Foundations and Distinctions For A DGB Post-Hegelian Approach to the Study of Epistemology (Part 1)

Finding Truth: Foundations and Distinctions for a DGB, Post-Hegelian View Of Epistemology (Part 1)

In order to determine where the study of epistemology 'fits' into the study of philosophy, we need to 'go up and down the abstraction ladder' - up to determine what lies 'above' the study of epistemology, and 'down' to determine what lies 'below' and/or 'within' the study of epistemology.

To do this, I wound up asking myself a question that may or may not seem quite separate from the study of epistemology, but which is definitely related: specifically, 'What are some of the main different elements of mind-brain function?' Before I take this argument any further, I would like to demonstrate some of the logistics behind 'dialectical reasoning' and the use of many 'hyphenated words' where a single word is generally the standard language norm in such instances probably because it is generally much easier for standard communication purposes.

Whereas standard practise might dictate the use of the term 'brain' or in another instance the term 'mind', a 'dialectical philosopher' might instead choose to use the term 'mind-brain' as a substitute for both. A 'multi-dialectic-philosopher' might even use the term 'mind-brain-self' or 'mind-brain-psyche' or 'mind-brain-soul'. The emphasis here is on the 'mutual exchange of influence and causality', either two-fold, three-fold, or even many-fold. This can potentially make a mess of communication but at the same time it does, or can, help people to think more 'wholistically' and 'integratively' as opposed to 'reductionistically'. Consequently, my use of many hypenated (dialectical) words such as 'term-concepts' and 'mind-brain'.

Is the physiology of our brain totally disconnected and separate from the psychology and/or philosophy of our mind? Or does everything come in 'one big multi-dialectical-integrative package' which, as humans, we tend to too easily separate conceptually even though they may not be separated phenomenally. We compartmentalize, classify, and define phenomena into 'conceptual pieces' because this makes it easier to think and talk about them. But life is not only about the 'pieces'. Life is also very much about how the different pieces all come together into one great big functional, multi-dialectical-integrative package.

The pieces support the whole and the whole supports the pieces. And talking about the pieces without talking about the whole - and how the whole is precariously and homeostatically balanced together by the way the pieces come together in just the right amounts to make up the proper functioning of the whole - is one of the most dangerous things that we Westerners continue to do in our every day thinking - from science and medicine to business and economics to philosophy and psychology to politics and law to spirituality and religion... This is the main purpose of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics-Business-Science-Medicine...to show how everything is connected, to show how everything is dialectically connected, and indeed to show how everything is multi-dialectically connected.

Now, back to my main argument relative to the interconnection between 'mind-brain function' and epistemology (the search for knowledge and truth), as well as the conception that just as the study of philosophy is generally viewed as being a more 'abstract' realm of study than the study of epistemology (the former encompassing the latter as well as other areas of study such as the foundations and assumptions of ethics, law, politics, art, science and medicine, religion, and more) - so too, the study of 'mind-brain function' can be viewed as a more abstract study than both (since it encompasses all of philosophy as well as elements of psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, and potentially still more...)

So let us look briefly at the potential study of 'mind-brain function' at least from a 'philosophical-psychological-biological-evolutionary' point of view.

What is the main function of the mind-brain? How about this? Problem-solving. If we accept this assumption as to the mind-brain's function, then every 'sub-function' of the mind-brain can be said to be 'wholistically and reductionistically in the service of problem-solving'. From this philosophical assumption, the mind-brain can be divided and sub-divided into more and more sub-functions - all supportive of, and inter-connected relative to, the overall goal of 'problem-solving'.

If we accept the problem-soving function as the main overall function of the mind-brain, then at least two further levels of 'sub-function' can be further differentiated from - but at the same time seen to be interconnected with - each other.

The first realm of mind-brain sub-function can be viewed as having five different sub-functions: 1. perception and cognition (epistemology); 2. conversion (symbolism, language, and meaning); 3. evaluation (narcissism, altruism, morality, ethics, rules, laws...); 4. choice-making and choice of choices (awareness of choices, excitement, fear, freedom vs determinism, use of narcissism, ethics, and/or other evaluation factors vs. genetic and/or social-bioligical-historical conditioning of choices) 5. execution of action (existentialism, ontology (the study of 'being'), behaviorism (the study of manipulating or 'conditioning' of choices through positive and/or negative consequences...)

We can also talk about the mind-brain as having an assortment of second realm sub-functions which are inter-related to each other and to all functions above these sub-functions such as:

1. memory; 2. planning; 3. creativity, visualization; 4. association; 5. differentation or distinction (boundary-making); 6. integration; 7. symbolism and language; 8. classification, categorization, compartmentalization; 9. reasoning, logic, inferences; 10. spatial-judging; 11. time-judging; 12. introjection and identification (copying); 13. projection (seeing ourselves in others); 14. compensation; 15. function-judging; 16. modification.

These subsidiary functions are similar to Kant's 'a priori' categories although I do not agree with all of Kant's arguments and opinions in this regard. It is not the place and the time to get into those arguments and opinions here other than to say that I view these secondary mind-brain functions as being evolutionary survival tools that man brings to the table in his bid both individually and collectively to survive - and to survive well.

In summary, what we have done here is laid out the larger 'mind-brain context' in which man's individual and collective, formal and informal, study of epistemology - and the search for knowledge-truth - takes place.

Epistemology in its reductionist format does not include the study of narcissism, hedonism, egotism, altruism, ethics, justice, laws, etc. Nor does it involve the cognitive-existential act of 'choice-making' - at least as it pertains to 'external behavioral action'. Epistemology does pertain to the act of choice-making relative to the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and 'what is real'. In this pursuit, 'either/or' decisions - or 'choices' - often need to be made, sometimes even life or death choices. Oftentimes too, the best 'epistemological choices' can lie in the 'middle ground' - in the unfolding epistemological play-out between thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, or speaking metaphorically, in 'Hegel's Hotel' if not always in my particular rendition of Hegel's Hotel but more so in the larger, more all-encompassing, multi-dialectic-pluralistic-evolutionary rendition of Hegel's Hotel.

This version of Hegel's Hotel - and in particular here, this version of DGB's post-Hegelian vision of the study of epistemology, is just a small subset of the much larger world-wide multi-dialectical constantly unfolding epistemological drama. People don't always get the truth right the first time, maybe not even the second or third time, maybe not in time to free an innocent prisoner from a wrong epistemological judgment, maybe not in time to save hundreds of people from a non-properly understood disease or a bad medication that should never have been legalized, but usually somewhere down the line, often after heavy casualties and/or traumacies, people start to get the epistemology right, individually and/or collectively, maybe first as sporadic individuals, gradually gaining more 'social power', and the power of greater and greater accepting numbers - like the growth of the natural health industry in North America - until 'underdog knowledge' finally becomes 'topdog knowledge', reaching the Kingdom of Established Social Truth - until life changes again and/or a 'better and/or more powerful Social Truth' comes along to supplant it. For better or for worse, established Social Truths eventually become accepted as 'Knowledge'. It is the job of the good epistemologist - academically recognized or otherwise - to 'deconstruct' Social Truths that hold more social power than they should, and/or to construct or re-construct Social Truths that have more Realism, 'Subjective-Objectivism', and Integrity on their side than the misplaced, fraudulent, often narcissistically power-based Social Truths that they are replacing.

Let us move on now to a discussion of what lies 'within' the study of epistemology, including a number of distinctions and sub-distinctions that may or may not be partly or fully recognized and/or supported by the 'social powers' and 'status-quo' that be in the world of Academic Western Philosophy. I fully acknowledge some of my technical-academic limitations in the study of advanced epistemology. However, I believe that I more than make up for this limitation in the creativity of my thought, in my ability to 'build epistemological bridges between the 'Constructionists' and the 'Deconstructionists', between the Grand Narrators and the Post-Modernists, between the Structuralists and the Process Thinkers, between the Idealists and the Realists, between the Rationalists and the Empiricists, between the Subjectivists and the Objectivists...That is what Hegel's Hotel is all about - at least within the confines of epistemology and the search for Truth.

dgb, Feb. 10th-11th, 2008.