On Differential Unity, Multi-Dialectic-Integrationism, Happiness -- and Evolution
Happiness often lies in integrating differences - in 'negotiating the gaps' between different personal perspectives, philosophies, and lifestyles, between subjective and objective reality, between narcissism and altruism, between assertiveness and social sensitivity, between self and self-possibilities. That is one main reason I call my philosophy-psychology - DGB (Dialectical Gap-Bridging) Philosophy-Psychology. (The other is that it just happens to be the initials of my name.)
In my post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, post-Freudian, post-Gestalt brand of philosophy-psychology, I use a lot of hypenated names - names that negotiate and integrate the differences between the unique polar differences of the two hyphenated words that are joined together in 'differential unity'. Call that the most important aim of my particular brand of philosophy-psychology - a search and striving for differential unity and harmony in a way that negotiates and integrates much of the work of many of the famous philosophers and psychologists before me.
Most of my ideas are not brand spanking new but simply reformulated and reintegrated to blend the worlds of different academics together as well as the world of academia and the world of common sense pragmatism -- again in differential unity and harmony. Call this 'Multi-Dialectical-Evolution' -- another re-statement and reformulation of what my philosophy-psychology attempts to do. Am I biting off more than I can chew? Am I being too idealistic? Read my work and make your own judgments and -- if there are ideas and/or practicalities that you like --- make your own 'multi-dialectical integrations'. - dgb, Jan. 12th, 2008
........................................................ ..............................................
Man sometimes finds himself on the plank between the dread of a meaningless existence and the fear of failing and/or looking foolish. These are the twin abysses of man's existence looming precariously below him on both sides of his bold or petrified, progressive or regressive, 'going-across' of the proverbial Nietzschean tightrope - the tightrope from being to becoming. Have courage my friend, have courage. Don't look back and don't look down.
- dgb, September 13th, 2007.
......................................................... .........................................................
Ethical Idealism, Realism, and Multi-Dialectic Evolution
Ethical idealism should be part of a cyclical pattern
of: 1. reason - a combination of sensory experience
and sound interpretive logic; 2. humanism - self and
social compassion; 3. existentialism - self and
social responsibility/accountability; 4. realism - a
combination of what really exists and what is
practical to implement, always with an eye towards self and social evolution in its most positive sense; and 5. action - meaning
action taken aimed at dialectically bridging the gap between
your own brand of personal ethical idealism, the idealism of others, and the world as it stands right now. This is what I call: ''DGB Multi-Dialectic Ethical Idealism -- as modified by such factors as: social sensitivity, common sense, realism and pragmatism'. It involves combining your own 'Will to Power and/or Self-Empowerment' with the needs and democratic assertions of those around you, uncorrupted by personal and/or group pathological narcissism.
Unbrideled human narcissism, righteousness, and alienation - or any combination of the three- are the greatest enemies of multi-dialectic ethical idealism. One can also distinguish the difference - although perhaps not in the results and consequences - between the narcissism of 'pathological deficiency' - such as desperate insecurity, poverty, and/or an attempt to survive; vs. the narcissism of 'the predatory socio-pathic personality'' - arrogance, egotism, greed, power, control, pleasure, sex, and/or revenge. The second may sometimes be a compensation for the first. And nothing in the land of dialectics - or life in general - is strictly black and white. All different types, extremes, and variations on a theme exist to leave both lay person and philosopher alike to scratch their collective heads and look for new forms and perspectives of understanding. Call this 'multi-dialectic evolution'.
dgb, Sept. 24th, 2007, updated Dec. 15th, 2007.
.........................................................
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thursday, November 1, 2007
The Spirit of The Dialectic in Hegel's Hotel
The Unifying Spirit and Force of The Dialectic Between Opposing Polarities
The main thesis of 'Hegel's Hotel' which is the name for the evolving philosophical treatise that this essay belongs to (in honor of the great dialectic philosopher Georg William Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831, and his classic book, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit') is simply a re-working of the following adage: The sum of the whole is greater than the individual parts.
Re-stated in 'dialectic' terminology, the main thesis for 'Hegel's Hotel' may be stated as this: The integration of dialectical polarities from opposing perspectives (or 'binary opposites') into a working 'synthesis' is often if not generally superior in the quality of its knowledge and application than either of the opposing perspectives taken strictly by itself.
If you multiply this principle of integrative dialectics a hundred or even a thousand times over, then you have the expanded principle of 'multi-dialectical integrationism'. Thus 'DGB' -- Dialectical Gap-Bridging' Philosophy -- could also be reasonably called 'MDIP' -- Multi-Dialectic-Integrative Philosophy'. The first name represents the 'process' of 'dialectic conflict mediation' and of the overall 'process-teaching goal' in both Hegel's masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' and in my post-Hegelian 21st century extrapolation of it -- 'Hegel's Hotel'; the second name represents the open-ended, integrative dialectic 'results' of the previously mentioned 'dialectic conflict mediatiation and process theory' -- as originally taught in 'The Phenenomenology' and as modified and extrapolated on within my post-Hegelian 'Hegel's Hotel'.
My purpose in Hegel's Hotel is to write about 500 essays in most different areas of philosophy -- history, epistemology, ethics, politics, economics and business, science and medicine, psychology, enlightenment reasoning, romanticism, structuralism, deconstructionism, humanistic-existentialism, ontology and teleology, metaphysics, and more -- in ways that illustrate the theory and application of multi-dialectic-integrationism in many similar and different ways.
In this way of looking at things then, all else being equal, and without trying to paint myself into a philosophical corner that I cannot get out of, a good working balance between socialist and capitalist ideas and applications has the potential to be superior in quality to either Socialism or Capitalism taken by itself. The ideas I am working on in this regard I have already seen partly developed in 'sets of principles like 'Fair Trade' Capitalism and/or the name that I will probably use more often which is 'Humanistic-Existential' Capitalism.
The whole -- including the whole of all knowledge and editorial opinions democratically screened and integrated together -- is potentially superior to any 'righteous either/or, polar extremist' perspective.
The integration of polar perspectives into a 'middle balance' perspective helps to minimize if not eliminate the glaring weaknesses of any polar extremist perspective taken strictly by itself. This is not rocket science. It is partly what we do in politics and law every day. Still however, we can do better. Man -- for whatever reason -- still has an attraction, even an obsession or addiction for -- the righteously and/or narcissistically extreme. It is this quality, perhaps above all else, that continually and repetitively leads man back to the brink of destruction and self-destruction.
'Zero tolerance' generally means 'zero compassion', and zero compassion can cause as many problems in society with people trying to live and integrate together as 'too much compassion and not enough accountability' can cause chaos to run amok. Here too, we need a 'good working balance' in social and political life between accountability and compassion -- without either side 'dominating the other' ('hard-line politics' vs. 'soft-line politics'). We often call this working social and political and legal balance 'fairness' and/or 'justice'. Fairness and justice splits the difference between 'too hard' and 'too soft'.
Almost every essay in this manuscript offers a working example of this thesis in process and motion as it guides itself -- or is guided by me -- towards the negotiation of a 'hopefully better synthesis of opposing perspectives than either of the righteous, unilateral, either/or perspectives that we started with or from.
Now obviously, the case can be reasonably made that any negotiation and integration of opposing ideas that I come up with myself can be construed as a new form of 'unilateralism' as I am only negotiating with myself and no one else. As 'objective' and 'impartial' as I may or may not try to be, I am still full of only partial, limited knowledge and additionally, my own 'subjective, narcissistic biases'. At different times, I play all of the roles of: 'prosecutor', 'council for the defense', and 'judge and jury'. Doesn't this in the end make me just another 'control freak' -- as 'I play both sides towards the middle' -- or at least profess to.
This point is at least partly, if not totally, relevant and well-made (although, once again, it is me making it as I negotiate and integrate my own 'internal dialectic'). However, although this for the most part is a philosophical manuscript written by me, it is open -- or capable of becoming open -- to the alternative contributions of other writers own 'dialectic-democratic' perspectives. As much as I have my own particular point of view -- or am developing it as I move along -- I realize that 'I am not the only fish in the pond', even in the tightly and/or loosely controlled confines of my own manuscript which I would like to see become the starting-point for a new, open, multi-dialectic-democratic forum.
As Hegel wrote, and I am paraphrasing: Every new synthesis becomes the potential and actual starting-point for a new cycle of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'. This is the continuous cycle of the always evolving dialectic -- of which there are millions of potential and actual 'dialectics' both on the 'biological-existential-phenomenological side of life' and on the more 'man-made conceptual-philosophical side of evolving knowledge and culture'. The genetic offspring of a male and female animal is no less 'dialectical' than the role of a 'liberal-conservative' or a 'socialist-capitalist' negotiating and integrating the opposing polarities of the unilateral liberal vs. the unilateral conservative, or conversely, the unilateral capitalist vs. the unilateral socialist.
This is where Darwin and Hegel meet in 'Hegel's Hotel'. I give priority to Hegel for two reasons: 1. Hegel's 'dialectical theory of evolution' is superior and more all-encompassing than Darwin's in my opinion; and 2. Hegel's theory came first. Hegel's 'The Phenomenology of Spirit (or Mind) was published in (1807) whereas Darwin's more restrictive 'The Origin of the Species' was published in 1859. Now, if you really want to dig deep, and I at least partly have, a serious case could be made for rejecting both Hegel and Darwin as the ultimate founder of the theory of 'dialectical evolution' in favor of the ancient Greek philosopher -- Anaxamander (610BC-546BC).
Even another case could be made for the creator of the Chinese dialectical concepts of 'yin' and 'yang'. If that was the Han Philosophers (roughly 207 BC- 9 AD), then creative precedence would have to be given to Anaximander and his idea of 'opposing polarities seeking to dominate each other with neither side ever totally succeeding for more than a certain period of time'). If the remnants of the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' can be traced back even deeper into Chinese history such as back to the 'I Ching' (Book of Changes) which might even pre-date Confucius (551 BC-479 BC), then creative precedence for the beginning of 'dialectical philosophy' -- the idea of opposing polarities 'doing battle' with each other and/or 'compromising in the middle' -- might have to go to China (the beginning of Eastern Philosophy) rather than Greece (the beginning of Western Philosophy). At this point in time, I have to plead ignorant to any possible history of the dialectic in Middle Eastern Philosophy/Religion such as Hinduism, and Arabic or Persian Philosophy. I'm sure a case could probably be made here to.
What I find truly remarkable is that both ancient Eastern and Western man -- with or without communication between each other -- had arrived philosophically at approximately the same place some 2000 years plus before Hegel's classic philosophical work: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' (1807).
It is this driving philosophical force -- the force of the dialectic from ancient times to now -- that is also the driving force of my essay here and the network of essays that it belongs to in my evolving 'post-Hegelian' dialectical treatise; 'Hegel's Hotel'. (See my profile for the most recent table of contents.)
Welcome to Hegel's Hotel.
dgb, Nov. 1st, 2007, updated Feb. 1st, 2008, April 4th, 2008.
The main thesis of 'Hegel's Hotel' which is the name for the evolving philosophical treatise that this essay belongs to (in honor of the great dialectic philosopher Georg William Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831, and his classic book, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit') is simply a re-working of the following adage: The sum of the whole is greater than the individual parts.
Re-stated in 'dialectic' terminology, the main thesis for 'Hegel's Hotel' may be stated as this: The integration of dialectical polarities from opposing perspectives (or 'binary opposites') into a working 'synthesis' is often if not generally superior in the quality of its knowledge and application than either of the opposing perspectives taken strictly by itself.
If you multiply this principle of integrative dialectics a hundred or even a thousand times over, then you have the expanded principle of 'multi-dialectical integrationism'. Thus 'DGB' -- Dialectical Gap-Bridging' Philosophy -- could also be reasonably called 'MDIP' -- Multi-Dialectic-Integrative Philosophy'. The first name represents the 'process' of 'dialectic conflict mediation' and of the overall 'process-teaching goal' in both Hegel's masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' and in my post-Hegelian 21st century extrapolation of it -- 'Hegel's Hotel'; the second name represents the open-ended, integrative dialectic 'results' of the previously mentioned 'dialectic conflict mediatiation and process theory' -- as originally taught in 'The Phenenomenology' and as modified and extrapolated on within my post-Hegelian 'Hegel's Hotel'.
My purpose in Hegel's Hotel is to write about 500 essays in most different areas of philosophy -- history, epistemology, ethics, politics, economics and business, science and medicine, psychology, enlightenment reasoning, romanticism, structuralism, deconstructionism, humanistic-existentialism, ontology and teleology, metaphysics, and more -- in ways that illustrate the theory and application of multi-dialectic-integrationism in many similar and different ways.
In this way of looking at things then, all else being equal, and without trying to paint myself into a philosophical corner that I cannot get out of, a good working balance between socialist and capitalist ideas and applications has the potential to be superior in quality to either Socialism or Capitalism taken by itself. The ideas I am working on in this regard I have already seen partly developed in 'sets of principles like 'Fair Trade' Capitalism and/or the name that I will probably use more often which is 'Humanistic-Existential' Capitalism.
The whole -- including the whole of all knowledge and editorial opinions democratically screened and integrated together -- is potentially superior to any 'righteous either/or, polar extremist' perspective.
The integration of polar perspectives into a 'middle balance' perspective helps to minimize if not eliminate the glaring weaknesses of any polar extremist perspective taken strictly by itself. This is not rocket science. It is partly what we do in politics and law every day. Still however, we can do better. Man -- for whatever reason -- still has an attraction, even an obsession or addiction for -- the righteously and/or narcissistically extreme. It is this quality, perhaps above all else, that continually and repetitively leads man back to the brink of destruction and self-destruction.
'Zero tolerance' generally means 'zero compassion', and zero compassion can cause as many problems in society with people trying to live and integrate together as 'too much compassion and not enough accountability' can cause chaos to run amok. Here too, we need a 'good working balance' in social and political life between accountability and compassion -- without either side 'dominating the other' ('hard-line politics' vs. 'soft-line politics'). We often call this working social and political and legal balance 'fairness' and/or 'justice'. Fairness and justice splits the difference between 'too hard' and 'too soft'.
Almost every essay in this manuscript offers a working example of this thesis in process and motion as it guides itself -- or is guided by me -- towards the negotiation of a 'hopefully better synthesis of opposing perspectives than either of the righteous, unilateral, either/or perspectives that we started with or from.
Now obviously, the case can be reasonably made that any negotiation and integration of opposing ideas that I come up with myself can be construed as a new form of 'unilateralism' as I am only negotiating with myself and no one else. As 'objective' and 'impartial' as I may or may not try to be, I am still full of only partial, limited knowledge and additionally, my own 'subjective, narcissistic biases'. At different times, I play all of the roles of: 'prosecutor', 'council for the defense', and 'judge and jury'. Doesn't this in the end make me just another 'control freak' -- as 'I play both sides towards the middle' -- or at least profess to.
This point is at least partly, if not totally, relevant and well-made (although, once again, it is me making it as I negotiate and integrate my own 'internal dialectic'). However, although this for the most part is a philosophical manuscript written by me, it is open -- or capable of becoming open -- to the alternative contributions of other writers own 'dialectic-democratic' perspectives. As much as I have my own particular point of view -- or am developing it as I move along -- I realize that 'I am not the only fish in the pond', even in the tightly and/or loosely controlled confines of my own manuscript which I would like to see become the starting-point for a new, open, multi-dialectic-democratic forum.
As Hegel wrote, and I am paraphrasing: Every new synthesis becomes the potential and actual starting-point for a new cycle of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', and 'synthesis'. This is the continuous cycle of the always evolving dialectic -- of which there are millions of potential and actual 'dialectics' both on the 'biological-existential-phenomenological side of life' and on the more 'man-made conceptual-philosophical side of evolving knowledge and culture'. The genetic offspring of a male and female animal is no less 'dialectical' than the role of a 'liberal-conservative' or a 'socialist-capitalist' negotiating and integrating the opposing polarities of the unilateral liberal vs. the unilateral conservative, or conversely, the unilateral capitalist vs. the unilateral socialist.
This is where Darwin and Hegel meet in 'Hegel's Hotel'. I give priority to Hegel for two reasons: 1. Hegel's 'dialectical theory of evolution' is superior and more all-encompassing than Darwin's in my opinion; and 2. Hegel's theory came first. Hegel's 'The Phenomenology of Spirit (or Mind) was published in (1807) whereas Darwin's more restrictive 'The Origin of the Species' was published in 1859. Now, if you really want to dig deep, and I at least partly have, a serious case could be made for rejecting both Hegel and Darwin as the ultimate founder of the theory of 'dialectical evolution' in favor of the ancient Greek philosopher -- Anaxamander (610BC-546BC).
Even another case could be made for the creator of the Chinese dialectical concepts of 'yin' and 'yang'. If that was the Han Philosophers (roughly 207 BC- 9 AD), then creative precedence would have to be given to Anaximander and his idea of 'opposing polarities seeking to dominate each other with neither side ever totally succeeding for more than a certain period of time'). If the remnants of the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' can be traced back even deeper into Chinese history such as back to the 'I Ching' (Book of Changes) which might even pre-date Confucius (551 BC-479 BC), then creative precedence for the beginning of 'dialectical philosophy' -- the idea of opposing polarities 'doing battle' with each other and/or 'compromising in the middle' -- might have to go to China (the beginning of Eastern Philosophy) rather than Greece (the beginning of Western Philosophy). At this point in time, I have to plead ignorant to any possible history of the dialectic in Middle Eastern Philosophy/Religion such as Hinduism, and Arabic or Persian Philosophy. I'm sure a case could probably be made here to.
What I find truly remarkable is that both ancient Eastern and Western man -- with or without communication between each other -- had arrived philosophically at approximately the same place some 2000 years plus before Hegel's classic philosophical work: 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' (1807).
It is this driving philosophical force -- the force of the dialectic from ancient times to now -- that is also the driving force of my essay here and the network of essays that it belongs to in my evolving 'post-Hegelian' dialectical treatise; 'Hegel's Hotel'. (See my profile for the most recent table of contents.)
Welcome to Hegel's Hotel.
dgb, Nov. 1st, 2007, updated Feb. 1st, 2008, April 4th, 2008.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
A Short Mission Statement of Hegel's Hotel: The DGB Philosophy Forum
The purpose of Hegel's Hotel: The DGB Philosophy Forum is to promote the healthy use of the dialectic (dialogue, discussion, debate, negotiation, integration) for personal, social, economic, political, legal, and other cultural reasons. The two biggest obstacles that tend to stop or stifle the healthy use of the dialectic are: 1. human narcissism -- an overblown me, me, me attitude; and human righteousness -- an either-or attitude that tends to block out all reasonable discussion. Oftentimes, these two out-of-balance, even pathological human traits combine together -- human righteousness masking an underlying narcissistic agenda. Usually, a healthy use of the dialectic for negotiation, integration, and conflict resolution purposes requires that both people or both parties in the dialectic get in touch with any and all narcissistic agendas on both sides of the negotiation table -- and move towards more central ground. Ignoring or trying to hide these agendas, manipulating facts and issues, putting up smoke screens, trying to coerce and-or intimidate the opponent, aiming for a win-lose as opposed to a win-win resolution -- these are all signs of a narcissistic as opposed to an ethical, humanistic-existential dialectic and tends to leave both parties resentful and non-trusting of the other party which is particularly unhealthy in any desired ongoing, long-term relationship. Ethical simply refers to negotiating with integrity. And humanistic-existential simply refers to negotiating with a balanced perspective of both self-assertiveness and social sensitivity. dgb, Sept. 21st, 2007.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Names, Names, Names...
It seems I've almost had more trouble figuring out a name for my philosophy than I have had figuring out the contents (process and the structure) of the philosophy itself. And yes, I know that in the realms of names, ideas, and theories 'simplest' is usually the best way to go (look up 'Occam's Razor' if you are not familiar with it), but in seeking a 'distinguishing feature' of my philosophy from all the rest, new names keep arising -- some more technical than the simplest of the bunch.
Here are some of the names I've either gone through and/or am still dwelling on, roughly in chronological order from oldest to newest (and simplest to more technical). All of these names are acceptable in my books -- I have used, am using, and/or am about to use, any and all of them at different points in time.
1. Gap Philosophy
2. DGB (Dialectical Gap-Bridging) Philosophy
3. Gap-DGB Philosophy
4. Gap Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existentialism (Gap MDHE Philosophy or GMDHE)
5. DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanisitic-Existentialism (DGB MDHE Philosophy)
Thus, the two most distinguishing features of my philosophy are: 1. it's 'multi-dialectic' feature (see the 'dialectic' section for more clarification in this area) in combination with its 'humanistic-existential' feature.
The closest academically recognized school of philosophy-psychology to mine is Perls' Gestalt Therapy. It is no coincidence in this regard because I spent more than 12 years off and on studying and/or experiencing Gestalt Therapy (mainly between 1980 and 1991). It was through Perls -- and Jung and Freud -- that I arrived eventually at Hegel. And it is Hegel who is the number 1 star of my 'philosophy show' with all due respect to Nietzsche and Perls who are probably 'my best two supporting actors'. In no particular, Freud, Jung, Klein, Fairbairn, Berne, Spinoza, Fromm, Korzybski, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Locke, Kant, Diderot, Votaire, Rousseau, Jefferson, Kierkegaard, Marx, Adam Smith, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida have all all played -- and are still playing -- significant roles in the ongoing evolution of Gap-DGB Philosophy. For those of you who venture into 'Hegel's Hotel' before it is finished -- which could be another 3 to 5 years -- I welcome you here, and hope you get something significant out of it that you either were or weren't looking for. However, please understand and be tolerant of the fact that the work and all of the essays that will eventually be contained in it are not finished yet -- I'm at about 100 essays now and aiming for something over 500 essays. This is intended to be my signature life work.
Enjoy -- and/or I hope this work will take you to an integrative place of 'higher knowledge' and 'more balanced well-being'.
dgb, Sept. 17th, 2007.
Here are some of the names I've either gone through and/or am still dwelling on, roughly in chronological order from oldest to newest (and simplest to more technical). All of these names are acceptable in my books -- I have used, am using, and/or am about to use, any and all of them at different points in time.
1. Gap Philosophy
2. DGB (Dialectical Gap-Bridging) Philosophy
3. Gap-DGB Philosophy
4. Gap Multi-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existentialism (Gap MDHE Philosophy or GMDHE)
5. DGB Multi-Dialectic, Humanisitic-Existentialism (DGB MDHE Philosophy)
Thus, the two most distinguishing features of my philosophy are: 1. it's 'multi-dialectic' feature (see the 'dialectic' section for more clarification in this area) in combination with its 'humanistic-existential' feature.
The closest academically recognized school of philosophy-psychology to mine is Perls' Gestalt Therapy. It is no coincidence in this regard because I spent more than 12 years off and on studying and/or experiencing Gestalt Therapy (mainly between 1980 and 1991). It was through Perls -- and Jung and Freud -- that I arrived eventually at Hegel. And it is Hegel who is the number 1 star of my 'philosophy show' with all due respect to Nietzsche and Perls who are probably 'my best two supporting actors'. In no particular, Freud, Jung, Klein, Fairbairn, Berne, Spinoza, Fromm, Korzybski, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Locke, Kant, Diderot, Votaire, Rousseau, Jefferson, Kierkegaard, Marx, Adam Smith, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida have all all played -- and are still playing -- significant roles in the ongoing evolution of Gap-DGB Philosophy. For those of you who venture into 'Hegel's Hotel' before it is finished -- which could be another 3 to 5 years -- I welcome you here, and hope you get something significant out of it that you either were or weren't looking for. However, please understand and be tolerant of the fact that the work and all of the essays that will eventually be contained in it are not finished yet -- I'm at about 100 essays now and aiming for something over 500 essays. This is intended to be my signature life work.
Enjoy -- and/or I hope this work will take you to an integrative place of 'higher knowledge' and 'more balanced well-being'.
dgb, Sept. 17th, 2007.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Going Across
Man often finds himself on the plank between the dread of a meaningless existence and the fear of failing or looking foolish. These are the twin abysses of man's existence looming precariously below him on both sides of his bold or petrified, progressive or regressive, 'going-across' of the proverbial Nietzschean tightrope -- the tightrope from being to becoming. Have courage my friend, have courage. Don't look back and don't look down.
- dgb, September 13th, 2007.
- dgb, September 13th, 2007.
Feedback on 'Going Across' From Paul Baioni (New Orleans)
Email from one of my first readers, Paul Baioni,
Good morning Dave,
The struggle within man arises due to his failure to be "in touch" with
his
inner self. He battles the voids, creating a lack of confidence in his
beliefs, questioning his "purpose" resulting in poorly defined
priorities.
Man is a creation of highly complicated reactions. We can not
understand
that of which we have no knowledge. Lacking clearly defined priorities
creates confusion. This confusion is part of the natural evolution of
an IP (Individual Philosophy, my clarification) creating internal anxiety. Anxiety accentuates the voids, immobilizing
action for fear of failure or making a mistake.
Nietzsche was right. Have courage to accept who you are, where you are
in
your life, and the rest will take care of itself. Be true to your inner
self, easing the anxiety, smoothing the voids. Learn from the past,
don't
dwell, and never fear the future, embrace it, for only the future,
never the
past, presents opportunity.
Paul
Good morning Dave,
The struggle within man arises due to his failure to be "in touch" with
his
inner self. He battles the voids, creating a lack of confidence in his
beliefs, questioning his "purpose" resulting in poorly defined
priorities.
Man is a creation of highly complicated reactions. We can not
understand
that of which we have no knowledge. Lacking clearly defined priorities
creates confusion. This confusion is part of the natural evolution of
an IP (Individual Philosophy, my clarification) creating internal anxiety. Anxiety accentuates the voids, immobilizing
action for fear of failure or making a mistake.
Nietzsche was right. Have courage to accept who you are, where you are
in
your life, and the rest will take care of itself. Be true to your inner
self, easing the anxiety, smoothing the voids. Learn from the past,
don't
dwell, and never fear the future, embrace it, for only the future,
never the
past, presents opportunity.
Paul
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Wrestling With A Name For My Evolving Philosophy
For years now, I have been wrestling with a name for my evolving philosophy and what I am trying to do here. You may see a multitude of different -- or partly different -- names given to it in different essays. Some technical, others less technical. Acronyms are dangerous because unless you fill your reader in quickly as to what the acronym means, it will have no meaning. I might as well be writing in Latin. I've tried to alleviate this problem by briefly saying what I mean by 'Hegel's Hotel', 'Gap', and 'DGB' in the sub-text just below my title.
'Hegel's Hotel' can be viewed as an online book of philosophy essays divided into about 25-30 different blogsites on different topics, with about 10-20 essays per blogsite. These different blogsites and the contents within each of them are under construction as we speak, some more further advanced than other.
There are certain themes that will return in my work over and over and over again.
One is the danger of 'uncontrolled, rampant narcissism' on a personal level, a family level, a business level, a social and cultural level, and a political level. I do not advocate -- like many religions do -- suppressing and/or repressing all forms and levels of narcissism and hedonism (the two are inter-related: 'narcissism' equals self-centredness or basically selfishness; hedonism equals the pursuit of pleasure on a purely sensual and/or broader level depending on how tightly or loosely we want to define it). Rather, I stress the need to balance narcissistic and hedonistic tendencies and impulses with socially empathetic humanistic-existential values and ethics.
Two is the danger of uncontrolled righteous intolerance both within oneself and within one's family, social, business, political and legal environment. Religious and political intolerance are two important sub-areas of what I am writing about here. Righteous intolerance, unbridled -- like narcissism -- leads to all sorts of nasty things like alienation, discrimination, hate, violence, war, destruction, and self-destruction in all varieties and forms.
There is a place for righteous rage if it is related to civil matters. Some of these philosophy papers are a good place for it. Social activism -- whether in written and/or oral-political format -- is a good place to direct civil rage. Get to the right target; don't take it out on your ex-wife or worse, your kids, who are only taking advantage (even if it is unfairly) of existing laws. Get to the source -- the politiicans and lobbyists who worked hand in hand to create these laws and/or have the power to now change them. Internalized righteous rage can lead to self-destruction and/or misplaced aggression. Either let go of your rage and/or direct it democratically to the right place; then let go of it before it destroys you.
My righteous rage can fly off the charts (even as I try to keep it grounded and under control) when we start getting into matters of 'family justice'. One of my blogs is dedicated to this subject matter -- or at least will be. Righteous (and to be sure, partly narcissistically biased) papers that I wrote years ago are still waiting to be re-written on my family law blogsite. So too are any new essays regarding this issue of Canadian law treating separated fathers as second class citizens -- or 'donkeys' is a metaphor i will also use -- because they are being unfairly financially burdened to the point of borderline collapsing. I will say no more at this time.
The philosophical solution or process I offer is a mixture of integrated post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, and 'post other philosophers and psychologists' philosophy.
I am generally looking to 'dialectically bridge gaps' between opposing perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles. That is, unless I am aiming to philosophically 'deconstruct' political and legal imbalances and injustices (as in the case of Canadian family law).
In short, my philosophy is mainly post-Hegelian dialectical integrationism (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis or 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' as I call it, shortedned to 'DGB', which narcissistically speaking, also just happens to be the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain).
There you have it -- 'Hegel's Hotel: The DGB (Dialectical) Philosophy Forum' -- in a nutshell. You are welcome to offer editorial feedback and/or essay contributions if you are so motivated. You can send your essay(s) to: dgbainsky@yahoo.com and I will include your essay in my forum if I think it 'moves the forum forward in a democratic and professional manner'. You do not have to agree with me -- I have already included essays by people who have disagreed with some point or thesis that I have made (such as my father and an email friend I met through these blogsites from New Orleans who has disagreed with me on the 'freedom vs. determinism' issue, and on one of my essays against 'American Unilateralism'). All I expect from you is a certain level of grammatical and logical coherence, as well as clarity, force, and professionalism in your rhetorical perspective (standards that I may or may not always live up to myself).
dgb, September 12th, 2007, updated Oct. 17th, 2007.
'Hegel's Hotel' can be viewed as an online book of philosophy essays divided into about 25-30 different blogsites on different topics, with about 10-20 essays per blogsite. These different blogsites and the contents within each of them are under construction as we speak, some more further advanced than other.
There are certain themes that will return in my work over and over and over again.
One is the danger of 'uncontrolled, rampant narcissism' on a personal level, a family level, a business level, a social and cultural level, and a political level. I do not advocate -- like many religions do -- suppressing and/or repressing all forms and levels of narcissism and hedonism (the two are inter-related: 'narcissism' equals self-centredness or basically selfishness; hedonism equals the pursuit of pleasure on a purely sensual and/or broader level depending on how tightly or loosely we want to define it). Rather, I stress the need to balance narcissistic and hedonistic tendencies and impulses with socially empathetic humanistic-existential values and ethics.
Two is the danger of uncontrolled righteous intolerance both within oneself and within one's family, social, business, political and legal environment. Religious and political intolerance are two important sub-areas of what I am writing about here. Righteous intolerance, unbridled -- like narcissism -- leads to all sorts of nasty things like alienation, discrimination, hate, violence, war, destruction, and self-destruction in all varieties and forms.
There is a place for righteous rage if it is related to civil matters. Some of these philosophy papers are a good place for it. Social activism -- whether in written and/or oral-political format -- is a good place to direct civil rage. Get to the right target; don't take it out on your ex-wife or worse, your kids, who are only taking advantage (even if it is unfairly) of existing laws. Get to the source -- the politiicans and lobbyists who worked hand in hand to create these laws and/or have the power to now change them. Internalized righteous rage can lead to self-destruction and/or misplaced aggression. Either let go of your rage and/or direct it democratically to the right place; then let go of it before it destroys you.
My righteous rage can fly off the charts (even as I try to keep it grounded and under control) when we start getting into matters of 'family justice'. One of my blogs is dedicated to this subject matter -- or at least will be. Righteous (and to be sure, partly narcissistically biased) papers that I wrote years ago are still waiting to be re-written on my family law blogsite. So too are any new essays regarding this issue of Canadian law treating separated fathers as second class citizens -- or 'donkeys' is a metaphor i will also use -- because they are being unfairly financially burdened to the point of borderline collapsing. I will say no more at this time.
The philosophical solution or process I offer is a mixture of integrated post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, and 'post other philosophers and psychologists' philosophy.
I am generally looking to 'dialectically bridge gaps' between opposing perspectives, philosophies, lifestyles. That is, unless I am aiming to philosophically 'deconstruct' political and legal imbalances and injustices (as in the case of Canadian family law).
In short, my philosophy is mainly post-Hegelian dialectical integrationism (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis or 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging' as I call it, shortedned to 'DGB', which narcissistically speaking, also just happens to be the initials of my name -- David Gordon Bain).
There you have it -- 'Hegel's Hotel: The DGB (Dialectical) Philosophy Forum' -- in a nutshell. You are welcome to offer editorial feedback and/or essay contributions if you are so motivated. You can send your essay(s) to: dgbainsky@yahoo.com and I will include your essay in my forum if I think it 'moves the forum forward in a democratic and professional manner'. You do not have to agree with me -- I have already included essays by people who have disagreed with some point or thesis that I have made (such as my father and an email friend I met through these blogsites from New Orleans who has disagreed with me on the 'freedom vs. determinism' issue, and on one of my essays against 'American Unilateralism'). All I expect from you is a certain level of grammatical and logical coherence, as well as clarity, force, and professionalism in your rhetorical perspective (standards that I may or may not always live up to myself).
dgb, September 12th, 2007, updated Oct. 17th, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
