. Pula, Institute of General Semantics, 1994, hardcover, 5th edition, ISBN 0-937298-01-8, (full text online)
Alfred Korzybski: Collected Writings 1920-1950, Institute of General Semantics, 1990, hardcover, ISBN 0-685-40616-4
Montagu, M. F. A. (1953). Time-binding and the concept of culture. The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, No. 3 (Sep., 1953), pp. 148-155.
Murray, E. (1950). In memoriam: Alfred H. Korzybski. Sociometry, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Feb., 1950), pp. 76-77.
[edit] External links
Institute of General Semantics
Alfred Korzybski and Gestalt Therapy Website
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski"
Categories: 1879 births | 1950 deaths | General semantics | Naturalized citizens of the United States | Neuro-Linguistic Programming predecessors | Americans of Polish descent | Polish engineers | Polish philosophers | Polish mathematicians | Polish linguists
A Brief Synopsis Of The Life and Works of General Semanticist, S.I. Hayakawa
S. I. Hayakawa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
S. I. Hayakawa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Senator
from California
In office
January 2, 1977 – January 3, 1983
Preceded by John V. Tunney
Succeeded by Pete Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born July 18, 1906
Vancouver, British Columbia
Died February 27, 1992 (aged 85)
Greenbrae, California
Political party Republican
Profession English professor
Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa (July 18, 1906 – February 27, 1992) was a Canadian-born American academic and political figure. He was an English professor, served as president of San Francisco State University and then a United States Senator from California from 1977 to 1983. Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, he was educated in the public schools of Calgary, Alberta and Winnipeg, Manitoba; received his undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg in 1927; graduate degrees in English from McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1928, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1935.
Contents [hide]
1 Academic career
1.1 Student strike at San Francisco State University
2 Political career
3 References
[edit] Academic career
Professionally, Hayakawa was a psychologist, semanticist, teacher and writer. He was an instructor at the University of Wisconsin from 1936 to 1939 and at the Armour Institute of Technology from 1939 to 1947. Hayakawa was an important semanticist. His first book on the subject, Language in Thought and Action, was published in 1949 as an expansion of the earlier work, Language in Action, written since 1938 and published in 1941 to be a Book-of-the-Month Club selection. It is currently in its fifth edition and has greatly helped popularize Alfred Korzybski's general semantics and in effect semantics in general, while semantics or theory of meaning was overwhelmed by mysticism, propagandism and even scientism. In the Preface, he said:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
In addition to such motivation, he acknowledged his debt as follows:
"My deepest debt in this book is to the General Semantics ('non-Aristotelian system') of Alfred Korzybski. I have also drawn heavily upon the works of other contributors to semantic thought: especially C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, Thorstein Veblen, Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, Karl R. Popper, Thurman Arnold, Jerome Frank, Jean Piaget, Charles Morris, Wendell Johnson, Irving J. Lee, Ernst Cassirer, Anatol Rapoport, Stuart Chase. I am also deeply indebted to the writings of numerous psychologists and psychiatrists with one or another of the dynamic points of view inspired by Sigmund Freud: Karl Menninger, Trigant Burrow, Carl Rogers, Kurt Lewin, N. R. F. Maier, Jurgen Ruesch, Gregory Bateson, Rudolf Dreikurs, Milton Rokeach. I have also found extremely helpful the writings of cultural anthropologists, especially those of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Ruth Benedict, Clyde Kluckhohn, Leslie A. White, Margaret Mead, Weston La Barre."
He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago from 1950 to 1955. During this time he presented a talk at the 1954 Conference of Activity Vector Analysts at Lake George, New York in which he discussed a theory of personality from the semantic point of view. This was later published as The Semantic Barrier. This was a definitive lecture as it discussed the Darwinism of the "survival of self" as contrasted with the "survival of self-concept".
He became an English professor at San Francisco State College (now called San Francisco State University) from 1955 to 1968. In the early 1960s, he helped organize the Anti Digit Dialing League, a group in San Francisco that opposed the introduction of all digit telephone exchange names. Among the students he trained were commune leader Stephen Gaskin and author Gerald Haslam. He became president of San Francisco State College during the turbulent period of 1968 to 1973, becoming president emeritus in 1973 and then wrote a column for the Register & Tribune Syndicate from 1970 to 1976.
[edit] Student strike at San Francisco State University
During 1968-69, there was a bitter student strike at San Francisco State University that was a major news event at the time and chapter in the radical history of the United States and the Bay Area. The strike was led by the Third World Liberation Front supported by Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the counter-cultural community, among others. It demanded an end to racism, creation of a Black Studies Department and an end to the War in Vietnam and the university's complicity with it. Hayakawa became popular with mainstream voters in this period after he pulled the wires out from the speakers on a student van at an outdoor rally, dramatically disrupting it. [1] , [2] , [3]
[edit] Political career
1977, Congressional Pictorial DirectoryHe was elected in California as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1976, defeating incumbent Democrat John V. Tunney. Hayakawa served from January 3, 1977 to January 3, 1983. He did not stand for reelection in 1982 and was succeeded by Republican Pete Wilson.
Hayakawa founded the political lobbying organization U.S. English, which is dedicated to making the English language the official language of the United States.
The Senator was a resident of Mill Valley, California until his death in Greenbrae, California, in 1992. He was also a member of the Bohemian Club, the first member of the club of Japanese ancestry. He also had an abiding interest in traditional jazz and wrote extensively on that subject, including several erudite sets of album liner notes. Sometimes in his lectures on semantics, he was joined by the respected traditional jazz pianist, Don Ewell, whom Hayakawa employed to demonstrate various points in which he analyzed semantic and musical principles.
[edit] References
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
S. I. HayakawaS. I. Hayakawa at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
Fox, R. F. (1991). A conversation with the Hayakawas. The English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Feb., 1991), pp. 36-40.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
S. I. Hayakawa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Senator
from California
In office
January 2, 1977 – January 3, 1983
Preceded by John V. Tunney
Succeeded by Pete Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Born July 18, 1906
Vancouver, British Columbia
Died February 27, 1992 (aged 85)
Greenbrae, California
Political party Republican
Profession English professor
Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa (July 18, 1906 – February 27, 1992) was a Canadian-born American academic and political figure. He was an English professor, served as president of San Francisco State University and then a United States Senator from California from 1977 to 1983. Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, he was educated in the public schools of Calgary, Alberta and Winnipeg, Manitoba; received his undergraduate degree from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg in 1927; graduate degrees in English from McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, in 1928, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1935.
Contents [hide]
1 Academic career
1.1 Student strike at San Francisco State University
2 Political career
3 References
[edit] Academic career
Professionally, Hayakawa was a psychologist, semanticist, teacher and writer. He was an instructor at the University of Wisconsin from 1936 to 1939 and at the Armour Institute of Technology from 1939 to 1947. Hayakawa was an important semanticist. His first book on the subject, Language in Thought and Action, was published in 1949 as an expansion of the earlier work, Language in Action, written since 1938 and published in 1941 to be a Book-of-the-Month Club selection. It is currently in its fifth edition and has greatly helped popularize Alfred Korzybski's general semantics and in effect semantics in general, while semantics or theory of meaning was overwhelmed by mysticism, propagandism and even scientism. In the Preface, he said:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
In addition to such motivation, he acknowledged his debt as follows:
"My deepest debt in this book is to the General Semantics ('non-Aristotelian system') of Alfred Korzybski. I have also drawn heavily upon the works of other contributors to semantic thought: especially C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, Thorstein Veblen, Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield, Karl R. Popper, Thurman Arnold, Jerome Frank, Jean Piaget, Charles Morris, Wendell Johnson, Irving J. Lee, Ernst Cassirer, Anatol Rapoport, Stuart Chase. I am also deeply indebted to the writings of numerous psychologists and psychiatrists with one or another of the dynamic points of view inspired by Sigmund Freud: Karl Menninger, Trigant Burrow, Carl Rogers, Kurt Lewin, N. R. F. Maier, Jurgen Ruesch, Gregory Bateson, Rudolf Dreikurs, Milton Rokeach. I have also found extremely helpful the writings of cultural anthropologists, especially those of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Ruth Benedict, Clyde Kluckhohn, Leslie A. White, Margaret Mead, Weston La Barre."
He was a lecturer at the University of Chicago from 1950 to 1955. During this time he presented a talk at the 1954 Conference of Activity Vector Analysts at Lake George, New York in which he discussed a theory of personality from the semantic point of view. This was later published as The Semantic Barrier. This was a definitive lecture as it discussed the Darwinism of the "survival of self" as contrasted with the "survival of self-concept".
He became an English professor at San Francisco State College (now called San Francisco State University) from 1955 to 1968. In the early 1960s, he helped organize the Anti Digit Dialing League, a group in San Francisco that opposed the introduction of all digit telephone exchange names. Among the students he trained were commune leader Stephen Gaskin and author Gerald Haslam. He became president of San Francisco State College during the turbulent period of 1968 to 1973, becoming president emeritus in 1973 and then wrote a column for the Register & Tribune Syndicate from 1970 to 1976.
[edit] Student strike at San Francisco State University
During 1968-69, there was a bitter student strike at San Francisco State University that was a major news event at the time and chapter in the radical history of the United States and the Bay Area. The strike was led by the Third World Liberation Front supported by Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the counter-cultural community, among others. It demanded an end to racism, creation of a Black Studies Department and an end to the War in Vietnam and the university's complicity with it. Hayakawa became popular with mainstream voters in this period after he pulled the wires out from the speakers on a student van at an outdoor rally, dramatically disrupting it. [1] , [2] , [3]
[edit] Political career
1977, Congressional Pictorial DirectoryHe was elected in California as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1976, defeating incumbent Democrat John V. Tunney. Hayakawa served from January 3, 1977 to January 3, 1983. He did not stand for reelection in 1982 and was succeeded by Republican Pete Wilson.
Hayakawa founded the political lobbying organization U.S. English, which is dedicated to making the English language the official language of the United States.
The Senator was a resident of Mill Valley, California until his death in Greenbrae, California, in 1992. He was also a member of the Bohemian Club, the first member of the club of Japanese ancestry. He also had an abiding interest in traditional jazz and wrote extensively on that subject, including several erudite sets of album liner notes. Sometimes in his lectures on semantics, he was joined by the respected traditional jazz pianist, Don Ewell, whom Hayakawa employed to demonstrate various points in which he analyzed semantic and musical principles.
[edit] References
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
S. I. HayakawaS. I. Hayakawa at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress
Fox, R. F. (1991). A conversation with the Hayakawas. The English Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Feb., 1991), pp. 36-40.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Evaluation and Health: Then (1979) and Now (2008), Part 1: Introduction
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Introduction
The issue of values and evaluation represents a crucial problem in regard to man's life. On the one hand, man is free to evaluate and respond to the situations he is confronted with in his day-to-day life as he or she pleases, but on the other hand, man is not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations and responses on his or her life and well-being.
A person's evaluations then, can be said to be 'effective' or 'functional' to the extent that they are life-serving -- that is, they work towards protecting and/or enhancing the person's health and happiness. Conversely, a person's evaluations can be said to be 'ineffective' and 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are life-negating -- that is, they work towards sabotaging the person's health and happiness.
........................................................................
Editorial Commments, dgb, 2008
In 1979, I was 24 years old. My main influence in the top two paragraphs was Nathaniel Branden and his book, 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem'. Nathaniel Branden was working very closely with Ayn Rand at the time, herself an avid Capitalist writer-philosopher in the Adam Smith mold. I had read Rand's famous book, 'The Fountainhead', 1943which I was smitten by, and breezed through in short order, so I was not unfamiliar with Ayn Rand. On top of both of these factors, my dad was an 'Adam Smith-Ayn Rand Capitalist' and he had introduced me to The Fountainhead -- so none of this stuff I was reading in The Psychology of Self-Esteem was really new to me; it was simply building on a philosophy that I already largely believed in -- Nathaniel Branden was writing to a sold believer in me, he was singing to the choir.
............................................................................
The Psychology of Self-Esteem*
This major psychological work presents a brilliant new concept of human nature, of mental health and illness, and of the conditions necessary for the achievement of mental well-being. Nathaniel Branden breaks radically with the mainstream of contemporary psychology, challenging and rejecting the basic premises of both psychoanalysis and behaviorism. his book is a revolutionary contribution to man's understanding of himself.
From the introduction to The Psychology of Self-Esteem
The central theme of this book is the role of self-esteem in man's life: the need of self-esteem, the nature of that need, the conditions of its fulfillment, the consequences of its frustration — and the impact of man's self-esteem (or lack of it) on his values, responses, and goals.
Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature of self-esteem, the reasons why man needs it, and the conditions he must satisfy if he is to achieve it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only vaguely, that there is a relationship between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that relationship, nor the causes of it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation, i.e. his behavior in the spheres of work, love, and human relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified the principles involved. Such are the issues with which this book deals.
If the science of psychology is to achieve an accurate portrait of man, it must, I submit, question and challenge many of the deepest premises prevalent in the field today — must break away from the anti-biological, anti-intellectual, automaton view of human nature that dominates contemporary theory. Neither the view of man as an instinct-manipulated puppet (psychoanalysis), nor the view of him as a stimulus-response machine (behaviorism), bears any resemblance to man the biological entity whom it is the task of psychology to study: the organism uniquely characterized by the power of conceptual thought, propositional speech, explicit reasoning and self-awareness.
This work serves as the theoretical foundation for much of Branden's later writings.
......................................................................
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. The book's title is a reference to Rand's statement that "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress".
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is a young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. He refuses to pander to the prevailing "architect by committee" taste in building design. Roark is a singular force that takes a stand against the establishment, and in his own unique way, prevails. The manuscript was rejected by twelve publishers before a young editor, Archibald Ogden, at the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house wired to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you." Despite generally negative early reviews from the contemporary media, the book gained a following by word of mouth and sold hundreds of thousands of copies, along with garnering critical acclaim over time.[citation needed] The Fountainhead was made into a Hollywood film in 1949, with Gary Cooper in the lead role of Howard Roark, and with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself.
......................................................................
More Editorial Comments, dgb, 2008
Having said what I just said in my editorial comments above, Erich Fromm had also become one of my 'philosopher-heros' back in the mid to 1970s. And Erich Fromm was a known post-Marxian humanistic philosopher. So without knowing it at the time, this was perhaps my first academic introduction to what we might call a 'dialectical split' -- two obviously very intelligent sets of men and women believing in two totally opposite philosophical points of view -- Capitalism vs. Socialism. I was left trying to walk down the middle and sort out the strengths and weaknesses of each respective philosophical system -- and then decide where this left me and my own particular philosophical viewpoint.
A second and a third dialectical split were also starting to crop up in my work with or without my awareness. The second was the dialectical split between 'freedom and determinism'. You can catch Branden talking about this dialectical -- and philosophical -- split in his introduction where he sees his own 'Psychology of Self-Esteem' approaching man's life and his philosophy from an entirely different angle than two of his philosophical-psychological competitors: 1. Psychoanalysis (and its theory of 'instinctual determinism'; and 2. Behaviorism (and its theory of 'external, social-conditioning determinism'). In contrast, Branden -- following partly in both Adam Smith's and Ayn Rand's philosophical footsteps, laid out a 'cognitive-free-will' philosophy-psychology of man.
So did/do I, in what was/is to come in 'Evaluation and Health', although today, I incorporate a strong Freudian and post-Freudian influence into my philosophical-pscyhological thinking.
At issue in Evaluation and Health -- although buried in my lack of knowledge and awareness at the time -- was the famous 'Kantian subjective-objective dialectical split' How do we know that what we believe to be true -- is true? This is the 50 million dollar epistemological question of the last 225 years in Western philosophy, going back to the epistemology of Emmanuel Kant in 'The Critique of Pure Reason', 1781, and longer even than that if you want to go back to the epistemology of John Locke, The Conduct of Understanding (published posthumously in 1706, John Locke, 1632-1704), and before that to Sir Francis Bacon, The Four Idols, 1620, or still even further back to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's Razor'...
................................................................
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
.......................................................
Final Editorial Comment, dgb, 2008
At stake in the famous 'subjective-objective' split is not only the epistemological issue of 'truth' and 'fact', but also the ethical-moral issue of 'value'.
How do you know or judge which is better: Capitalism or Socialism; religion or science, evolution or creation theory, conservatism or liberalism, Republicanism or Democratism, the Kantian moral imperative, or the Nietzschean Dionysian existential imperative?
Do we live every day as if it is our last -- or would that make our life too 'wild', too 'Dionysian', 'too existentially extreme', not properly factoring in the feelings of our loved ones? Is a life of 'existential balance' the better way to go, the better way to be?
'To be or not to be.' -- Shakespeare wrote that.
'How should I be. How do I want to be. How do I want to behave each and every day. Am I living the life I want to live? Or am I living a 'shadow' of the life I want to live.? God, can you divide my mind and my body into two different people -- call one the 'Apollonian David Bain, and the other the 'Dionysian David Bain' -- and I will live one life according to Kant's moral imperative, and the other life according to Nietzsche's Dionysian existential extremism -- and we can meet again after this life is over, in either Heaven and/or in Hell -- and take up the argument again. Then I will be able to make perhaps a better judgment based on my dual, dialectical experience.
Apollo and Dionysus went for a walk. They argued with each other, had a fight with each other, defied each other, defiled each other, both were strong -- but only one came back.' Who came back for you? Apollo or Dionysus? Or both partly beaten up but one, the smiling victor, the other, the grudging loser, still beating you up from the shadows? Who's the grudging loser -- Apollo raging righteously at you with guilt-trips from his corner in your personality? Or Dionysus and Nietzsche second-guessing you for not having 'made a move', or fully experienced a potential encounter, for in effect, having turned your back on life?
These are the types of questions that challenge me now...
These are the types of questions whose answers define usin our life, from moment to moment, day to day. They determine our personal history.
You are what you choose.
But, of course, that is me at 53, not 24. At 24, I was simply racing ahead on my cognitive-expistmological horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially to come.
Let's go back to my 1979 'charging epistemologically idealistic horse'.
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008.
-- Erich Fromm
Introduction
The issue of values and evaluation represents a crucial problem in regard to man's life. On the one hand, man is free to evaluate and respond to the situations he is confronted with in his day-to-day life as he or she pleases, but on the other hand, man is not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations and responses on his or her life and well-being.
A person's evaluations then, can be said to be 'effective' or 'functional' to the extent that they are life-serving -- that is, they work towards protecting and/or enhancing the person's health and happiness. Conversely, a person's evaluations can be said to be 'ineffective' and 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are life-negating -- that is, they work towards sabotaging the person's health and happiness.
........................................................................
Editorial Commments, dgb, 2008
In 1979, I was 24 years old. My main influence in the top two paragraphs was Nathaniel Branden and his book, 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem'. Nathaniel Branden was working very closely with Ayn Rand at the time, herself an avid Capitalist writer-philosopher in the Adam Smith mold. I had read Rand's famous book, 'The Fountainhead', 1943which I was smitten by, and breezed through in short order, so I was not unfamiliar with Ayn Rand. On top of both of these factors, my dad was an 'Adam Smith-Ayn Rand Capitalist' and he had introduced me to The Fountainhead -- so none of this stuff I was reading in The Psychology of Self-Esteem was really new to me; it was simply building on a philosophy that I already largely believed in -- Nathaniel Branden was writing to a sold believer in me, he was singing to the choir.
............................................................................
The Psychology of Self-Esteem*
This major psychological work presents a brilliant new concept of human nature, of mental health and illness, and of the conditions necessary for the achievement of mental well-being. Nathaniel Branden breaks radically with the mainstream of contemporary psychology, challenging and rejecting the basic premises of both psychoanalysis and behaviorism. his book is a revolutionary contribution to man's understanding of himself.
From the introduction to The Psychology of Self-Esteem
The central theme of this book is the role of self-esteem in man's life: the need of self-esteem, the nature of that need, the conditions of its fulfillment, the consequences of its frustration — and the impact of man's self-esteem (or lack of it) on his values, responses, and goals.
Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature of self-esteem, the reasons why man needs it, and the conditions he must satisfy if he is to achieve it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only vaguely, that there is a relationship between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that relationship, nor the causes of it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation, i.e. his behavior in the spheres of work, love, and human relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified the principles involved. Such are the issues with which this book deals.
If the science of psychology is to achieve an accurate portrait of man, it must, I submit, question and challenge many of the deepest premises prevalent in the field today — must break away from the anti-biological, anti-intellectual, automaton view of human nature that dominates contemporary theory. Neither the view of man as an instinct-manipulated puppet (psychoanalysis), nor the view of him as a stimulus-response machine (behaviorism), bears any resemblance to man the biological entity whom it is the task of psychology to study: the organism uniquely characterized by the power of conceptual thought, propositional speech, explicit reasoning and self-awareness.
This work serves as the theoretical foundation for much of Branden's later writings.
......................................................................
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. The book's title is a reference to Rand's statement that "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress".
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is a young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. He refuses to pander to the prevailing "architect by committee" taste in building design. Roark is a singular force that takes a stand against the establishment, and in his own unique way, prevails. The manuscript was rejected by twelve publishers before a young editor, Archibald Ogden, at the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house wired to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you." Despite generally negative early reviews from the contemporary media, the book gained a following by word of mouth and sold hundreds of thousands of copies, along with garnering critical acclaim over time.[citation needed] The Fountainhead was made into a Hollywood film in 1949, with Gary Cooper in the lead role of Howard Roark, and with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself.
......................................................................
More Editorial Comments, dgb, 2008
Having said what I just said in my editorial comments above, Erich Fromm had also become one of my 'philosopher-heros' back in the mid to 1970s. And Erich Fromm was a known post-Marxian humanistic philosopher. So without knowing it at the time, this was perhaps my first academic introduction to what we might call a 'dialectical split' -- two obviously very intelligent sets of men and women believing in two totally opposite philosophical points of view -- Capitalism vs. Socialism. I was left trying to walk down the middle and sort out the strengths and weaknesses of each respective philosophical system -- and then decide where this left me and my own particular philosophical viewpoint.
A second and a third dialectical split were also starting to crop up in my work with or without my awareness. The second was the dialectical split between 'freedom and determinism'. You can catch Branden talking about this dialectical -- and philosophical -- split in his introduction where he sees his own 'Psychology of Self-Esteem' approaching man's life and his philosophy from an entirely different angle than two of his philosophical-psychological competitors: 1. Psychoanalysis (and its theory of 'instinctual determinism'; and 2. Behaviorism (and its theory of 'external, social-conditioning determinism'). In contrast, Branden -- following partly in both Adam Smith's and Ayn Rand's philosophical footsteps, laid out a 'cognitive-free-will' philosophy-psychology of man.
So did/do I, in what was/is to come in 'Evaluation and Health', although today, I incorporate a strong Freudian and post-Freudian influence into my philosophical-pscyhological thinking.
At issue in Evaluation and Health -- although buried in my lack of knowledge and awareness at the time -- was the famous 'Kantian subjective-objective dialectical split' How do we know that what we believe to be true -- is true? This is the 50 million dollar epistemological question of the last 225 years in Western philosophy, going back to the epistemology of Emmanuel Kant in 'The Critique of Pure Reason', 1781, and longer even than that if you want to go back to the epistemology of John Locke, The Conduct of Understanding (published posthumously in 1706, John Locke, 1632-1704), and before that to Sir Francis Bacon, The Four Idols, 1620, or still even further back to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's Razor'...
................................................................
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
.......................................................
Final Editorial Comment, dgb, 2008
At stake in the famous 'subjective-objective' split is not only the epistemological issue of 'truth' and 'fact', but also the ethical-moral issue of 'value'.
How do you know or judge which is better: Capitalism or Socialism; religion or science, evolution or creation theory, conservatism or liberalism, Republicanism or Democratism, the Kantian moral imperative, or the Nietzschean Dionysian existential imperative?
Do we live every day as if it is our last -- or would that make our life too 'wild', too 'Dionysian', 'too existentially extreme', not properly factoring in the feelings of our loved ones? Is a life of 'existential balance' the better way to go, the better way to be?
'To be or not to be.' -- Shakespeare wrote that.
'How should I be. How do I want to be. How do I want to behave each and every day. Am I living the life I want to live? Or am I living a 'shadow' of the life I want to live.? God, can you divide my mind and my body into two different people -- call one the 'Apollonian David Bain, and the other the 'Dionysian David Bain' -- and I will live one life according to Kant's moral imperative, and the other life according to Nietzsche's Dionysian existential extremism -- and we can meet again after this life is over, in either Heaven and/or in Hell -- and take up the argument again. Then I will be able to make perhaps a better judgment based on my dual, dialectical experience.
Apollo and Dionysus went for a walk. They argued with each other, had a fight with each other, defied each other, defiled each other, both were strong -- but only one came back.' Who came back for you? Apollo or Dionysus? Or both partly beaten up but one, the smiling victor, the other, the grudging loser, still beating you up from the shadows? Who's the grudging loser -- Apollo raging righteously at you with guilt-trips from his corner in your personality? Or Dionysus and Nietzsche second-guessing you for not having 'made a move', or fully experienced a potential encounter, for in effect, having turned your back on life?
These are the types of questions that challenge me now...
These are the types of questions whose answers define usin our life, from moment to moment, day to day. They determine our personal history.
You are what you choose.
But, of course, that is me at 53, not 24. At 24, I was simply racing ahead on my cognitive-expistmological horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially to come.
Let's go back to my 1979 'charging epistemologically idealistic horse'.
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008.
My Honours Thesis, 'Evaluation and Health', 1979, Revisited 29 Years Later
(Sept. 6th, 2008)
Below is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
Below is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
DGB 'Sun-Planet Theory' and The Sixteen Mythological Idols of Philosophical Extremism
1. Introduction
This is a brand new integrative line of DGB Philosophy combining two different but interconnected sets of essays: 1. 'The DGB Sixteen Mythological Idols'; and 2. the earlier 'Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Self-Energy Centres' collection of essays...
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this: 1. Gods are external projections of internals 'mythological-personality archetypes' (This is a Jungian influence.); and 2. Archetypes are internalized or introjected renditions of 'Gods' that can be viewed as 'Self-Energy Centres' and sometimes 'Self-Energy Fixations' when one particular type of archetype comes to dominate a particular person's peronality, lifestyle, existence... One-sided 'archetype fixations' can paradoxically be a person's greatest strength and/or greatest weakness/liability...
Now, think of the sun with the planets revolving around it; the earth needs to be just situated rightly in the distance of its revolution around the sun in order to properly support life on earth as we know it -- not too far from the sun such that we freeze to death; and not too close to the sun such that we burn to death -- which brings back to the main unifying principle of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy which is basically a post-Hegelian extension, modification, and rendition of what Hegel wrote in 'The Phenomenology of Spirit'. Hegel, in turn, believed that his dialectical formula or cycle of 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3. synthesis was not only the central unifying principle of the history of philosophy, but also the central unifying principle of man's culture and life in general, and finally, the central unifying principle of evolving life in general, in all of its different complexities...
Hegel's 'dialectic-evolution' theory was written well before Darwin and basically encompasses Darwinian genetic theory which also relies on the principle of Hegelian Dialectic Theory on a biological and biochemcial level: specifically, 1. 'thesis': a man (or male of any species); 2. anti-thesis: a woman (or female of any species); 3. dialectical negotiation and resulting integration: copulation or sexual intercourse; and 4. synthesis; a child (or offspring of any species).
Let me add one final series of points in this regard before moving on: Hegel was not only influenced by the philosophy of Fichte (1762-1814)and Kant (1720-1804)relative to the birth of his dialectic philosophy; one can also see the much, much older birth of dialectic philosophy in the 'cosmic-power dialectic theory' of the ancient Greek philosopher, Anaxamander (the second oldest known Greek philosopher, 611-547BC) and the 'dialectic balance and differential unity theory' of Heraclitus (535-475BC) who is still much esteemed by modern science and pantheism (the latter of which aims to integrate science and religion, creation and evolution theory).
Fifthly and sixthly, the ancient Chinese philosophies of 'Daoism' or ('Taoism') and later 'The Han Philosophers -- to my present knowledge -- brought to birth the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' in Chinese Philosophy and their need 'for dialectic (homesostatic)balance' (my addition of the words 'dialectic' and 'homeostatic', not theirs) which foreshadowed again the birth of modern scientific and medical theory and particularly the work of Cannon and his famous book 'The Wisdom of The Body', 1932, in which he created the birth of the terms 'homeostasis' and 'homeostatic balance'. Cannon's famous book came significantly after Hegel's masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit', 1807, but in the eyes of DGB Philosophy everything I have written in this paragragph is all intimately connnected -- dialectically and homeostatically. The methodology of 'democratic-dialectic democracy' is the road to self and civil homeostatic balance.
Thus, I have mentioned at least six direct or indirect influences on Hegel that are all important in the eyes of DGB Philosophy: 1. Anaxamander, 2. Heraclitus, 3. Daoism, 4. The Han Philosphers, 5. Kant, and 6. Fichte, although Fichte's philosophy in the eyes of DGB Philosophy is mainly a pathological philosophy that rejected Kant's concept of 'the noumenal (objective)world', and very significantly either led to, and/or exasperated such things as: 1. German nationalism and a national/racial superiority complex; 2. anti-semitic thought, feeling, and behavior; and 3. Nazism.
............................................
"Where there is impossibility, there is possibility; and where there is possibility, there is impossibility. It is because there is right, that there is wrong; it is because there is wrong, there is right...Thereupon the self is also the other; the other is also the self."
Daoism
--Zhuangzi
Taoism (pronounced /ˈdaʊ.ɪ.zəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪ.zəm/; also spelled Daoism) refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious traditions and concepts. These traditions have influenced East Asia for over two thousand years and some have spread internationally.[1] The Chinese character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanization scheme) means "path" or "way", although in Chinese religion and philosophy it has taken on more abstract meanings. Taoist propriety and ethics emphasize the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility. Taoist thought focuses on health, longevity, immortality, wu wei (non-action) and spontaneity.
Reverence for nature and ancestor spirits is common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. Chinese alchemy, astrology, cuisine, several Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine, fengshui, and many styles of qigong breath training disciplines are intertwined with Taoism throughout history.
..................................................
Once you get this image in your mind -- of the sun and planets model and the principle of dialectic-homestatic balance -- you are starting to get a picture of my latest perculating model of the human psyche -- a model that borrows from philosophy, psychology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and mythology. There is some Freud in it (projecting and introjecting), some Jung in it (archetypes and Greek Gods), lots of philosophy in it (such as the different 'eras' or 'periods' of philosophy), and running right through the middle of this model are the priniciples of: 1. 'multi-dialectic exchange, interchange, negotiation, power and control maneuvers'; and 2. 'homeostatic (or multi-dialectic) balance.
I remember reading a book a long time ago -- perhaps when I was in university (1974-1979) called, 'Man The Manipulator'. I will research the book and come back to you with the author shortly. I believe the author(s) had some training in both Gestalt Therapy and Jungian Psychology.
Anyways, my present model here reminds me somewhat of what the author(s)in that book were also trying to get at which was basically that (and I will paraphrase in my own words here and now): any 'particualar style of interconnected thought, feeling, impulse, restraint and/or behavior' or what Jung would call a 'complex' or Alfred Adler would call a person's 'lifestyle' has a combination of both positive and negative attributes attached to it (strengths and weaknesses). It's like perhaps the most important statement that Hegel ever made (and again I am both paraphrasing and extending his thought): Every thought, impulse, characteristic, restraint, theory, perspective, lifestyle...carries with it the seeds of its own self-destruction...Or worded otherwise, anything taken too far, will eventually explode, implode, self-destruct, poison, and/or take you off the deep end with it...Any form of extremism will eventually lead to your self-desruction...
Which brings us back to the principle of 'homeostatic -- and/or dialectical -- balance'. Here is my post-Hegelian-extension of Hegel's famous formula: The life cycle follows the pattern of: 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3 synthesis (which -- my DGB extension -- pulls man and all of evolutionary life back to the 'central position of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'. 'Not too strong (eg. The Republicans), not too weak (eg. The Democrats) but just right...'The Republican-Democrats or the Democratic-Republicans'. This is the post-Hegelian, bi-polarity synthesizing goal of DGB Philosophy.
Here is my extension of the famous Hegelian formula:
Thesis plus anti-thesis or counter-thesis creatively negotiated together equals homeostatic and/or dialectical balance which in turn provides a compensatory form of psycho- and/or philosophical and/or bio-chemical therapy for all different forms of philosophical and psychological and bio-chemical extremism.
I don't have the technical capability within this blogsite to create the type of model I wish to create with a 'sun' or 'planet' in the centre with all of its revolving planets or moons. So you will have to imagine this.
I have already written a number of different papers that can be found below this essay on 'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, and Self-Energy Centres...' This essay only becomes the essay that starts to pull them all together into one model of the personality.
At centre stage is the 'main energy centre in the personality' -- The Central Mediating Ego' (psychological model) which can also be called the 'Hegelian Ego' (philosophical model: thesis plus counter-thesis equal synthesis and homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance) or Zeus (mythological model) or 'The Sun' (planetary model).
Here are some of the 'revolving planets in similar and/or different human lifestyles, complexes, and/or personalities'...
2. The DGB Sixteen Idols of 'Lifestyle and Personality Extremism'
1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: (Crowd Pleasers, victims of peer pressure...)Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietcsche would put it -- like lemmings you can be taken over a cliff. Think and feel and act independently as well as co-dependently;
2. Idols of The Cave (Hermits, Loners, Thinkers, Philosophers, Introverts, Shy People, Self-Infatuated People...): Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. You will suffocate there. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people. This is your therapy;
3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus) (Idealists, Visionaries, Entepreneurs, Architects, pilots, astronauts, skydivers...): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-ground yourself. Your therapy consists of 'touching earth again and feeling the soil beneath your feet, the ground and trees all around you);
4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the godesses Gaea): (Empiricists, people who are afraid to take a risk, people who need security above all else in their lives). Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! This is your therapy. Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;
5. Idols of The Theatre (The Magician, The Sophist, The Actor, The Fraud...: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself. Your therapy consists of re-finding your self and who you really are;
6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title. The best leaders can both talk with wisdom and charisma while listening to the wisdom of others. The worst leaders have a self-inflated opinion of themselves and can talk, even act with power and/or violence but they can't listen, and they don't care about others. They are strictly for themselves. Your therapy here consists of 100 hours of community work to try to help cure your self-inflated narcissism. Helping others -- altruism -- is what you are trying to learn here, and truly caring about others;
7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean. If your words don't fit your meaning, then perhaps its time to go back to Grade 1, go back to 'the pointing game', or 'the fitting game', show that your words reflect your actions, and your actions reflect your words. To the extent that they don't -- your words are fraudulent and the more you use them this way, the more of a fraud your whole person is. Your therapy consists of going back to square one and making your actions fit your words and visa versa;
8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life. You need to show tolerance and non-jugment at times also. This is your therapy -- to practise being 'non-righteous';
9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life (Your therapy -- maybe practise Budhism or abstinence for a while, see what it is like to live without your addiction, what you are scared of, and how you can overcome this;
10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- if you fall in love too easily with the person who is going to create a self-fulling prophecy and your worst nightmare for you. You need to stay grounded, develop your own strengths and not 'project Gods' onto everyone you meet. Your therapy is to imagine that you yourself are the God for a while...;
11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war. It will eat you up and destroy you. You think that you can destroy your enemies but for every new person who you kill, you are probably creating at least a handful of new enemies. Your therapy lies in developing 'creative ways of negotiating towards win-win solutions', not seeing everyone as your potential enemy -- and treating him or her like it, making your world a more dangerous place than it needs to be;
12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction perhaps faster than anything else, particularly if you are nurturing hate, power, revenge, and violence. What goes around will eventually come around. You will get yours in the end...What was that Martin Luther King quote that Obama liked so much -- something like...'The cosmic arc is long but bends towards justice'.;
13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.
14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it. It breeds righteosness and intolerance -- 'It's my way or the highway'. You will eventually distance yourself, alienate, and/or be subsumed by more powerful groups than you that don't buy your 'patriotic lines';
15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and your identity -- in marriage. Be the person you always were. Develop your own talents and potential even as the two of you seek to evolve together in the relationship. Flexibility and tolerance is important -- and not 'couping each other up in tight boxes that you both suffocate in' (or one person suffocates in by submitting to the other's domination). Win-win negotiatins in marriage are essential;
16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others. This is your therapy.
These are the 'idols of extremism' and DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic-Democratic Philosophy-Psychology seeks to pull every one away from their 'planet of extremism' and back intoto their 'self-mediating energy centre and life-balancing energy of the sun'. The planets always need to come back to the energy of the sun.
And so it is with 'personality' and 'lifestyle' extremes.
Come back young man or woman, come back, to the warmth and mediating energy of the sun. You need to be not too close to the sun but not too far away from the sun either.
'Health' is generally half-way between bi-polar forms of psycho, physio, and/or philosophical pathology on each opposite extreme side.
-- dgb, Sept. 11th, 2008.
This is a brand new integrative line of DGB Philosophy combining two different but interconnected sets of essays: 1. 'The DGB Sixteen Mythological Idols'; and 2. the earlier 'Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Self-Energy Centres' collection of essays...
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this: 1. Gods are external projections of internals 'mythological-personality archetypes' (This is a Jungian influence.); and 2. Archetypes are internalized or introjected renditions of 'Gods' that can be viewed as 'Self-Energy Centres' and sometimes 'Self-Energy Fixations' when one particular type of archetype comes to dominate a particular person's peronality, lifestyle, existence... One-sided 'archetype fixations' can paradoxically be a person's greatest strength and/or greatest weakness/liability...
Now, think of the sun with the planets revolving around it; the earth needs to be just situated rightly in the distance of its revolution around the sun in order to properly support life on earth as we know it -- not too far from the sun such that we freeze to death; and not too close to the sun such that we burn to death -- which brings back to the main unifying principle of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy which is basically a post-Hegelian extension, modification, and rendition of what Hegel wrote in 'The Phenomenology of Spirit'. Hegel, in turn, believed that his dialectical formula or cycle of 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3. synthesis was not only the central unifying principle of the history of philosophy, but also the central unifying principle of man's culture and life in general, and finally, the central unifying principle of evolving life in general, in all of its different complexities...
Hegel's 'dialectic-evolution' theory was written well before Darwin and basically encompasses Darwinian genetic theory which also relies on the principle of Hegelian Dialectic Theory on a biological and biochemcial level: specifically, 1. 'thesis': a man (or male of any species); 2. anti-thesis: a woman (or female of any species); 3. dialectical negotiation and resulting integration: copulation or sexual intercourse; and 4. synthesis; a child (or offspring of any species).
Let me add one final series of points in this regard before moving on: Hegel was not only influenced by the philosophy of Fichte (1762-1814)and Kant (1720-1804)relative to the birth of his dialectic philosophy; one can also see the much, much older birth of dialectic philosophy in the 'cosmic-power dialectic theory' of the ancient Greek philosopher, Anaxamander (the second oldest known Greek philosopher, 611-547BC) and the 'dialectic balance and differential unity theory' of Heraclitus (535-475BC) who is still much esteemed by modern science and pantheism (the latter of which aims to integrate science and religion, creation and evolution theory).
Fifthly and sixthly, the ancient Chinese philosophies of 'Daoism' or ('Taoism') and later 'The Han Philosophers -- to my present knowledge -- brought to birth the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' in Chinese Philosophy and their need 'for dialectic (homesostatic)balance' (my addition of the words 'dialectic' and 'homeostatic', not theirs) which foreshadowed again the birth of modern scientific and medical theory and particularly the work of Cannon and his famous book 'The Wisdom of The Body', 1932, in which he created the birth of the terms 'homeostasis' and 'homeostatic balance'. Cannon's famous book came significantly after Hegel's masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit', 1807, but in the eyes of DGB Philosophy everything I have written in this paragragph is all intimately connnected -- dialectically and homeostatically. The methodology of 'democratic-dialectic democracy' is the road to self and civil homeostatic balance.
Thus, I have mentioned at least six direct or indirect influences on Hegel that are all important in the eyes of DGB Philosophy: 1. Anaxamander, 2. Heraclitus, 3. Daoism, 4. The Han Philosphers, 5. Kant, and 6. Fichte, although Fichte's philosophy in the eyes of DGB Philosophy is mainly a pathological philosophy that rejected Kant's concept of 'the noumenal (objective)world', and very significantly either led to, and/or exasperated such things as: 1. German nationalism and a national/racial superiority complex; 2. anti-semitic thought, feeling, and behavior; and 3. Nazism.
............................................
"Where there is impossibility, there is possibility; and where there is possibility, there is impossibility. It is because there is right, that there is wrong; it is because there is wrong, there is right...Thereupon the self is also the other; the other is also the self."
Daoism
--Zhuangzi
Taoism (pronounced /ˈdaʊ.ɪ.zəm/ or /ˈtaʊ.ɪ.zəm/; also spelled Daoism) refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious traditions and concepts. These traditions have influenced East Asia for over two thousand years and some have spread internationally.[1] The Chinese character Tao 道 (or Dao, depending on the romanization scheme) means "path" or "way", although in Chinese religion and philosophy it has taken on more abstract meanings. Taoist propriety and ethics emphasize the Three Jewels of the Tao: compassion, moderation, and humility. Taoist thought focuses on health, longevity, immortality, wu wei (non-action) and spontaneity.
Reverence for nature and ancestor spirits is common in popular Taoism. Organized Taoism distinguishes its ritual activity from that of the folk religion, which some professional Taoists (Daoshi) view as debased. Chinese alchemy, astrology, cuisine, several Chinese martial arts, Chinese traditional medicine, fengshui, and many styles of qigong breath training disciplines are intertwined with Taoism throughout history.
..................................................
Once you get this image in your mind -- of the sun and planets model and the principle of dialectic-homestatic balance -- you are starting to get a picture of my latest perculating model of the human psyche -- a model that borrows from philosophy, psychology, biology, chemistry, and physics, and mythology. There is some Freud in it (projecting and introjecting), some Jung in it (archetypes and Greek Gods), lots of philosophy in it (such as the different 'eras' or 'periods' of philosophy), and running right through the middle of this model are the priniciples of: 1. 'multi-dialectic exchange, interchange, negotiation, power and control maneuvers'; and 2. 'homeostatic (or multi-dialectic) balance.
I remember reading a book a long time ago -- perhaps when I was in university (1974-1979) called, 'Man The Manipulator'. I will research the book and come back to you with the author shortly. I believe the author(s) had some training in both Gestalt Therapy and Jungian Psychology.
Anyways, my present model here reminds me somewhat of what the author(s)in that book were also trying to get at which was basically that (and I will paraphrase in my own words here and now): any 'particualar style of interconnected thought, feeling, impulse, restraint and/or behavior' or what Jung would call a 'complex' or Alfred Adler would call a person's 'lifestyle' has a combination of both positive and negative attributes attached to it (strengths and weaknesses). It's like perhaps the most important statement that Hegel ever made (and again I am both paraphrasing and extending his thought): Every thought, impulse, characteristic, restraint, theory, perspective, lifestyle...carries with it the seeds of its own self-destruction...Or worded otherwise, anything taken too far, will eventually explode, implode, self-destruct, poison, and/or take you off the deep end with it...Any form of extremism will eventually lead to your self-desruction...
Which brings us back to the principle of 'homeostatic -- and/or dialectical -- balance'. Here is my post-Hegelian-extension of Hegel's famous formula: The life cycle follows the pattern of: 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3 synthesis (which -- my DGB extension -- pulls man and all of evolutionary life back to the 'central position of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'. 'Not too strong (eg. The Republicans), not too weak (eg. The Democrats) but just right...'The Republican-Democrats or the Democratic-Republicans'. This is the post-Hegelian, bi-polarity synthesizing goal of DGB Philosophy.
Here is my extension of the famous Hegelian formula:
Thesis plus anti-thesis or counter-thesis creatively negotiated together equals homeostatic and/or dialectical balance which in turn provides a compensatory form of psycho- and/or philosophical and/or bio-chemical therapy for all different forms of philosophical and psychological and bio-chemical extremism.
I don't have the technical capability within this blogsite to create the type of model I wish to create with a 'sun' or 'planet' in the centre with all of its revolving planets or moons. So you will have to imagine this.
I have already written a number of different papers that can be found below this essay on 'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, and Self-Energy Centres...' This essay only becomes the essay that starts to pull them all together into one model of the personality.
At centre stage is the 'main energy centre in the personality' -- The Central Mediating Ego' (psychological model) which can also be called the 'Hegelian Ego' (philosophical model: thesis plus counter-thesis equal synthesis and homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance) or Zeus (mythological model) or 'The Sun' (planetary model).
Here are some of the 'revolving planets in similar and/or different human lifestyles, complexes, and/or personalities'...
2. The DGB Sixteen Idols of 'Lifestyle and Personality Extremism'
1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: (Crowd Pleasers, victims of peer pressure...)Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietcsche would put it -- like lemmings you can be taken over a cliff. Think and feel and act independently as well as co-dependently;
2. Idols of The Cave (Hermits, Loners, Thinkers, Philosophers, Introverts, Shy People, Self-Infatuated People...): Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. You will suffocate there. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people. This is your therapy;
3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus) (Idealists, Visionaries, Entepreneurs, Architects, pilots, astronauts, skydivers...): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-ground yourself. Your therapy consists of 'touching earth again and feeling the soil beneath your feet, the ground and trees all around you);
4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the godesses Gaea): (Empiricists, people who are afraid to take a risk, people who need security above all else in their lives). Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! This is your therapy. Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;
5. Idols of The Theatre (The Magician, The Sophist, The Actor, The Fraud...: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself. Your therapy consists of re-finding your self and who you really are;
6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title. The best leaders can both talk with wisdom and charisma while listening to the wisdom of others. The worst leaders have a self-inflated opinion of themselves and can talk, even act with power and/or violence but they can't listen, and they don't care about others. They are strictly for themselves. Your therapy here consists of 100 hours of community work to try to help cure your self-inflated narcissism. Helping others -- altruism -- is what you are trying to learn here, and truly caring about others;
7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean. If your words don't fit your meaning, then perhaps its time to go back to Grade 1, go back to 'the pointing game', or 'the fitting game', show that your words reflect your actions, and your actions reflect your words. To the extent that they don't -- your words are fraudulent and the more you use them this way, the more of a fraud your whole person is. Your therapy consists of going back to square one and making your actions fit your words and visa versa;
8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life. You need to show tolerance and non-jugment at times also. This is your therapy -- to practise being 'non-righteous';
9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life (Your therapy -- maybe practise Budhism or abstinence for a while, see what it is like to live without your addiction, what you are scared of, and how you can overcome this;
10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- if you fall in love too easily with the person who is going to create a self-fulling prophecy and your worst nightmare for you. You need to stay grounded, develop your own strengths and not 'project Gods' onto everyone you meet. Your therapy is to imagine that you yourself are the God for a while...;
11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war. It will eat you up and destroy you. You think that you can destroy your enemies but for every new person who you kill, you are probably creating at least a handful of new enemies. Your therapy lies in developing 'creative ways of negotiating towards win-win solutions', not seeing everyone as your potential enemy -- and treating him or her like it, making your world a more dangerous place than it needs to be;
12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction perhaps faster than anything else, particularly if you are nurturing hate, power, revenge, and violence. What goes around will eventually come around. You will get yours in the end...What was that Martin Luther King quote that Obama liked so much -- something like...'The cosmic arc is long but bends towards justice'.;
13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.
14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it. It breeds righteosness and intolerance -- 'It's my way or the highway'. You will eventually distance yourself, alienate, and/or be subsumed by more powerful groups than you that don't buy your 'patriotic lines';
15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and your identity -- in marriage. Be the person you always were. Develop your own talents and potential even as the two of you seek to evolve together in the relationship. Flexibility and tolerance is important -- and not 'couping each other up in tight boxes that you both suffocate in' (or one person suffocates in by submitting to the other's domination). Win-win negotiatins in marriage are essential;
16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others. This is your therapy.
These are the 'idols of extremism' and DGB Post-Hegelian Dialectic-Democratic Philosophy-Psychology seeks to pull every one away from their 'planet of extremism' and back intoto their 'self-mediating energy centre and life-balancing energy of the sun'. The planets always need to come back to the energy of the sun.
And so it is with 'personality' and 'lifestyle' extremes.
Come back young man or woman, come back, to the warmth and mediating energy of the sun. You need to be not too close to the sun but not too far away from the sun either.
'Health' is generally half-way between bi-polar forms of psycho, physio, and/or philosophical pathology on each opposite extreme side.
-- dgb, Sept. 11th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
