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.