We will take Nietzsche as our starting point, and then see where we can evolve to from there -- in our goal of finding truth.
'All facts are interpretations.' -- Nietzsche
We have a world both outside of us and inside of us that is impossible to know fully and completely because our senses are imperfect, our logical faculties are imperfect -- and our 'will to truth' is imperfect. In fact, our will to truth is often the biggest problem of all. We simply don't want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in his famous speech (forgive me but I have forgotten the name of the movie with Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, and Jack Nicholson in it, just looked it up -- 'A Few Good Men') -- 'You can't handle the truth!'
When it comes to truth, personal and/or collective narcissism (greed, selfishness, egotism, ambition, anxiety, fear...) often rears its ugly head to hide, suppress, distort, embellish, and/or push people away from the truth.
So the first thing that is absolutely necessary in finding the truth -- is a 'will to truth'. I do not say this lightly. The truth is not always attractive to the squeemish or the faint-harded...indeed, the truth often requires courage and bravery to seriously look for it in the first place.
My definition of truth: 'A strong structural similarity between things and processes as we believe them to be, and things and processes as they really are -- or were.
Unfortunately, that raises the huge Kantian problem -- the 'subject-object split' and the fact that we can't step outside of our own skin, our own senses, our own logical faculties, and our own narcissistic biases -- to 'know for sure how things and processes really are'.
Thus, we are, and man is, stuck in a paradoxical, epistemological 'Catch 22' -- one that man has been 'epistemologically cursed' with since the beginning of man's existence -- and probably to the end.
There is no such thing as 'perfect truth' unless we are talking about 2 plus 2 equals 4, and/or maybe 'The sun rose up this morning' although that for me is an assumption because I never saw it rise this morning. And of course, the sun didn't really 'rise' -- that is all human relativity at work and play.
So we just have to keep pursuing the 'best approximations of truth' that we can possibly get to, on our own, and/or with the help of our fellow human beings who are similarly interested in 'pursuing truth'.
And of course, truth means nothing without 'context'. If we want to talk about truth -- at least in any practical, pragmatic, functional sense -- we have to talk about something happening in some place and time. And then describing the way it happened. How it happened. Why it happened becomes even more interpretive, more problematic, more complicated, and more controversial. What caused her death? What caused the accident? Who was responsible? Who was to blame? What was to blame?
The danger is -- or at least one of the main dangers -- is that we 'box the truth', call it 'the truth' and forget that we are only giving a 'theory of the truth' that may be right, may be wrong, may be partly right and partly wrong, or it may be the 'truth at first' but then 'life changes' and our 'box of truth' does not change with the evolution of a changing life process.
Five 'Truth Dangers' I call respectively:
1. Idols of Theoretical Boxes and Labels (that don't fit the real world and how it works);
2. Idols of Reification (hanging on to an idea or theory that becomes 'dead' as life changes);
3. Idols of Reductionism (Dividing life into 5, 10, or a hundred pieces -- and not putting it back together again);
4. Idols of Abstraction, Association, and Generalization (One or two instances of a life process do not necessarily imply an 'iron clad rule of nature that will never change'; likewise, just because something looks like a duck and swims like a duck does not necessarily mean that it is a duck -- it could be a swan.)
5. Idols of Narcissistic Bias (Too much unethical, narcissistic bias at work and play -- selfishness, jealousy, envy, greed, anxiety, egotism, pride, money... -- to truly want to know the truth, and/or want it to be known.
Four Rules of Thumb For Pursuing The Truth...
1. Observations first, inferences/interpretations second, value judgments third...Don't jump to premature and/or unwarrented conclusions because then the value judgments -- even before any discussion or debate of 'values and ethics' -- are going to be wrong.
2. Skepticism is a good thing -- people are often jumping to fast and wrong interpretations, assumptions, conclusions...Check you assumptions, check society's assumptions, observe, observe, observe, check different sources, check different biases, check, check, check...
3. Life changes -- make sure your 'conceptual representations of life' change too in order to keep up with all of life's changing processes...evolution, mutation, compensation, etc...
4. Make sure your information comes from credible, reliable sources, and know what their line of bias and potential 'conflict of interest' might be relative to 'steering you away from the truth'.
Avoid these epistemological traps and follow these epistemological rules and you will be putting yourself in a good position towards steering yourself towards the epistemological truth.
A strong 'will to truth' -- and the strength, courage, and perseverence to chase it down like a bull terrier, even a pit-bull -- remains your greatest asset.
-- dgbn, Jan. 21st, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...are still in process...
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Central Ego Functioning (Part 5): What is a 'Stimulus'? What is a 'Gestalt'?
What is a stimulus?
This is a critically important question.
The first thing we need to recognize is this -- and it is a huge shift in emphasis from where I was as a 'cognitive, one line of emphasis, psychology-philosophy student' in 1979 -- and that is the DGB concept of 'stimulus' today encompasses the idea of 'dual influence-dialectic causality', indeed, often 'multi-dialectic influence and causality'.
The 1980s impressed upon me the ideas of Perls, Freud, Jung -- and Hegel -- all of whom were dualist integrationists and/or dialectical psychologists.
By 1979, I had already been exposed to the 'dualist' ideas of General Semantics: 'The map vs. the territory.' and an 'intensional orientation' (constantly being inside your head0 vs. an 'extensional (scientific, empirical) orientation' geared more towards constantly checking our inside thoughts, words, and assumptions vs. our day to day observations in our 'objective world'.
However, I had not been fully exposed to Hegelian dialectic thinking (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). And the shift in emphasis to dialectic thinking is what brings you 'Hegel's Hotel: DGBN Philosophy-Psychology' in its 2009 version here today.
We are all 'dialectically engaged with our natural, social, and political environment -- and with the people we meet in this environment.
We all give influence -- and take influence -- overtly and/or covertly, consciously and/or subconsciously, intentially and/or unintentionally.
I influence you. You influence me. That is the nature of dialectical -- meaning two-sided -- influence, accountability and causality.
If this essay is not of interest to you, then you hold the option -- the choice -- of walking (or keyboarding) away from the essay -- and doing something else with your time and energy.
The same option -- and choice -- holds for me too. If I am finding the essay too boring, then I hold the option too of walking (or keyboarding) away from it, and/or working harder to make the essay more personally engaging -- and interesting.
The easiest essays to write are the ones where you do not have to 'try hard' to write it.
I have said before in similar or different words that I have more trouble writing a strictly 'Apollonian' essay that only involves the use of my mind-brain than it does to write an essay that involves all of my more 'passionate-emotionally embracing faculties' -- meaning my 'heart' -- as well as my Apollonian faculties.
This brings us to the Gestalt idea of 'figure' and 'background'.
A 'figural stimulus' is one that is right at the forefront of our attention and energy.
A 'background stimulus' is one that stays or fades into the background due to the presence of another, stronger, more figural 'gestalt-stimulus'. The word 'gestalt' is of German origin and similar in meaning to the word 'stimulus'. Thus, I could say that writing this essay is a 'figural gestalt' for me. Or conversely, I could say that, as of this moment, it is no longer a figural gestalt for me, that I have been sitting on this computer for too long now, and need to take a break -- need to go outside and get some fresh air before coming back to finish this essay.
And that is exactly what I will do.
.....................................................................
Stimuli control the direction of our lives -- and yet not in a deterministic sense.
I am not a believer in any kind of 'stimulus-response' model that does not include the 'black box' in the middle of the model which is 'the organism', the 'animal', the 'man or woman', and in particular, the 'mind-brain-heart' of the man or woman who is not only reacting positively or negatively to any particular stimulus, but who is also creating new stimuli as well.
The act of 'pro-active creationism' is not the same as 'conditional, reactive behavioral determinism', and the behaviorists in their seeming wish to suppress and oversimplify certain imperative internal, invisible -- cognitive-emotional factors -- God forbid, that the behaviorists should lose hold of their ever so prescious title as 'empirical scientists' --
succumb to, and become victimized by scientific reductionism. If you cannot see or 'measure' something, then it is not there. That was the classic behaviorist's (read B.F. Skinner) 'scientific position' on 'thoughts', 'ideas', 'concepts', 'values', 'beliefs', 'dreams', 'goals', 'priorities' and the like when I was going to University in 1979 but alas, that was 30 years ago, and I have not followed the evolution of the Behaviorists' philosophical position.
Somehow, I don't think it has changed much, although admittedly the Professor I had who marked my Honors Thesis was an 'Integrative Cognitive-Behaviorist'.
Bravo! Bravo! Dr. Donald Meichenbaum. A conscious -- or subconscious -- post-Hegelian integrative 'Cognitive-Behavioral Psychologist' before I even knew who Hegel was, and before I even knew what 'thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis' meant.
The synthesis of Cognitive Therapy and Behaviorism is an example of what I now call 'Dialectical Evolution'. I am a strong proponent of Dialectic -- and Multi-Dialectic -- Evolution. It happens subconsciously even when men and women are not conscious of trying to make it happen, but for the most part, it happens more happily and healthily when people are practising this form of evolution consciously, not subconsciously -- and diplomatically, not violently.
The Gaza Strip, Iraq, Afghanastan, and Pakistan...may all have 'happy' futures at some point in time, if some working type of homeostatic balance is ever arrived at...
but in the mean time, as Israel and the Hamas continue to send rockets and bombs into each other's home land, each trying to the best of their ability to exercise their own respective 'Will to Power Over Their Enemy', nobody wins, everybody loses, friends and family die, and everyone else in the world is put through Hell...
That's what I call 'negative stimulus' -- and 'Negative Dialectic Evolution' -- or 'Dialectic Regression'.
That is where I will leave things tonight.
I think I have adequately described what I mean by 'stimulus'.
It is interesting how the last part of this essay flowed much faster than the first part.
Perhaps I moved to some more interesting, motivating, gestalts.
There is a lesson here that I learned from Gestalt Therapy back in the 1980s but which I easily lose track of from time to time, and have to continue to remind myself of:
Stay with your 'figural gestalts' as they are your top energizers, your top motivators.
Don't get lost in, and become a slave to, your 'background gestalts' which are low energizers and low motivators. They will drive you into an early 'existential grave'.
As my Gestalt teachers used to say to me:
'Get out of your head and come to your senses.'
-- dgbn, Jan. 11th, 2008
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
This is a critically important question.
The first thing we need to recognize is this -- and it is a huge shift in emphasis from where I was as a 'cognitive, one line of emphasis, psychology-philosophy student' in 1979 -- and that is the DGB concept of 'stimulus' today encompasses the idea of 'dual influence-dialectic causality', indeed, often 'multi-dialectic influence and causality'.
The 1980s impressed upon me the ideas of Perls, Freud, Jung -- and Hegel -- all of whom were dualist integrationists and/or dialectical psychologists.
By 1979, I had already been exposed to the 'dualist' ideas of General Semantics: 'The map vs. the territory.' and an 'intensional orientation' (constantly being inside your head0 vs. an 'extensional (scientific, empirical) orientation' geared more towards constantly checking our inside thoughts, words, and assumptions vs. our day to day observations in our 'objective world'.
However, I had not been fully exposed to Hegelian dialectic thinking (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). And the shift in emphasis to dialectic thinking is what brings you 'Hegel's Hotel: DGBN Philosophy-Psychology' in its 2009 version here today.
We are all 'dialectically engaged with our natural, social, and political environment -- and with the people we meet in this environment.
We all give influence -- and take influence -- overtly and/or covertly, consciously and/or subconsciously, intentially and/or unintentionally.
I influence you. You influence me. That is the nature of dialectical -- meaning two-sided -- influence, accountability and causality.
If this essay is not of interest to you, then you hold the option -- the choice -- of walking (or keyboarding) away from the essay -- and doing something else with your time and energy.
The same option -- and choice -- holds for me too. If I am finding the essay too boring, then I hold the option too of walking (or keyboarding) away from it, and/or working harder to make the essay more personally engaging -- and interesting.
The easiest essays to write are the ones where you do not have to 'try hard' to write it.
I have said before in similar or different words that I have more trouble writing a strictly 'Apollonian' essay that only involves the use of my mind-brain than it does to write an essay that involves all of my more 'passionate-emotionally embracing faculties' -- meaning my 'heart' -- as well as my Apollonian faculties.
This brings us to the Gestalt idea of 'figure' and 'background'.
A 'figural stimulus' is one that is right at the forefront of our attention and energy.
A 'background stimulus' is one that stays or fades into the background due to the presence of another, stronger, more figural 'gestalt-stimulus'. The word 'gestalt' is of German origin and similar in meaning to the word 'stimulus'. Thus, I could say that writing this essay is a 'figural gestalt' for me. Or conversely, I could say that, as of this moment, it is no longer a figural gestalt for me, that I have been sitting on this computer for too long now, and need to take a break -- need to go outside and get some fresh air before coming back to finish this essay.
And that is exactly what I will do.
.....................................................................
Stimuli control the direction of our lives -- and yet not in a deterministic sense.
I am not a believer in any kind of 'stimulus-response' model that does not include the 'black box' in the middle of the model which is 'the organism', the 'animal', the 'man or woman', and in particular, the 'mind-brain-heart' of the man or woman who is not only reacting positively or negatively to any particular stimulus, but who is also creating new stimuli as well.
The act of 'pro-active creationism' is not the same as 'conditional, reactive behavioral determinism', and the behaviorists in their seeming wish to suppress and oversimplify certain imperative internal, invisible -- cognitive-emotional factors -- God forbid, that the behaviorists should lose hold of their ever so prescious title as 'empirical scientists' --
succumb to, and become victimized by scientific reductionism. If you cannot see or 'measure' something, then it is not there. That was the classic behaviorist's (read B.F. Skinner) 'scientific position' on 'thoughts', 'ideas', 'concepts', 'values', 'beliefs', 'dreams', 'goals', 'priorities' and the like when I was going to University in 1979 but alas, that was 30 years ago, and I have not followed the evolution of the Behaviorists' philosophical position.
Somehow, I don't think it has changed much, although admittedly the Professor I had who marked my Honors Thesis was an 'Integrative Cognitive-Behaviorist'.
Bravo! Bravo! Dr. Donald Meichenbaum. A conscious -- or subconscious -- post-Hegelian integrative 'Cognitive-Behavioral Psychologist' before I even knew who Hegel was, and before I even knew what 'thesis-anti-thesis-synthesis' meant.
The synthesis of Cognitive Therapy and Behaviorism is an example of what I now call 'Dialectical Evolution'. I am a strong proponent of Dialectic -- and Multi-Dialectic -- Evolution. It happens subconsciously even when men and women are not conscious of trying to make it happen, but for the most part, it happens more happily and healthily when people are practising this form of evolution consciously, not subconsciously -- and diplomatically, not violently.
The Gaza Strip, Iraq, Afghanastan, and Pakistan...may all have 'happy' futures at some point in time, if some working type of homeostatic balance is ever arrived at...
but in the mean time, as Israel and the Hamas continue to send rockets and bombs into each other's home land, each trying to the best of their ability to exercise their own respective 'Will to Power Over Their Enemy', nobody wins, everybody loses, friends and family die, and everyone else in the world is put through Hell...
That's what I call 'negative stimulus' -- and 'Negative Dialectic Evolution' -- or 'Dialectic Regression'.
That is where I will leave things tonight.
I think I have adequately described what I mean by 'stimulus'.
It is interesting how the last part of this essay flowed much faster than the first part.
Perhaps I moved to some more interesting, motivating, gestalts.
There is a lesson here that I learned from Gestalt Therapy back in the 1980s but which I easily lose track of from time to time, and have to continue to remind myself of:
Stay with your 'figural gestalts' as they are your top energizers, your top motivators.
Don't get lost in, and become a slave to, your 'background gestalts' which are low energizers and low motivators. They will drive you into an early 'existential grave'.
As my Gestalt teachers used to say to me:
'Get out of your head and come to your senses.'
-- dgbn, Jan. 11th, 2008
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
Saturday, January 10, 2009
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.
..................................................................................
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-Epistemological-Enlightenment horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially to come.
Let's see how things evolved....
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008, Jan. 24th, 2009.
-- 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-Epistemological-Enlightenment horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially to come.
Let's see how things evolved....
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008, Jan. 24th, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
