From Kant to Korzybski To Gap-DGB Central Ego Theory

Part 1


1. Prologue


The following essay is a modified, updated, and extended version of my 1979 Honours Thesis in Psychology at The University of Waterloo. I am proud to say that my professor, sponsor, and marker back in 1979 was Dr. Donald Meichenbaum who has since become a Canadian Leader in Clinical Psycholgy specializing in 'Cognitive-Behavior Modification' interventions.

A lot of theoretical changes, modifications, and extensions have taken place in my thinking and in my writing since I was a young and idealistic 24 years old in 1979 (not to mention the underlying life changes that have contributed greatly to these theoretical changes).

In 1979, I had just barely been exposed to the concept of 'dialectic thinking' which is now the central focus of my thinking and writing. The focus up to 1979 in my thinking and my writing was a two-fold combination of 'Post-Enlightenment Rational-Empiricism (Cognitive Therapy, General Semantics...)' and 'Humanistic-Existentialism (Erich Fromm, Rollo May, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers...').

Through the 1980s, I became much more exposed and familiar with the concepts and applications of Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, Psychoanalysis (Classic, Object Relations, and Self Psychology), Jungian Psychology, Transactional Analysis...and the underlying 'double-edged' philosophical influence of Hegel and Nietzsche behind all of these 'dialectic' and 'humanistic-existential' schools of psychology.

When I finished my Honours Thesis in 1979, I knew that I had a lot more research and theoretical work to do to get into the 'deeper realm of the unconscious influences' (which I now call 'transference-archetype templates, complexes, and neuroses'), on here-and-now thinking, but even now, in 2010, the basic 'rational-empirical' foundation laid down in this essay contributes much to what is now 'Hegel's Hotel: The Multi-Dialectic (Bi-Polar) Humanistic-Existentialist'.

-- dgb, Nov. 30th, 2010,

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...

-- Are Still in Process...

.......................................................

The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness. -- Erich Fromm, 1947.


2. Introduction


The issue of values and value judgments (or evaluations) represents a critical problem in regard to man's life.

On the one hand, man if free to evaluate and to respond to the situations he is confronted with in his day to day life as he or she pleases (usually within the context of what he or she has learned up to that point in the course of his or her life). But on the other hand, man is not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations, choices, and actions will have (or won't have) on his natural and/or social environment, and the consequences that will in turn come back to him or her via these consequences on his/her environment.

The following two 'cosmic truisms' are very applicable to anyone's evolving life.

What goes around comes around.

For every action there is a reaction.



A person's evaluations (which are built on top of his or her epistemological sensory perceptions and interpretations) can be said to be 'effective' or 'functional' to the extent that they are 'life-serving' -- that is, they work towards promoting a person's health and/or happiness.

Conversely, a person's evaluations can be said to be 'ineffective' or 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are 'life-negating' -- that is, they work towards 'sabotaging' the person's health and/or happiness.

Now, being more of a 'skeptical, cynical realist and post-modern deconstructionist' in 2010, as opposed to the 'young, naive idealist' that I was in 1979, I look back at the last two paragraphs and I see clearly that these statements are not quite as 'rosy' and 'clear' as they were to me when I initially wrote them in 1979, under the dual influence of Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand was in the midst of building her 'Objective' epistemological and ethical system which she appropriately came to name -- 'Objectivism'.

By 1979, Rand had already completed two of her 'fictional-philosophical' masterpieces, 'The Fountainhead' (1943), and 'Atlas Shrugged'(1957), in which she laid down her Capitalistic Ideals that she would later blend into her more general philosophy of Objectivism.

But even back between 1974 and 1979, I was getting the beginning of my 'dialectic exposure' even though I hadn't tagged it with that particular label yet. For as well as receiving my father's Capitalistic influence -- who introduced me to the philosophy of Ayn Rand through 'The Fountainhead', and later the philosophy of Adam Smith -- still, at the same time I was reading Erich Fromm's 'Escape From Freedom' (1941), and 'Man For Himself' (1947), and 'The Sane Society' (1955) that introduced me to Fromm's 'Post-Marxian-Post-Freudian-Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'.

The potential and reality for at least partly 'opposite thinking' in epistemological, ethical, econonomic, and/or political philosophy between two very well known and well respected living philosophers at the time sparked the beginning of what would eventually, for me, become the beginning of 'dialectically integrative thinking and philosophy-psychology-ecomomics-politics...' in the 1980s.

The question for me at the time was starting to become: 'How do you understand and account for the seemingly opposite thinking in two polar opposite -- and yet both logically intelligent, rational-empirical, humanistic-existential -- philosophers'; and beyond this, 'How do you potentially integrate the results of their polar-opposite thinking?'...

These two types of dialectic questions would come to dominate my own 'Subjective-Objective', 'Humanistic-Existential', 'Capitalistic-Socialistic', 'Liberal-Conservative, 'Freudian-Adlerian-Jungian-Gestalt' brand of 'Post-Hegelian Multi-Dialectic Philosophy-Psychology-Economics-Politics...'

But a lot of years -- and a lot of ideas -- would have to pass between 1979 and what I am writing now in 2010.

In 1979, I was just getting the ball rolling...

In 1979, I was just starting the preliminary architecture of 'Hegel's Hotel'...

I was a young guy in the woods just starting to stretch out my cognitive faculties...probably much more of an 'Enlightenment idealist' than I am today....Today I identify much more with the likes of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Camus, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida....than all my 'Enlightenment mentors' that I was reading in the 1970s...(Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, Branden, Ellis, and the likes...)

A thousand essays later and Hegel's Hotel is still not completely built, probably never will be, but it is getting closer to what I continue to envision...as the architecture and construction -- metaphorically speaking -- continues to be filled in, and continues to reach higher and higher into the sky...

How do you integrate Rand's 'Objectivism' with Nietzsche's brand of epistemological and ethical 'Subjectivism' or 'Individual Relativism'?

A banker, a poverty political activist, a playboy, and an artist all walk into the same cocktail party and none of them are likely to 'see' the same things...

We are all individually -- or 'narcissistically' -- biased.

However, 'Subjectivism' or 'Individual Relativism' -- Nietzsche style -- can only take us so far. If I cross a busy street and don't see a car turning the corner and aiming right at me, with the driver not seeing me, I could be in tomorrow's obituary column...or if I, and/or my tragedy, am/is considered by a newspaper writer and/or editor to be important enough, I might even get a first or second page article...

But I won't be around to find out where I ended up in the newspaper, or if I arrived there at all, because the difference between life and death can often be only a matter of a second or two of timing...

And if my subjective, individualistic, narcissistic timing is off by even a second or two when a car is racing towards me, the driver not seeing me, or unable to apply the brakes in time, or an ex-girlfriend 'confusing' the gas with brakes...then my 'Subjective, Relativistic Philosophy' has been steamrolled under the more 'Objective Cosmic Forces of Life and Death' and/or someone else's 'Subjective, Relativisitic Epistemology and/or Ethical -- mistake, or act of Epistemological and/or Ethical judgment (or lack thereof).

In our day to day world, life and death involves a constant 'dialectic collision' between 'subjective-narcissistic' and 'more objective' (and/or other 'subjective-narcissistic') forces.

Kant's 'noumenal'(objective) and 'phenomenal'(subjective) world are constantly colliding even if man will never know perfectly just exactly what it is that is in his 'noumenal/objective' world. He still has to strive for a 'good enough' epistemological and ethical 'fit'.

Fritz Perls, the (co-)founder of Gestalt Therapy, fittingly called this the 'fitting game'.

Alfred Korzybski, one of the best (and philosophically least known) epistemologists in the history of Western Philosophy,
created his school of 'General Semantics' as a 'cognitive toolbox' for people to better learn how to play life's various '(epistemological and ethical) (subjective-objective) fitting games'.

This essay here is a continuation and an extension of Korzybski's (and later S.I. Hayakawa's) General Semantic, language, and epistemology work, as well as the 'Cognitive Theory and Therapy' ('epistemological fitting game work') of writers such as Beck, Kelly, Ellis, and Meichenbaum, as well as the political-economic philosophies ('economic-political fitting game work') of Branden, Rand and Fromm, and the 'ethical fitting game work' of other Humanistic-Existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Binswanger, Heidegger, Sartre, and Rollo May...

The two main principles that are slowly starting to be built here are:

1. The principle of 'post-Enlightenment-rational-empirical-egalitarian-humanistic-existentialism';

2. The principle of 'bi-polarity', 'dialectic interaction and negotiation between bi-polar extremes', and 'ideally evolving/resulting homeostatic-dialectic balance between bi-polar extremes in epistemology, ethics, politics, economics, and/or whatever other human endeavor we wish to partake in...


I hope you are sufficiently motivated to follow through with me on this 1979 to 2010 evolution of the 'original architecture and later construction' of -- Hegel's Hotel.


-- dgb, Nov. 30th, 2010,

-- David Gordon Bain

Evaluation and Health: From The DGB-GAP Archives (originally written in 1979; edited, modified, and updated, May, 2009)

Evaluation and Health -- By David Bain, 1979

The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness. -- Erich Fromm (1947)


Introduction

The issue of values and evaluation represents a crucial problem in regard to our lives. On the one hand, we are free to evaluate and respond to the situations we are confronted with in our day-to-day lives as we please. But on the other hand, we are not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations and responses have on our lives and well-being.

Our evaluations then, can be said to be 'healthy' and/or 'functional' to the extent that they are life-serving -- that is, they work towards protecting or enhancing our personal health and happiness. Conversely, our evaluations can be said to be 'pathological', 'neurotic', and/or 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are life-negating -- that is, they work towards sabotaging the person's health and happiness.

Now to be sure, there are numerous areas of complication here such as the matter of 'individual taste', and also the matter of 'short term pleasures' of the 'healthy' and/or 'unhealthy' variety vs. 'longer term life-serving and life-preserving choices'.

For example, if I like bananas and you like apples, there is not much to be said about this -- both are generally 'healthy' choices (unless it is a rotten apple or rotten banana). However, if over time, you develop a deficiency in calcium, magnesium, and/or potassium, then 'rational-empirical logic' would suggest that you introduce more bananas into your diet to address your nutritional deficiency and imbalance -- and to correct this deficiency/imbalance. The same would go for me if I was missing some important nutritional needs that could or can easily be found in 'apples' but not as much so in 'bananas'. (Obviously, eating both would probably be a generally good health practice for both of us, all else being equal.)

Then there are the 'unhealthier' pleasures that we may or may not disregard when warning signs start cropping up relative to our health and/or happiness. Too much food, not enough food, not enough nutritional food, too many carbs, too much alchohol, too many exotic desserts, dangerous drugs, smoking, not enough exercise...and on and on we could go...The older we get, the more we are likely to realize that there is the very real issue of our 'mortality' -- and that life is not forever -- unfortunately, some young people never reach this level of 'wisdom' before they run into tragic disaster and for my fellow aging 'baby boomers' (obviously this is me writing in 2009, not 1979), there is the issue of all of the acute and/or chronic diseases that can start to hit us in our 40s and/or 50s -- clogged arteries, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, adrenal fatigue, liver problems, kidney problems, colon problems, cancer, male problems, female problems, and on and on we could/can go...Welcome to our 50s for those who have made it this far...

And then there are all the psychological, economic, political, social, relgious, moral, and ethical issues...

Enough to more than fill an essay of this size with issues that could require an essay of 10 or 20 or 50 times this size to even begin to properly address...(See 'Hegel's Hotel'...)

What we are primarily interested in here is what might be called: 'Central Ego Functioning' including language, perception, interpretation, evaluation, a brief introduction to the idea of balancing 'Narcissistic-Dionysian' impulses with 'Apollonian moral-ethical restraints', generating response-alternatives, judging possible consequences of different actions, making decisions and choices, and the execution of action. Followed by the perception, interpretation, and evaluation of feedback -- and the resulting 'learning and/or mislearning' process.

That is the essence of 'Evaluation and Health'.

The essay will be divided into 3 parts.

In Part 1, we will look at three different 'sub-processes' in Central Ego Functioning -- specifically: 1. The Stimulus-Evaluation Stage; 2. The Response-Evaluation Stage; and 3. The Feedback-Learning Stage.

In Part 2, we will look at potential 'disturbances', 'neuroses', and/or 'pathologies' within each of the previously mentioned stages of Central Ego functioning.

In Part 3, we will look at a more 'wholistic' -- as well as 'reductionistic-compartmentalized' -- model of the personality, including The Central Ego in the centre of all the 'soap opera conflict-generating and conflict-resolving or unresolving action' as what we might also call the 'Chief Executive Officer' (CEO) in our personality. The model is designed to give us some idea of how we might approach the 'art and science of living -- from a (Post-Hegelian, multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential) DGB-GAP perspective. Part 3 was never written in the original 1979 essay but will be 2009 addition from the context of 'Hegel's Hotel'.

Let's look at the interactive dynamics of language, epistemology, evaluation, response choice, action or inaction -- and the resulting effects on our health.

Let's look at 'Evaluation and Health'.


-- March 5th, 2009.

The Four Idols of Francis Bacon

From the internet...google...The Four Idols, Sir Francis Bacon

I don't know much about Sir Francis Bacon -- I plan to learn more -- but I love the way he thinks...as attested by the following essay on Bacon written by Manly P. Hall. To me, Bacon is a 'good idol' of what it means -- and how -- to be a good epistemologist.

-- dgb, August 24th, 2008.

................................................................................

The Four Idols
of Francis Bacon
&

The New Instrument of Knowledge



by Manly P. Hall

In the Novum Organum (the new instrumentality for the acquisition of knowledge) Francis Bacon classified the intellectual fallacies of his time under four headings which he called idols. He distinguished them as idols of the Tribe, idols of the Cave, idols of the Marketplace and idols of the Theater.

An idol is an image, in this case held in the mind, which receives veneration but is without substance in itself. Bacon did not regard idols as symbols, but rather as fixations. In this respect he anticipated modern psychology.


Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable. This may explain Bacon's epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, "Let all compounds be dissolved."



Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion. The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes.

(The title page of Bacon's New Atlantis (London 1626) is ornamented with a curious design or printer's device. The winged figure of Father Time is shown lifting a female figure from a dark cave. This represents truth resurrected from the cavern of the intellect.)



Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents. The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express.





Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses. When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world.



A careful reading of the Novum Organum will show. Bacon used the theater with its curtain and its properties as a symbol of the world stage. It might even be profitable to examine the Shakespearean plays with this viewpoint in mind.



*************



After summarizing the faults which distinguish the learning of his time, Bacon offered his solution. To him true knowledge was the knowledge of causes. He defined physics as the science of variable causes, and metaphysics as the science of fixed causes. By this definition alone his position in the Platonic descent is clearly revealed. Had he chosen Aristotle as his mentor the definition would have been reversed.



It was Bacon's intention to gather into one monumental work his program for the renewal of the sciences. This he called Instauratio Magna (the encyclopedia of all knowledge), but unfortunately the project was never completed. He left enough, however, so that other men could perfect the work.



The philosophy of Francis Bacon reflects not only the genius of his own mind but the experiences which result from full and distinguished living. The very diversity of his achievements contributed to the unity of his thinking. He realized the importance of a balanced viewpoint, and he built his patterns by combining the idealism of Plato with the practical method of Aristotle. From Plato he derived a breadth of vision, and from Aristotle a depth of penetration. Like Socrates, he was an exponent of utility, and like Diogenes a sworn enemy of sophistry. Knowledge was not to be acquired merely for its own sake, which is learning, but for its use, which is intelligence. The principal end of philosophy is to improve the state of man; the merit of all learning is to be determined by its measure of usefulness.



Bacon believed that the first step was to make a comprehensive survey of that which is known, as distinguished from that which is believed. This attitude he seems to have borrowed from Paracelsus and shared with Descartes. Knowledge may be gathered from the past through tradition. It may be accumulated and augmented by observation, but it must be proved and established by experimentation. No theory is important until it has been proved by method. Thus Bacon set up the machinery of control which has since become almost the fetish of science.



Upon the solid foundation of the known, trained minds can build toward universal knowing, which is the end of the work. Knowledge alone can preserve and perfect human life. In spite of his scientific approach, Bacon in no way discounted the spiritual content in the world. Knowledge might arise from inspiration and the internal illumination of the consciousness, but this illumination is not knowledge until, through experimentation, the truth is physically established.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on the 4 IDOLS

Finding Truth

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...

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...

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.
..................................................................................