The dialectic is nice when people are on the same page, have good will, respect, empathy, and/or chemistry together...Lennon/McCartney at their best.......Dylan/Mike Bloomfield/Al Kooper on Highway 67 Revisted...
However, times change and the dialectic does not always work smoothly.
The dialectic does not usually work as smoothly when people lose their good will, respect, empathy, and/or chemistry towards each other -- and struggle coming to terms with whatever the dialectic problem or conflict is...
Overt and/or covert strife often results, including small or large wars, hot and/or cold tempers, impasses, alienation, aggression, coercion, manipulation, force, intimidation, provocation, retaliation, and so on...
The dialectic process has changed from a smooth, creative one, to a hostile destructive one.
The same husband and wife can work beautifully together when everything is going well together...especially in the earlier stages of their relationship... But can they sustain their good will for each other, their mutual respect and empathy after they have come to know each other's flaws, 'dialectic extremes' and 'dialectic avoidances'...
That is the 50 million dollar dialectic and existential question -- and the mark of whether a long term relationship stays together and can sustain itself in healthy fashion or not...
Same with business partners, co-workers, or employers and employees at work who may or may not be on the same page with each other depending on the context and the history of the situation.
Introduce people's ambitions, greed, selfishness, anal retentiveness, and the opposite...no ethics, no boundaries, no respect -- and the smooth-sailing dialectic starts to falls apart, and with it, the ability to problem solve, conflict-resolve, and worst of all, even the wish and the will to be together to try to sovle and/or resolve things.
Which brings us back to a fundamental question:
Which God(s)/Idol(s)/Archetype(s)/values....does each person most prioritize and/or worship...
Which 'ego-state' is running -- or at least dominating -- each person's individual ship?
Are the different Gods/Values/Priorities compatible?
Or is there a 'core nuclear conflict' in the relationship,
That is just buried under the surface, perculating, waiting to boil to the top --
And then boil over,
To become a huge, dramatic soap opera?
Greek soap operas from ancient days gone by...
Spilling over in the sky and on the ground...
As described in Greek myths like The Iliad and The Odyssey...
Are all too human...too human...
Pointing to only one, two, or three conclusions,
God made man in his/her own image,
Or, man made God in his/her own image,
Or, Gods are human and humans are Gods...
And they both meet on the shores of Personality Theory...
-- DGBN, Dec. 28th-29th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Two Biggest Mistakes An Owner and/or Manager of A Company Can Make
The two biggest mistakes an owner and/or manager of a company can make are: one, to believe that that there are no 'brains' at the bottom of the organization; and/or two, alternatively, not to care if there is or there isn't.
In other words, mistake number 1 is to run a company unilaterally. (i.e. all the power comes from the top).
And mistake number 2 is to run a company narcissistically (meaning people in the middle and at the bottom of the organization essentially 'don't exist, and usually in conjunction with this, all the money tends to flow to the top of the organization and only 'scraps' and 'dribbles' of it flow back down again.
(The polarity of the 'top-heavy' pathological company is the 'bottom-heavy' pathological company where either there is not solid leadership from the top and/or for example, 'pathological unions or agents' undermine and sabotage the overall health of the organization. This too, might be a factor in some cases for manufacturing companies choosing to abandon America in search of lower labor costs on foreign shores. No extreme labor unions to deal with).
The healthier alternatives are to:
1. Run a company dialectically meaning that as ideally as possible, the top embraces the bottom of the organization and gains valuable feedback from the input of the bottom -- and middle -- of the organization.
2. A humanistic-existential, ethical owner/manager knows that a company needs a healthy profit to sustain itself and to stay competitive in the industry, but he or she does not believe in 'exploiting' or 'gouging' or 'juicing' or 'disrespecting' either the people within the organization -- and/or the people outside the organization, namely the suppliers and the customers/potential customers. In exchange, the people at the bottom and the middle of the organization tend to show greater respect and harmony with the 'Humanistic-Existential-Ethical-Dialectic' (HEED) leaders at the top of the organization flow chart.
From a DGB perspective, these are the two most important factors in distinguishing a healthy, vibrant organization, from an unstable, unhealthy one.
-- DGBN, November 27th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
In other words, mistake number 1 is to run a company unilaterally. (i.e. all the power comes from the top).
And mistake number 2 is to run a company narcissistically (meaning people in the middle and at the bottom of the organization essentially 'don't exist, and usually in conjunction with this, all the money tends to flow to the top of the organization and only 'scraps' and 'dribbles' of it flow back down again.
(The polarity of the 'top-heavy' pathological company is the 'bottom-heavy' pathological company where either there is not solid leadership from the top and/or for example, 'pathological unions or agents' undermine and sabotage the overall health of the organization. This too, might be a factor in some cases for manufacturing companies choosing to abandon America in search of lower labor costs on foreign shores. No extreme labor unions to deal with).
The healthier alternatives are to:
1. Run a company dialectically meaning that as ideally as possible, the top embraces the bottom of the organization and gains valuable feedback from the input of the bottom -- and middle -- of the organization.
2. A humanistic-existential, ethical owner/manager knows that a company needs a healthy profit to sustain itself and to stay competitive in the industry, but he or she does not believe in 'exploiting' or 'gouging' or 'juicing' or 'disrespecting' either the people within the organization -- and/or the people outside the organization, namely the suppliers and the customers/potential customers. In exchange, the people at the bottom and the middle of the organization tend to show greater respect and harmony with the 'Humanistic-Existential-Ethical-Dialectic' (HEED) leaders at the top of the organization flow chart.
From a DGB perspective, these are the two most important factors in distinguishing a healthy, vibrant organization, from an unstable, unhealthy one.
-- DGBN, November 27th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain,
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
An Important Dialectic Split: Entropy and The Status Quo vs. New Action and Change
Fear and anxiety dictate much of human behavior.
There are some people who thrive on change, and opening new doors.
But there are probably considerably more who don't.
When we are talking about serious change in our lives,
Anxiety and fear can reach terrifying proportions.
.....................................................................
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The doer alone learneth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
...........................................................................
Entropy is stifling, freezing, cementing...often, the older we get, the more entropy sets in and stifles change...meaning the less we want to change, the more we fear change, and/or the less passionate and courageous energy we have for 'gazing at the abyss' in order to propel us forward into change...
If we have a solid job and/or career, we are afraid of losing it; if we are making enough money to pay our bills, then we are afraid to take the lunge that might propel us downward rather than upward...down towards the abyss...
However frightening or boring or alienating or crushing our present job may be,
As we gaze into our 'psychological abyss',
The 'economic abyss' can be ten times more terrifying and immobilizing,
Better to be an automaton, a robot, a puppet on a string, a scapegoat for organizational failure, a man or woman without feelings, a man or woman without a conscience, a monster, a cutthroat, a manipulater, a victim or a victimizer, a 'backroom' player,
Than to be a man or a woman without a job,
Or dropping to a job that doesn't pay the bills.
And thus entropy sets in,
Entropy conquers all,
Entropy reigns,
While creative genius,
Silently flows away in a pool of existential blood,
Or freezes up in our own internal tombstone,
Thank God for hobbies...
Or creativity might never get out...
DGBN, November 26th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,
Are still in process...
There are some people who thrive on change, and opening new doors.
But there are probably considerably more who don't.
When we are talking about serious change in our lives,
Anxiety and fear can reach terrifying proportions.
.....................................................................
If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The doer alone learneth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
...........................................................................
Entropy is stifling, freezing, cementing...often, the older we get, the more entropy sets in and stifles change...meaning the less we want to change, the more we fear change, and/or the less passionate and courageous energy we have for 'gazing at the abyss' in order to propel us forward into change...
If we have a solid job and/or career, we are afraid of losing it; if we are making enough money to pay our bills, then we are afraid to take the lunge that might propel us downward rather than upward...down towards the abyss...
However frightening or boring or alienating or crushing our present job may be,
As we gaze into our 'psychological abyss',
The 'economic abyss' can be ten times more terrifying and immobilizing,
Better to be an automaton, a robot, a puppet on a string, a scapegoat for organizational failure, a man or woman without feelings, a man or woman without a conscience, a monster, a cutthroat, a manipulater, a victim or a victimizer, a 'backroom' player,
Than to be a man or a woman without a job,
Or dropping to a job that doesn't pay the bills.
And thus entropy sets in,
Entropy conquers all,
Entropy reigns,
While creative genius,
Silently flows away in a pool of existential blood,
Or freezes up in our own internal tombstone,
Thank God for hobbies...
Or creativity might never get out...
DGBN, November 26th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,
Are still in process...
Monday, November 24, 2008
'Good' Capitalism is Not Rocket Science...
Good Capitalism is not rocket science...
It is capitalism with integrity.
It is capitalism with reciprocity.
The silver rule.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
-- DGBN, Nov. 24th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process....
....................................................................
It is capitalism with integrity.
It is capitalism with reciprocity.
The silver rule.
Don't do unto others what you would not want them to do to you.
-- DGBN, Nov. 24th, 2008.
David Gordon Bain,
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations...
Are still in process....
....................................................................
Friday, November 21, 2008
Anectdote about Alfred Korzybski: 'The Map is Not The Territory'
One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he suddenly interrupted the lesson in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row, if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think", said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies". The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to throw up, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see, ladies and gentlemen", Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter." Apparently his prank aimed to illustrate how some human suffering originates from the confusion or conflation of linguistic representations of reality and reality itself.[1]
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The Hegelian Evolutionary -- and/or Tragic -- Life-Cycle
Life is a pendulum swing between 'balance' and 'unbalance', between stretching in different degrees towards one particular brand of extremism, before reaching a point of judgment where one decides that one has had enough of that, and then swinging back again towards the middle, if not past the middle point and out towards the opposite polarity. This pendulum process of life never stops.
This is the Hegelian (or post-Hegelian) 'life-cycle' of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis -- then start the whole process over again, ideally at a higher state of experience and wisdom but that is certainly not guaranteed because man has a high propensity for narcissism, greed, love, sex, jealousy, envy, hate, unilateralism, power, revenge, imperialism, 'tit for tat', destruction, and self-destruction. These factors inevitably undermine the 'ideal' element in the Hegelian evolutionary life cycle, undermine the 'learning from history' factor -- and, indeed, add a very common 'tragic' element to the whole process -- life and death, evolution and regression, continually hanging in the balance of man's individual and/or collective, reason and/or stupidity.
There is no way of predicting whether man will learn -- and/or not learn -- individually and/or collectively -- from his or her earlier acts of transgression and/or narcissistic/righteous stupidity.
This adds an 'existential, free-will' component to any Hegelian thought of 'predictable historical determinism'.
-- dgb, Nov. 9th, 2008.
This is the Hegelian (or post-Hegelian) 'life-cycle' of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis -- then start the whole process over again, ideally at a higher state of experience and wisdom but that is certainly not guaranteed because man has a high propensity for narcissism, greed, love, sex, jealousy, envy, hate, unilateralism, power, revenge, imperialism, 'tit for tat', destruction, and self-destruction. These factors inevitably undermine the 'ideal' element in the Hegelian evolutionary life cycle, undermine the 'learning from history' factor -- and, indeed, add a very common 'tragic' element to the whole process -- life and death, evolution and regression, continually hanging in the balance of man's individual and/or collective, reason and/or stupidity.
There is no way of predicting whether man will learn -- and/or not learn -- individually and/or collectively -- from his or her earlier acts of transgression and/or narcissistic/righteous stupidity.
This adds an 'existential, free-will' component to any Hegelian thought of 'predictable historical determinism'.
-- dgb, Nov. 9th, 2008.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
On 'Trying' vs. 'Doing'
Most people who use the word 'try' fail to do what they are 'trying' to do. That is why they use it -- as an 'excuse', a 'rationalization', a 'justification' -- for failing. (And I freely admit, I can be one of the worst offenders here.)
Either you want to do something badly enough -- that you just do it -- and no excuses are needed and/or relevant. Or you use the word 'try' -- and you set yourself up for failure. Call the word 'try' a self-fulfilling prophecy for expected failure.
Either you 'do'.
Or you 'don't'.
Everything else is irrelevant -- or at least background 'noise, smoke and mirrors' for what really is going on, for what really is or isn't going to happen.
Of course for some things, you need a willing partner. Or at least one who is willing to 'negotiate' with you.
But that is a different story -- one that we will now take to the American Politics section of Hegel's Hotel.
- dgb, October 28th, 2008.
Either you want to do something badly enough -- that you just do it -- and no excuses are needed and/or relevant. Or you use the word 'try' -- and you set yourself up for failure. Call the word 'try' a self-fulfilling prophecy for expected failure.
Either you 'do'.
Or you 'don't'.
Everything else is irrelevant -- or at least background 'noise, smoke and mirrors' for what really is going on, for what really is or isn't going to happen.
Of course for some things, you need a willing partner. Or at least one who is willing to 'negotiate' with you.
But that is a different story -- one that we will now take to the American Politics section of Hegel's Hotel.
- dgb, October 28th, 2008.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
A Nietzsche Aphorism
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze into the abyss, take care that the abyss does not gaze into you. -- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
(Laurence Gane and Kitty Chan, Introducing Nietzsche, p. 108, this edition published in the U.K., 1999)
(Laurence Gane and Kitty Chan, Introducing Nietzsche, p. 108, this edition published in the U.K., 1999)
Friday, October 17, 2008
On The 'Actualization' of Intellect, Knowledge, and Skill..(An Email to My Sister)
Intellect, knowledge, skill, it's all wasted talent, potential, and capability unless you can deliver it in such a way with passion and enough simplicity that people can understand your message and apply it in a way that helps to make their life better...
I would say as far as my psychology training and self-education in philosophy, that I have been doing much, much better this last year than about the 20 years previously, thanks mainly to the invention of the 'blog-site' which has turned thousands of 'wanna be writers' into actual writers -- many with a very good, solid message to convey -- who might not have otherwise been able to reach their desired target audience in the public domain.
I include myself in this latter group. Finding 'Blogger.com' was like hitting a gold mine for me -- it delivered to me an empty writing canvas waiting for me to 'paint my painting on it'. 'Google' has been the other gold mine for me as it continues to help deliver my philosophical message to all of these new, wild, exotic, and wonderful places.
Now it's just a matter of my continuing to push ahead and finding out just how far my writing can take me...no different than wherever your next 'empty painting canvas' takes you...
Everybody has their own unique talents; it's just a matter of each and everyone of us finding our own particular 'medium to deliver our own particular message'.
To be sure, it is encouraging to feel that i have seemed to have found mine...
-- dgb, October 17th, 2008.
I would say as far as my psychology training and self-education in philosophy, that I have been doing much, much better this last year than about the 20 years previously, thanks mainly to the invention of the 'blog-site' which has turned thousands of 'wanna be writers' into actual writers -- many with a very good, solid message to convey -- who might not have otherwise been able to reach their desired target audience in the public domain.
I include myself in this latter group. Finding 'Blogger.com' was like hitting a gold mine for me -- it delivered to me an empty writing canvas waiting for me to 'paint my painting on it'. 'Google' has been the other gold mine for me as it continues to help deliver my philosophical message to all of these new, wild, exotic, and wonderful places.
Now it's just a matter of my continuing to push ahead and finding out just how far my writing can take me...no different than wherever your next 'empty painting canvas' takes you...
Everybody has their own unique talents; it's just a matter of each and everyone of us finding our own particular 'medium to deliver our own particular message'.
To be sure, it is encouraging to feel that i have seemed to have found mine...
-- dgb, October 17th, 2008.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Reprise
If you are good enough at what you do,
People will coming looking for you.
-- dgb, Oct. 6th, 2008.
People will coming looking for you.
-- dgb, Oct. 6th, 2008.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A Glossary of 21 Important Concepts in DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
1. Bi-Polarity (Multi-Bi-Polarity, Bi-Partisan Agreement, Opposite Polarities, Paradoxes...)
2. The Dialectic (The dialectic process, dialectic-democracy, dialectic negotiating, dialectic dancing, dialectic agreement, dialectic balance, dialectic-democratic balance)
3. Gods, Idols, and Archetypes
4. Anti-gods, villains, and demons
5. Ego-States
6. Gaps, Voids, Abysses, Chasms
7. Superior and Inferior Power Functions (Processes, Organs, Ego-states, Power Dialectics...)
8. Homeostatic Balance (Dialectic Balance, Dialectic-Democratic Balance, Homeostatic Balance Dialectics, Win-Win Dialectics...)
9. Projection
10 Introjection and Identification
11. Distinction (differentation) and Association
12. 'Loose' and 'tight' associations
13. 'Positive' and 'negative' stereotyping
14. Transference ('Positive' and 'negative' transferences, Transference Complexes, Transference Memories, Transference Scenes...)
15. Compensation (Compensatory attitudes, beliefs, values, behaviors, lifestyles, philosophies, transferences...)
16. Narcissism and Altruism
17. Truth and Sophism
18. Empiricism and Rationalism
19. Concreteness and Abrstraction ('Being grounded' and 'flying high with words and abstractions')
20. Classifying, labelling, 'negative labelling', confusing a 'negative label' with the 'reality of the situation and/or the person'.
21. Reductionism and wholism
-- dgb, Sept. 30th, 2008, updated October 1st, 2008.
2. The Dialectic (The dialectic process, dialectic-democracy, dialectic negotiating, dialectic dancing, dialectic agreement, dialectic balance, dialectic-democratic balance)
3. Gods, Idols, and Archetypes
4. Anti-gods, villains, and demons
5. Ego-States
6. Gaps, Voids, Abysses, Chasms
7. Superior and Inferior Power Functions (Processes, Organs, Ego-states, Power Dialectics...)
8. Homeostatic Balance (Dialectic Balance, Dialectic-Democratic Balance, Homeostatic Balance Dialectics, Win-Win Dialectics...)
9. Projection
10 Introjection and Identification
11. Distinction (differentation) and Association
12. 'Loose' and 'tight' associations
13. 'Positive' and 'negative' stereotyping
14. Transference ('Positive' and 'negative' transferences, Transference Complexes, Transference Memories, Transference Scenes...)
15. Compensation (Compensatory attitudes, beliefs, values, behaviors, lifestyles, philosophies, transferences...)
16. Narcissism and Altruism
17. Truth and Sophism
18. Empiricism and Rationalism
19. Concreteness and Abrstraction ('Being grounded' and 'flying high with words and abstractions')
20. Classifying, labelling, 'negative labelling', confusing a 'negative label' with the 'reality of the situation and/or the person'.
21. Reductionism and wholism
-- dgb, Sept. 30th, 2008, updated October 1st, 2008.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
On The 'Flip-Side' of 'Flip-Flopping'...
Both American political parties and presidential candidates have accused the other side of 'flip-flopping'. Flip-flopping is generally deemed to be a sign of philosophical -- and political -- lack of comittment. Or shall we say, often a matter of political expedience. Going with what the American people want to hear, and/or with what is working, and/or changing your political tune from one state to another, or from one audience to one audience, according to the wishes of the particular state or audience you are speaking to...
However, there is another side of 'flip-flopping' as well. Flip-flopping can be a side of 'humanistic, psychological, philosophical and political -- evolution and growth'.
In the world of psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, Gestalt Theray, and Psycho-Drama, these different schools of psychotherapy all use 'flip-flopping' as a form of 'bi-polar psychotherapy'.
Specifically, a person may be asked to 'dramatically role play one side of his personality (the Hegelian idea of 'thesis'), then dramatically role-play the opposite 'suppressed and/or potential' side of his or her personality (the Hegelian idea of 'anti-thesis') with the result of all this 'internal, back and forth, flip-flopping' -- from 'topdog' to 'underdog'and back again, or from 'Superego' to 'Id' and back again, or from 'Persona' to 'Shadow' and back again -- being the start of a more 'bi-polarity integrated' -- and healthier, more open-minded and broad-minded -- person.
Now, borrowing on this process from 'bi-polarity psychotherapy', can you imagine if, half way through the Presidential Debate last night between Obama and McCain, that the moderator had suddenly asked each candidate to 'switch places' or 'switch hats', and for Obama to argue the Republican line of campaign rhetoric, while McCain took up the Democratic line of campaign rhetoric?
Would this process have messed up the heads of both candidates? Would it have messed up the debate? Would it have messed up the audience?
Or would it perhaps have started America -- and both candidates and political parties -- towards a healthier potential political process? What I call a 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic Bi-Polar-Integrative Political Process'.
Personally, I am sick and tired of McCain and Obama -- and The Republican and Democratic Parties -- 'going at each other, head to head'. It is all about political posturing, political rhetoric, and political sophisms. It is all about 'either/or, right or wrong' politics, and distort the other's political position until you have completely negatively stereotyped and ridiculed it.. This is all wasted time and energy and does little to further the cause of democracy.
It's all about divide and split up America. Compartmentalize America by sending two polarized political parties -- like pitbulls -- at each other's respective throats. Both have important things to say. Both have the capability of adding to each other's perspective. Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis. And both parties have important, intelligent people working in their respective parties.
But the energy -- through two years of 'drag the other down' campaigning -- is all negative, divisional -- and largely non-productive. Government efficiency at its worst.
No wonder why we have so many different types of 'bi-polar pathologies'. People do not know how to integrate opposite perspectives. The whole American Political -- and Economic and Business and Scientific and Religious and Educational -- Process is about 'Polar Divisionism'. 'Divide and conquer'. Or maybe it should be better stated: 'Divide and self-destruct'. Lost in the process, is the 'wholism' of Spinoza, the 'polar unity and wholism' of Heraclitus, the bi-polarity psychotherapy of most schools of psychology, the post-Hegelian, post-Cannon, DGB biological-psychological-philosphical-political evolutionary concept of 'dialectic opposition engaging in a productive, constructive manner with each other, leading to polar unity and homeostatic balance'. Or call this simply 'bi-partisan politics if you will.
Specialization, compartmentalization and reductionism are nothing without -- Re-Unified Dialectical-Democratic Wholism.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of 'Divisionist, Either/Or; Right or Wrong' politics.
For one time in his 8 years of being in power, Bush finally got it right when he invited both Presidential Candidates into the 'Emergency Wall Street Bailout Meeting'. (I think McCain went there a little easier and got more involved than Obama. Political expedience and consequences are still playing a part in their respective behaviors.
Personally, I would prefer to see a united 'Republican-Democratic Party' working together for the good of America.
The best politicians and economists in America -- regardless of partisan political beliefs -- working together in the best board room in America aiming to get this economic nightmare and disaster on Wall Street fixed to the best of their combined abilities, and/or at least heading back in the right direction.
To be sure, one man -- or woman -- has to call the final shots.
And it is a horrible time for this Wall Street Disaster to happen -- less than six weeks away from the election. But Wall Street will not wait. Let's get a united bailout with conditions into effect almost immediately.
Gentlemen. Senator McCain and Senator Obama. We know your respective arguments. And we know your counter-arguments.
The real test is at the 'Wall Street Financial Negotiating Table'. Can either of you -- or ideally, both of you in conjunction with Bush and the other people at the table -- be able to get a deal done that will restore the confidence of Wall Street investors, not benefit unethical, greedy CEOs, and protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and homeowners in the same way that Wall Street Banking and Mortgage Institutions are being protected and kept alive when they would otherwise die and leave America in financial shambles.
Anyway, enough is enough. Enough of the political posturing, grand-standing and negative advertising. Let the real President stand up and stand out.
Let's elect a new American President and get on with the task of re-uniting America, striving for new heights in 'ethical idealism', work at reducing the national debt, improving the national health and education system, getting out of wars that are bankrupting the nation as soon as pragmatically possible, putting a lid on corporate lobbyism that should be illegal, definitely is unethical and undemocratic, and which basically continues to 'skewer the general American people' by catering to the special interests of the oil corporations and other corporate barons who's main interest is in winning government contracts, getting tax-breaks and government grants -- and narcissistically lining their own personal pockets, not serving the general interests of the American people as a whole.
Yes, American businesses need to be able to function in a political and economic environment that they can happily and healthily survive in. But the best of American politicians and business leaders need to both be setting an ethical example here that the American people can be proud of; not meeting in private rooms or dark alleys, making cash deals with each other, or getting $200,000 home renovations for free behind the backs of the American people. This is not what America -- and The American Dream -- is all about.
The American people want more. They demand more from their politicians and business leaders.
Washington and Wall Street -- get it together. Bush and Congress -- get it together. Obama and McCain -- get it together.
The whole world is watching -- and waiting.
-- dgb, Sat. September 27th, 2008.
However, there is another side of 'flip-flopping' as well. Flip-flopping can be a side of 'humanistic, psychological, philosophical and political -- evolution and growth'.
In the world of psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, Gestalt Theray, and Psycho-Drama, these different schools of psychotherapy all use 'flip-flopping' as a form of 'bi-polar psychotherapy'.
Specifically, a person may be asked to 'dramatically role play one side of his personality (the Hegelian idea of 'thesis'), then dramatically role-play the opposite 'suppressed and/or potential' side of his or her personality (the Hegelian idea of 'anti-thesis') with the result of all this 'internal, back and forth, flip-flopping' -- from 'topdog' to 'underdog'and back again, or from 'Superego' to 'Id' and back again, or from 'Persona' to 'Shadow' and back again -- being the start of a more 'bi-polarity integrated' -- and healthier, more open-minded and broad-minded -- person.
Now, borrowing on this process from 'bi-polarity psychotherapy', can you imagine if, half way through the Presidential Debate last night between Obama and McCain, that the moderator had suddenly asked each candidate to 'switch places' or 'switch hats', and for Obama to argue the Republican line of campaign rhetoric, while McCain took up the Democratic line of campaign rhetoric?
Would this process have messed up the heads of both candidates? Would it have messed up the debate? Would it have messed up the audience?
Or would it perhaps have started America -- and both candidates and political parties -- towards a healthier potential political process? What I call a 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic Bi-Polar-Integrative Political Process'.
Personally, I am sick and tired of McCain and Obama -- and The Republican and Democratic Parties -- 'going at each other, head to head'. It is all about political posturing, political rhetoric, and political sophisms. It is all about 'either/or, right or wrong' politics, and distort the other's political position until you have completely negatively stereotyped and ridiculed it.. This is all wasted time and energy and does little to further the cause of democracy.
It's all about divide and split up America. Compartmentalize America by sending two polarized political parties -- like pitbulls -- at each other's respective throats. Both have important things to say. Both have the capability of adding to each other's perspective. Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis. And both parties have important, intelligent people working in their respective parties.
But the energy -- through two years of 'drag the other down' campaigning -- is all negative, divisional -- and largely non-productive. Government efficiency at its worst.
No wonder why we have so many different types of 'bi-polar pathologies'. People do not know how to integrate opposite perspectives. The whole American Political -- and Economic and Business and Scientific and Religious and Educational -- Process is about 'Polar Divisionism'. 'Divide and conquer'. Or maybe it should be better stated: 'Divide and self-destruct'. Lost in the process, is the 'wholism' of Spinoza, the 'polar unity and wholism' of Heraclitus, the bi-polarity psychotherapy of most schools of psychology, the post-Hegelian, post-Cannon, DGB biological-psychological-philosphical-political evolutionary concept of 'dialectic opposition engaging in a productive, constructive manner with each other, leading to polar unity and homeostatic balance'. Or call this simply 'bi-partisan politics if you will.
Specialization, compartmentalization and reductionism are nothing without -- Re-Unified Dialectical-Democratic Wholism.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of 'Divisionist, Either/Or; Right or Wrong' politics.
For one time in his 8 years of being in power, Bush finally got it right when he invited both Presidential Candidates into the 'Emergency Wall Street Bailout Meeting'. (I think McCain went there a little easier and got more involved than Obama. Political expedience and consequences are still playing a part in their respective behaviors.
Personally, I would prefer to see a united 'Republican-Democratic Party' working together for the good of America.
The best politicians and economists in America -- regardless of partisan political beliefs -- working together in the best board room in America aiming to get this economic nightmare and disaster on Wall Street fixed to the best of their combined abilities, and/or at least heading back in the right direction.
To be sure, one man -- or woman -- has to call the final shots.
And it is a horrible time for this Wall Street Disaster to happen -- less than six weeks away from the election. But Wall Street will not wait. Let's get a united bailout with conditions into effect almost immediately.
Gentlemen. Senator McCain and Senator Obama. We know your respective arguments. And we know your counter-arguments.
The real test is at the 'Wall Street Financial Negotiating Table'. Can either of you -- or ideally, both of you in conjunction with Bush and the other people at the table -- be able to get a deal done that will restore the confidence of Wall Street investors, not benefit unethical, greedy CEOs, and protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and homeowners in the same way that Wall Street Banking and Mortgage Institutions are being protected and kept alive when they would otherwise die and leave America in financial shambles.
Anyway, enough is enough. Enough of the political posturing, grand-standing and negative advertising. Let the real President stand up and stand out.
Let's elect a new American President and get on with the task of re-uniting America, striving for new heights in 'ethical idealism', work at reducing the national debt, improving the national health and education system, getting out of wars that are bankrupting the nation as soon as pragmatically possible, putting a lid on corporate lobbyism that should be illegal, definitely is unethical and undemocratic, and which basically continues to 'skewer the general American people' by catering to the special interests of the oil corporations and other corporate barons who's main interest is in winning government contracts, getting tax-breaks and government grants -- and narcissistically lining their own personal pockets, not serving the general interests of the American people as a whole.
Yes, American businesses need to be able to function in a political and economic environment that they can happily and healthily survive in. But the best of American politicians and business leaders need to both be setting an ethical example here that the American people can be proud of; not meeting in private rooms or dark alleys, making cash deals with each other, or getting $200,000 home renovations for free behind the backs of the American people. This is not what America -- and The American Dream -- is all about.
The American people want more. They demand more from their politicians and business leaders.
Washington and Wall Street -- get it together. Bush and Congress -- get it together. Obama and McCain -- get it together.
The whole world is watching -- and waiting.
-- dgb, Sat. September 27th, 2008.
On The Insurmountability of All Human Knowledge -- and The Importance of Writers (and All of Us) To Have a 'Flair For The Dramatically Existential'...
The deeper you get into philosophy -- and the harder you strive to overcome it, to master it -- the more you become humbled by the insurmountability of the task. 'Hegel's Hotel' will undoubtedly be left unfinished. I do not have enough years in my life, enough energy in my system, enough time in my week, to finish everything I want to write about in Hegel's Hotel. And even if I did/do have the time and energy, that in itself would be an act of 'existential extremism' because it would remain basically becoming a 'philosophical hermit' for the rest of my life. And as much as I love writing, I do not consider writing to be the same as living. It can be a very meaningful part of living -- a sharing of both our self-experiences and our various levels of abstracted knowledge, values and ethics...Still, writing is not all there is to living. Nor is chasing down this author or that author, this book or that book...Again, this can be a meaningful part of living, and make us a better writer...
But in the end, writing requires that we have some meaninful and interesting to write about -- to have a flair for the 'dramatically existential'.
And that my friends, doesn't usually happen sitting in front of a computer or a television. There is an element of the dramatically existential in all of us. We just have to find it.
-- dgb, Sept. 27th, 2008.
But in the end, writing requires that we have some meaninful and interesting to write about -- to have a flair for the 'dramatically existential'.
And that my friends, doesn't usually happen sitting in front of a computer or a television. There is an element of the dramatically existential in all of us. We just have to find it.
-- dgb, Sept. 27th, 2008.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
On The Random, Evolving Coherence of My Essays
There is no logical rhyme or reason for the order of my essays -- in essence, they belong to 'Chaos Theory'.
But there is method to my madness; order to my chaos. You just have to be a little bit patient while I get there.
I predict that the 37 blogsites that I now have listed in my table of contents will be close to the finished table of contents. Only I would like to cap it off at around '40 floors' of 'Hegel's Hotel'. Maybe 45.
Putting aside any judgment of the quality of my philosophy work, character-wise, I am the anti-thesis of Immanuel Kant -- more like Schopenhauer (without the nastiness), Nietzsche (without the extremism), Perls (without the existential courage). Hegel, is my main philosophical mentor, followed behind by Nietzsche, Perls, Korzybski, Freud, Spinoza, Fromm, Rand, Jung, Adler, Locke, Bacon, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Russell, and more...
Perhaps one of the philosophers I am hardest on, in some ways, I am most like him -- Plato, the idealist, and a worshipper of the Idol of The Cave. Not in the Baconian sense but in the DGB sense that I will use it here, and in all following contexts that I may later mention it: someone who gets lost inside his own private, narcissitic world -- he or she is to a greater or lesser extent a worshipper of 'The Idol of The Cave'.
Somewhere near the top of the list, you have to put Dylan in there as well...It was Dylan who indirectly got me caught up in all of this 'idol' stuff...But be he a good or bad idol, Dylan's songwriting-poetry is worth quoting in its own right...
Paraphrased and/or quoted from my good or bad memory...off the top of my head...are a few of his tunes that have stood out for me...
....................................................................
'Crawl out your window, babe,
Use your arms and legs, it won't hurt you,
You can go back to him any time you want to...'
-- Bob Dyan, Crawl Out Your Window
....................................................................
I can't understand,
You let go of my hand,
And left me here facing the wall.
I'd sure like to know,
Why you did go,
But I can't get close to you at all.
Though we kissed through the wild blazing nighttime,
You said you would never forget...
But now morning is clear,
It's like I ain't here,
You just act like we never have met.
-- Bob Dylan, I Don't Believe You
........................................................................
It ain't no use to sit and wonder why babe,
If'n you don't know by now,
And it ain't no use to wonder why babe,
It don't matter anyhow.
When the rooster crows at the break of dawn,
Look out your window and I'll be gone,
You're the reason I'll be travelin' on,
But don't think twice, it's alright.
-- Bob Dylan, Don't Think Twice, It's Alright
.....................................................................
Yes, if only I could feel you lyin right beside me,
And if only I could feel your heart a softly poundin',
I'd lie in my bed once again.
-- Bob Dylan, Tomorrow is a Long Time
..........................................................................
Yes, Bob Dylan is one of my favorite idols, a modern day Nietzsche of sorts...
And randomly, chaotically if you will, it was something on Facebook that I noticed about a month ago that got my creative, philosophical juices flowing in a new direction.
On Facebook, I noticed a Dylan t-shirt being advertised that said: 'Kill Your Idols'.
I clicked the Dylan icon that sent me to a Dylan blogsite where numerous fans were offering there own personal comments regarding the content of what was being said on the t-shirt. I said that the phrase could be partly connected to Nietzsche's 'Twilight of the Idols'. Someone else significantly before me, had written that the message had a connection to Francis Bacon's 'Four Idols' or 'False Idols'. That comment triggered some vague memories of Francis Bacon's philosophy on my part, which in turn, triggered a need for me to do further research...
My research sufficiently completed, the result has been an evolving smorgasboard of about 10 aphorisms and/or essays on 'idols' this month culminating likely in the next one I plan to write before week-end called:
'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, Idols, and Self-Energy-Centres -- A DGB Post-Hegelian Perspective on The Health, Pathology, and Self-Contradiction of Religion'
That may be the last time you see the title in its entirety; the next time you see it -- and the essay -- the title is likely to be smaller.
And I do not know what my fixation with religion is because I am not a very religious person. Still, something is driving me to complete what I am about to complete here...a very strange, convoluted, philosophical-psychological-romantic-spiritual-post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Freudian, post-Jungian, view of religion.
We shall see how it turns out.
Either my recipe might work for you -- or it might not work for you. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, then throw it out and find or stay with what you like better, what works for you better. I am partly a pragmatist too.
-- dgb, August 26th, 2008.
But there is method to my madness; order to my chaos. You just have to be a little bit patient while I get there.
I predict that the 37 blogsites that I now have listed in my table of contents will be close to the finished table of contents. Only I would like to cap it off at around '40 floors' of 'Hegel's Hotel'. Maybe 45.
Putting aside any judgment of the quality of my philosophy work, character-wise, I am the anti-thesis of Immanuel Kant -- more like Schopenhauer (without the nastiness), Nietzsche (without the extremism), Perls (without the existential courage). Hegel, is my main philosophical mentor, followed behind by Nietzsche, Perls, Korzybski, Freud, Spinoza, Fromm, Rand, Jung, Adler, Locke, Bacon, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Russell, and more...
Perhaps one of the philosophers I am hardest on, in some ways, I am most like him -- Plato, the idealist, and a worshipper of the Idol of The Cave. Not in the Baconian sense but in the DGB sense that I will use it here, and in all following contexts that I may later mention it: someone who gets lost inside his own private, narcissitic world -- he or she is to a greater or lesser extent a worshipper of 'The Idol of The Cave'.
Somewhere near the top of the list, you have to put Dylan in there as well...It was Dylan who indirectly got me caught up in all of this 'idol' stuff...But be he a good or bad idol, Dylan's songwriting-poetry is worth quoting in its own right...
Paraphrased and/or quoted from my good or bad memory...off the top of my head...are a few of his tunes that have stood out for me...
....................................................................
'Crawl out your window, babe,
Use your arms and legs, it won't hurt you,
You can go back to him any time you want to...'
-- Bob Dyan, Crawl Out Your Window
....................................................................
I can't understand,
You let go of my hand,
And left me here facing the wall.
I'd sure like to know,
Why you did go,
But I can't get close to you at all.
Though we kissed through the wild blazing nighttime,
You said you would never forget...
But now morning is clear,
It's like I ain't here,
You just act like we never have met.
-- Bob Dylan, I Don't Believe You
........................................................................
It ain't no use to sit and wonder why babe,
If'n you don't know by now,
And it ain't no use to wonder why babe,
It don't matter anyhow.
When the rooster crows at the break of dawn,
Look out your window and I'll be gone,
You're the reason I'll be travelin' on,
But don't think twice, it's alright.
-- Bob Dylan, Don't Think Twice, It's Alright
.....................................................................
Yes, if only I could feel you lyin right beside me,
And if only I could feel your heart a softly poundin',
I'd lie in my bed once again.
-- Bob Dylan, Tomorrow is a Long Time
..........................................................................
Yes, Bob Dylan is one of my favorite idols, a modern day Nietzsche of sorts...
And randomly, chaotically if you will, it was something on Facebook that I noticed about a month ago that got my creative, philosophical juices flowing in a new direction.
On Facebook, I noticed a Dylan t-shirt being advertised that said: 'Kill Your Idols'.
I clicked the Dylan icon that sent me to a Dylan blogsite where numerous fans were offering there own personal comments regarding the content of what was being said on the t-shirt. I said that the phrase could be partly connected to Nietzsche's 'Twilight of the Idols'. Someone else significantly before me, had written that the message had a connection to Francis Bacon's 'Four Idols' or 'False Idols'. That comment triggered some vague memories of Francis Bacon's philosophy on my part, which in turn, triggered a need for me to do further research...
My research sufficiently completed, the result has been an evolving smorgasboard of about 10 aphorisms and/or essays on 'idols' this month culminating likely in the next one I plan to write before week-end called:
'Gods, Myths, Archetypes, Idols, and Self-Energy-Centres -- A DGB Post-Hegelian Perspective on The Health, Pathology, and Self-Contradiction of Religion'
That may be the last time you see the title in its entirety; the next time you see it -- and the essay -- the title is likely to be smaller.
And I do not know what my fixation with religion is because I am not a very religious person. Still, something is driving me to complete what I am about to complete here...a very strange, convoluted, philosophical-psychological-romantic-spiritual-post-Spinozian, post-Hegelian, post-Freudian, post-Jungian, view of religion.
We shall see how it turns out.
Either my recipe might work for you -- or it might not work for you. If you like it, keep it. If you don't, then throw it out and find or stay with what you like better, what works for you better. I am partly a pragmatist too.
-- dgb, August 26th, 2008.
Six Things I Have Learned -- Or Am Learning -- About Writing on The Internet
Here are some of the lessons I am learning more and more as I write on the internet:
1. Write boldly;
2. Write clearly;
3. Short paragraphs for easier reading;
4. Be entertaining as well as educational (or you will lose your readers to thousands if not millions of competing websites and blogsites out there);
5. Reference your work decently (without making it look like a dictionary), particularly for the scholars and scholars-to-be out there, to give your work the credibility and respect it deserves, and to let your audience know that you know what you are talking about, that you have researched your subject-matter more or less thoroughly, and that if there is more that you need to learn, then you will be honest with your audience and tell them this too...that you need to research your topic more thoroughly...There will always be gaps in your knowledge...This whole learning and teaching process is a case of filling in more and more of your gaps in knowledge as you move along...particularly, in the area(s) that you want to, and/or are professing to be, good at.
6. Obviously, be accountable for your work. Sign it.
1. Write boldly;
2. Write clearly;
3. Short paragraphs for easier reading;
4. Be entertaining as well as educational (or you will lose your readers to thousands if not millions of competing websites and blogsites out there);
5. Reference your work decently (without making it look like a dictionary), particularly for the scholars and scholars-to-be out there, to give your work the credibility and respect it deserves, and to let your audience know that you know what you are talking about, that you have researched your subject-matter more or less thoroughly, and that if there is more that you need to learn, then you will be honest with your audience and tell them this too...that you need to research your topic more thoroughly...There will always be gaps in your knowledge...This whole learning and teaching process is a case of filling in more and more of your gaps in knowledge as you move along...particularly, in the area(s) that you want to, and/or are professing to be, good at.
6. Obviously, be accountable for your work. Sign it.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
More Thoughts on Idols
Love your idols,
Hate your idols,
Be your idols,
Be better than your idols,
Incorporate your idols,
Negotiate with your idols,
Integrate your idols,
Or divorce your idols,
Leave them behind you,
And don't look back.
-- dgb, Aug 24th, 2008.
Hate your idols,
Be your idols,
Be better than your idols,
Incorporate your idols,
Negotiate with your idols,
Integrate your idols,
Or divorce your idols,
Leave them behind you,
And don't look back.
-- dgb, Aug 24th, 2008.
What is wrong with this world?
Try this: Narcissistic bias interfering with good ethics, integrity, character, compassion and passion for people - as well as the objective search for truth.
Narcissism is necessary, indeed imperative, for self-assertiveness and self-survival - not to mention at least 50 per cent of the pursuit of happiness.
However, narcissism needs to be balanced by altruism and a genuine empathy, caring, compassion, and passion for people
What separates the really great leaders and people of the world from the sociopathic leaders is the difference between leaders who genuinely care about people (Winston Churchill, Eisenhauer, Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa...), vs. those who ruthlessly don't (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung...).
Anyting else I write is superfulous.
Sometimes less is better.
This is one of those occasions.
dgb, Aug. 17th, 2008.
Narcissism is necessary, indeed imperative, for self-assertiveness and self-survival - not to mention at least 50 per cent of the pursuit of happiness.
However, narcissism needs to be balanced by altruism and a genuine empathy, caring, compassion, and passion for people
What separates the really great leaders and people of the world from the sociopathic leaders is the difference between leaders who genuinely care about people (Winston Churchill, Eisenhauer, Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa...), vs. those who ruthlessly don't (Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung...).
Anyting else I write is superfulous.
Sometimes less is better.
This is one of those occasions.
dgb, Aug. 17th, 2008.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
DGB Rational-Empiricism and The Multi-Dialectical Cycle
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; and 5. action -- meaning action taken to dialectically bridge the gap between ethical idealism and realism. This is what I call (in long form): 'DGB Multi-Dialectic-Rational-Empirical-Idealistic-Realistic-Humanistic-Existential Philosophy'. Try saying that twice in a row real fast.
-- DGB, Sept. 24th, 2007, modified Aug. 23rd, 2008.
-- DGB, Sept. 24th, 2007, modified Aug. 23rd, 2008.
Monday, August 11, 2008
On Ethics vs. Narcissism
Step outside the realm of the ethical — or at least partly — and you have sufficient room for an even greater human tragedy — whether you choose to call it an ancient Greek tragedy as expounded on later by Nietzsche with a strong Hegelian influence or you choose to believe that these are all simply different archetype examples of what is an inherent division or contradiction in the human psyche — specifically the ethical vs. the unethical, the moral vs. immoral, the narcissistic vs. the anti-narcissistic… Of course, all of this is relative to how conservative vs. liberal our ethics are...and how big or small our self-debated transgression is.
When talking about human behavior, every extreme is possibly -- and everything in between. Regardless, of where the focus and/or range is, the moral imperative — or shall I say the moral dilemma — becomes simply this: to transgress or not to transgress; to be selfish or to restrain ourselves on the grounds that our behavior could either hurt somebody else, particularly someone I care deeply about, and/or in the end, it could hurt me more than the adventure into 'pleasure-with-a-possible-side-effect' is worth…
To finish with a Shakespearean flourish — that is the question.
There is no template answer.
As Kierkegaard would say: either/or.
It’s your life, your decision, your accountability — both to yourself and others. Self-assertiveness, passion, and compassion for others are all important.
Choose with a brave heart.
Don't run away from passion -- but don't let it run away with you either. Otherwise, you may self-destruct and be left trying to pick up the pieces afterwards. Passion and reason need to be dialectically connected to each other, which can be hard to maintain when you are in the throes of passion and/or narcissistic pleasure.
Romantic philosophy criticised enlightenment philosophy for 'philosophizing and living above the neck'. However, unbridled romantic philosophy -- like unbridled narcissism -- can lead us to the brink of self-destruction if we let it take complete control over us. Both our heart and our brain are important. Our heart needs to be dialectically connected to our brain and visa versa. Once again we are talking about the need for 'dialectical/homeostatic balance'.
Thus, live your life assertively, passionately, and compassionately -- both for yourself and others.
With balance.
Extremism can tempt us if we are looking for more excitement, to be provocative -- or the opposite -- to hold ourselves and/or others 'in their proper, righteous place'. But over time extremism -- the polar opposite of entropy, boring routine, and monotony -- is usually a 'false idol'. Both polarities have their respective 'side-effects'.
Who said choices are easy?
Our choices make or break us.
Moment to moment, day to day, they define and describe us.
Be bold -- but don't let your choices take you over the brink.
Just ask John Edwards. (The celebrities get the extra media scrutiny and attention.) However, moral transgressions, in my books, are much worse when a politician -- who we usually hold to higher expectations than the normal, average person -- lays the 'righteous, how could you?' card out on the table against another politician -- like Bill Clinton -- and then hypocritically turns around and commits the same moral transgression himself. Hypocrisy dripping where once, not too long ago, there was this squeeky clean image -- thy name is John Edwards.
If there is taxpayer's money involved, then the politician's career should be over. My guess is that John Edwards career as a politician -- or at least as a potential presidential candidate -- is over. We shall see.
– david gordon bain, Aug. 11th, modified Aug. 13th, 2008.
When talking about human behavior, every extreme is possibly -- and everything in between. Regardless, of where the focus and/or range is, the moral imperative — or shall I say the moral dilemma — becomes simply this: to transgress or not to transgress; to be selfish or to restrain ourselves on the grounds that our behavior could either hurt somebody else, particularly someone I care deeply about, and/or in the end, it could hurt me more than the adventure into 'pleasure-with-a-possible-side-effect' is worth…
To finish with a Shakespearean flourish — that is the question.
There is no template answer.
As Kierkegaard would say: either/or.
It’s your life, your decision, your accountability — both to yourself and others. Self-assertiveness, passion, and compassion for others are all important.
Choose with a brave heart.
Don't run away from passion -- but don't let it run away with you either. Otherwise, you may self-destruct and be left trying to pick up the pieces afterwards. Passion and reason need to be dialectically connected to each other, which can be hard to maintain when you are in the throes of passion and/or narcissistic pleasure.
Romantic philosophy criticised enlightenment philosophy for 'philosophizing and living above the neck'. However, unbridled romantic philosophy -- like unbridled narcissism -- can lead us to the brink of self-destruction if we let it take complete control over us. Both our heart and our brain are important. Our heart needs to be dialectically connected to our brain and visa versa. Once again we are talking about the need for 'dialectical/homeostatic balance'.
Thus, live your life assertively, passionately, and compassionately -- both for yourself and others.
With balance.
Extremism can tempt us if we are looking for more excitement, to be provocative -- or the opposite -- to hold ourselves and/or others 'in their proper, righteous place'. But over time extremism -- the polar opposite of entropy, boring routine, and monotony -- is usually a 'false idol'. Both polarities have their respective 'side-effects'.
Who said choices are easy?
Our choices make or break us.
Moment to moment, day to day, they define and describe us.
Be bold -- but don't let your choices take you over the brink.
Just ask John Edwards. (The celebrities get the extra media scrutiny and attention.) However, moral transgressions, in my books, are much worse when a politician -- who we usually hold to higher expectations than the normal, average person -- lays the 'righteous, how could you?' card out on the table against another politician -- like Bill Clinton -- and then hypocritically turns around and commits the same moral transgression himself. Hypocrisy dripping where once, not too long ago, there was this squeeky clean image -- thy name is John Edwards.
If there is taxpayer's money involved, then the politician's career should be over. My guess is that John Edwards career as a politician -- or at least as a potential presidential candidate -- is over. We shall see.
– david gordon bain, Aug. 11th, modified Aug. 13th, 2008.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
On The Contradiction Between Monogamy and Infidelity
Many, if not most, of us try, or pretend, to live a myth, an ideology, of 'monogomy' in our long term love relationships when significant biological and/or psychological underlying forces in our nature work to sabotage and defy this culturally and/or self-bestowed myth.
Of course, there is a good reason for this myth -- a cultural and/or self-wish to maintain the long-term relationship and/or family stability.
Infidelity tends to throw family stability -- to the wolves. over the abyss, and into chaos.
How do we get around this very common conflict in our human nature and behavior. That is a very important problem for the 21st century as it has created family chaos for much of the last part of the 20th century without any apparent remedies and/or resolutions except in the divorce courts.
I leave this conflict-issue with philosophers younger and/or braver than me to tackle. Because I'm moving on to the next issue.
-- dgb, Aug. 10th, 2008.
Of course, there is a good reason for this myth -- a cultural and/or self-wish to maintain the long-term relationship and/or family stability.
Infidelity tends to throw family stability -- to the wolves. over the abyss, and into chaos.
How do we get around this very common conflict in our human nature and behavior. That is a very important problem for the 21st century as it has created family chaos for much of the last part of the 20th century without any apparent remedies and/or resolutions except in the divorce courts.
I leave this conflict-issue with philosophers younger and/or braver than me to tackle. Because I'm moving on to the next issue.
-- dgb, Aug. 10th, 2008.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
On My Idols
I have many idols -- too many to list at one sitting but here's a good cross-section of them: Hegel, Nietzsche, Dylan, Perls, Freud, Spinoza, Anaxamander, Heraclitus, the Han Philosophers, Korzybski, S.I. Hayakawa, Fromm, Marx, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Diderot, Tom Paine, Jefferson, Voltaire, Locke, Hume, Kierkegaard, Foucault, Derrida, Sartre, Bertrand Russell, Schelling, Kant, Aristotle...
And in a separate category, my dad for his visionary idealism and passion for what he believes in, his political and business commentary, as well as his ability to get things done -- his 'existentialism' if you will; and my mom for her compassion, generosity, openness, and kindness towards people -- her 'humanism' if you will.
These are over-simplified generalizations to be sure, but together my dad and my mom create the kind of 'post-Hegelian synthesis' that I am trying to blend together here in DGB Philosophy. All of the other intellects, philosophers, song-writers, poets, writers, passionate egotists, constructionists, deconstructionists, and integrationists...provide 'food' for the philosophical content of what I just now see as the main integrative philosophical structure of Hegel's Hotel as laid down to me by my dad and mom.
Any philosophy entails a multi-integrative-dialectical network of individual, family, psychological, political, economic, and social forces. -- dgb, Aug. 3rd, 2008.
And in a separate category, my dad for his visionary idealism and passion for what he believes in, his political and business commentary, as well as his ability to get things done -- his 'existentialism' if you will; and my mom for her compassion, generosity, openness, and kindness towards people -- her 'humanism' if you will.
These are over-simplified generalizations to be sure, but together my dad and my mom create the kind of 'post-Hegelian synthesis' that I am trying to blend together here in DGB Philosophy. All of the other intellects, philosophers, song-writers, poets, writers, passionate egotists, constructionists, deconstructionists, and integrationists...provide 'food' for the philosophical content of what I just now see as the main integrative philosophical structure of Hegel's Hotel as laid down to me by my dad and mom.
Any philosophy entails a multi-integrative-dialectical network of individual, family, psychological, political, economic, and social forces. -- dgb, Aug. 3rd, 2008.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
On Idols
Embrace your 'life-enhancing' idols, identify with them, expand on them, build from them, but identify also their weaknesses, modify them, compensate for them -- and always strive to be better than your idols at what they did/do best, and at what you are striving to do best. Evolve from them -- and be/become better.
At the same time, beware of false idols, bad idols, pathological idols, sociopathic idols... With these idols, clear the rose-petals out of your eyes -- quickly -- and dump them equally quickly before they dump you...and/or harm befalls you...you land in jail, in a hospital, or in the morgue. Don't chase false idols -- regardless of how much 'charisma' they may have. The world is full of false idols. View them as 'Trojan Viruses'-- dgb, Aug 2nd, 2008, modified Aug 3rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
These comments are modifications of comments on 'idols' that have been made before me ('Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Den, Idols of the Marketplace, Idols of the Theatre' -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626); 'Twilight of the Idols', 1888, Nietzsche; 'Kill your idols before they kill you.' -- Allen Ginsberg (or so I am told), 'Don't follow leaders.' -- Bob Dylan (Subterranean Homesick Blues); 'Kill your idols.' -- Bob Dylan t-shirt...
...........................................................................
Baconian Philosophy
(Francis) Bacon did not propose an actual philosophy, but rather a method of developing philosophy. He wrote that, whilst philosophy at the time used the deductive syllogism to interpret nature, the philosopher should instead proceed through inductive reasoning from fact to axiom to law. Before beginning this induction, the inquirer is to free his mind from certain false notions or tendencies which distort the truth. These are called "Idols"[12] (idola), and are of four kinds: "Idols of the Tribe" (idola tribus), which are common to the race; "Idols of the Den" (idola specus), which are peculiar to the individual; "Idols of the Marketplace" (idola fori), coming from the misuse of language; and "Idols of the Theatre" (idola theatri), which result from an abuse of authority. The end of induction is the discovery of forms, the ways in which natural phenomena occur, the causes from which they proceed.
Derived through use of his methods, Bacon explicates his somewhat fragmentary ethical system in the seventh and eighth books of his De augmentis scientiarum (1623). He distinguishes between duty to the community, an ethical matter, and duty to God, a religious matter. Bacon claimed that any [1] moral action is the action of the human will, which is governed by belief and spurred on by the passions; [2] good habit is what aids men in directing their will toward the good; [3]no universal rules can be made, as both situations and men's characters differ.
Regarding faith, in De augmentis, he writes that "the more discordant, therefore, and incredible, the divine mystery is, the more honour is shown to God in believing it, and the nobler is the victory of faith." He writes in "The Essays: Of Atheism" that "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."
Bacon contrasted the new approach of the development of science with that of the Middle Ages. He said:
"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."
.....................................................................................
At the same time, beware of false idols, bad idols, pathological idols, sociopathic idols... With these idols, clear the rose-petals out of your eyes -- quickly -- and dump them equally quickly before they dump you...and/or harm befalls you...you land in jail, in a hospital, or in the morgue. Don't chase false idols -- regardless of how much 'charisma' they may have. The world is full of false idols. View them as 'Trojan Viruses'-- dgb, Aug 2nd, 2008, modified Aug 3rd, 2008.
...............................................................................
These comments are modifications of comments on 'idols' that have been made before me ('Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Den, Idols of the Marketplace, Idols of the Theatre' -- Francis Bacon (1561-1626); 'Twilight of the Idols', 1888, Nietzsche; 'Kill your idols before they kill you.' -- Allen Ginsberg (or so I am told), 'Don't follow leaders.' -- Bob Dylan (Subterranean Homesick Blues); 'Kill your idols.' -- Bob Dylan t-shirt...
...........................................................................
Baconian Philosophy
(Francis) Bacon did not propose an actual philosophy, but rather a method of developing philosophy. He wrote that, whilst philosophy at the time used the deductive syllogism to interpret nature, the philosopher should instead proceed through inductive reasoning from fact to axiom to law. Before beginning this induction, the inquirer is to free his mind from certain false notions or tendencies which distort the truth. These are called "Idols"[12] (idola), and are of four kinds: "Idols of the Tribe" (idola tribus), which are common to the race; "Idols of the Den" (idola specus), which are peculiar to the individual; "Idols of the Marketplace" (idola fori), coming from the misuse of language; and "Idols of the Theatre" (idola theatri), which result from an abuse of authority. The end of induction is the discovery of forms, the ways in which natural phenomena occur, the causes from which they proceed.
Derived through use of his methods, Bacon explicates his somewhat fragmentary ethical system in the seventh and eighth books of his De augmentis scientiarum (1623). He distinguishes between duty to the community, an ethical matter, and duty to God, a religious matter. Bacon claimed that any [1] moral action is the action of the human will, which is governed by belief and spurred on by the passions; [2] good habit is what aids men in directing their will toward the good; [3]no universal rules can be made, as both situations and men's characters differ.
Regarding faith, in De augmentis, he writes that "the more discordant, therefore, and incredible, the divine mystery is, the more honour is shown to God in believing it, and the nobler is the victory of faith." He writes in "The Essays: Of Atheism" that "a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."
Bacon contrasted the new approach of the development of science with that of the Middle Ages. He said:
"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."
.....................................................................................
On Nietzsche -- and His Dionysian (Anti-Christian) Philosophy
From Wikipedia...
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a nineteenth-century German philosopher and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, using a distinctive German language style and displaying a fondness for aphorism. Nietzsche's influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth raise considerable problems of interpretation, generating an extensive secondary literature in both continental and analytic philosophy. Some of his major ideas include interpreting tragedy as an affirmation of life, an eternal recurrence (which numerous commentators have re-interpreted), a rejection of Platonism, and a repudiation of (especially 19th-century) Christianity.
.....................................................................................
I do not pretend to be a Nietzschean scholar -- far from it. One day I would like to say that I have read all of his books -- if time, energy, and health afford me such a luxury -- but right now I can only say that I have read snippets of parts of his different books, and various interpretations of his philosophy as a whole, as well as its evolutionary develoment (from The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, to let us say, Ecce Homo, his second last work, written between October 15th and November 4th, 1888; his last work, Nietzsche contra Wagner, must have been written in either November and/or December, 1888, because Nietzsche physically and mentally collapsed on January 3rd, 1889, and did not write anything lucid afterwards until he died in 1900. Source: Walter Kaufman, introduction to 'On The Geneology of Morals' and 'Ecce Homo', 1967).
.................................................................................
So this is a 'hit and run' evaluation of Nietzsche and his Dionysian Philosophy but at the same time it is both a comparison and a contrast of DGB Philosophy to Nietzschean Philosophy.
Philosophically, I prefer the thesis that Nietzsche presented at the beginning of his professional career to the one he presented later in his philosophical career. Case in point: I prefer Nietzsche's thesis and philosophy within 'The Birth of Tragedy' (BT) to anything he wrote latter such as what I am reading now in 'Ecce Homo' (EH).
...............................................................................
Why? It is precisely what Nietzsche most hated about his earliest work (BT) that I most like about it -- specifically, that it was Hegelian, or at least post-Hegelian, in its thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis style of presentation.
The difference between the early Nietzsche vs. the later Nietzsche is this: homeostatic balance vs. existential extremism.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was a nineteenth-century German philosopher and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, using a distinctive German language style and displaying a fondness for aphorism. Nietzsche's influence remains substantial within and beyond philosophy, notably in existentialism and postmodernism. His style and radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth raise considerable problems of interpretation, generating an extensive secondary literature in both continental and analytic philosophy. Some of his major ideas include interpreting tragedy as an affirmation of life, an eternal recurrence (which numerous commentators have re-interpreted), a rejection of Platonism, and a repudiation of (especially 19th-century) Christianity.
.....................................................................................
I do not pretend to be a Nietzschean scholar -- far from it. One day I would like to say that I have read all of his books -- if time, energy, and health afford me such a luxury -- but right now I can only say that I have read snippets of parts of his different books, and various interpretations of his philosophy as a whole, as well as its evolutionary develoment (from The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, to let us say, Ecce Homo, his second last work, written between October 15th and November 4th, 1888; his last work, Nietzsche contra Wagner, must have been written in either November and/or December, 1888, because Nietzsche physically and mentally collapsed on January 3rd, 1889, and did not write anything lucid afterwards until he died in 1900. Source: Walter Kaufman, introduction to 'On The Geneology of Morals' and 'Ecce Homo', 1967).
.................................................................................
So this is a 'hit and run' evaluation of Nietzsche and his Dionysian Philosophy but at the same time it is both a comparison and a contrast of DGB Philosophy to Nietzschean Philosophy.
Philosophically, I prefer the thesis that Nietzsche presented at the beginning of his professional career to the one he presented later in his philosophical career. Case in point: I prefer Nietzsche's thesis and philosophy within 'The Birth of Tragedy' (BT) to anything he wrote latter such as what I am reading now in 'Ecce Homo' (EH).
...............................................................................
Why? It is precisely what Nietzsche most hated about his earliest work (BT) that I most like about it -- specifically, that it was Hegelian, or at least post-Hegelian, in its thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis style of presentation.
The difference between the early Nietzsche vs. the later Nietzsche is this: homeostatic balance vs. existential extremism.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
On Intimacy vs. Games Playing
Intimacy hides beneath abstractions, games playing, 'fencing', seduction, power plays, projections, avoidances, withdrawls, and 'allusions to immediacy'...
This can be fun for awhile, or it can steer us away from conflict and areas of discomfort but if we really want to know each other, we have to show some mutual trust -- and move into a deeper and more honest playing field...
-- dgb, July 26th, 2008
This can be fun for awhile, or it can steer us away from conflict and areas of discomfort but if we really want to know each other, we have to show some mutual trust -- and move into a deeper and more honest playing field...
-- dgb, July 26th, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
On God, Nature, Man, and The Path of The Homeostatically Balanced, Multi-Integrative Dialectic
If you think -- or try to argue the existence -- of God in terms of epistemology, rationality, and/or empiricism, then you are probably on shaky grounds. Because God, for the most part, or the most common-sense part, defies rational-empirical epistemology.
Better instead, to argue the existence of God in terms of 'religious and/or spiritual idealism'.
In this scenario, it is better also to take personal responsibility for the contents and direction of your self-projected spiritual idealism.
My form of self-projected, spiritual idealism comes mainly from the influence of such philosophers as Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, and Schelling -- a romantic form of integrative (homeostatically balanced) dialectical negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism (the different spiritual parts of Man, Nature, and God all coming together into one 'multi-dialectic-humanistic-existential-unified whole'.
By this 'Heraclitean-Spinozian-Hegelian-Schellian' interpretation of the romantic integrative spirituality ofo Man, Nature, and God -- there are parts of God, Nature, and Man in all of us -- and we all need to 'triangulate the respective energies of these three life forces -- 1. God (Transcendence, Creativity, Becoming, The Wish to Soar High in the Universe...); 2. Nature (Being, Here and Now, Groundedness, Beauty, Homeostatic Balance, Multi-Dialectic Unity, Harmony and Wholism, Evolution...); and 3. Man (The Bridge between Man, Nature and God seeking elements of everything above -- a romantic-spiritual unity between these three sets of life forces).
In a nutshell then, according to my DGB vision of romantic-spiritual idealism...
Man must homeostatically balance elements of God, Nature, and his/her own creative needs of freedom, being and becoming within a social-political-natural environment of multi-dialectic-negotiation and integration.
-- dgb, July 25th, 2008.
Better instead, to argue the existence of God in terms of 'religious and/or spiritual idealism'.
In this scenario, it is better also to take personal responsibility for the contents and direction of your self-projected spiritual idealism.
My form of self-projected, spiritual idealism comes mainly from the influence of such philosophers as Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, and Schelling -- a romantic form of integrative (homeostatically balanced) dialectical negotiation, integration, unity, and wholism (the different spiritual parts of Man, Nature, and God all coming together into one 'multi-dialectic-humanistic-existential-unified whole'.
By this 'Heraclitean-Spinozian-Hegelian-Schellian' interpretation of the romantic integrative spirituality ofo Man, Nature, and God -- there are parts of God, Nature, and Man in all of us -- and we all need to 'triangulate the respective energies of these three life forces -- 1. God (Transcendence, Creativity, Becoming, The Wish to Soar High in the Universe...); 2. Nature (Being, Here and Now, Groundedness, Beauty, Homeostatic Balance, Multi-Dialectic Unity, Harmony and Wholism, Evolution...); and 3. Man (The Bridge between Man, Nature and God seeking elements of everything above -- a romantic-spiritual unity between these three sets of life forces).
In a nutshell then, according to my DGB vision of romantic-spiritual idealism...
Man must homeostatically balance elements of God, Nature, and his/her own creative needs of freedom, being and becoming within a social-political-natural environment of multi-dialectic-negotiation and integration.
-- dgb, July 25th, 2008.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
On Contradictions in Human Behaviour
I write about narcissism being out of balance in our culture. And yet the devil I write about is at least partly the devil in me. We shouldn't dissociate ourselves from the people and the transgressions we point fingers at when we are are at least partly practising them ourselves.
Hypocrisy is not admitting our contradictions - our bi-polarities -- or even worse, not seeing them. Contradictions abound in human nature, and hypocrisy abounds in people who cannot or will not see and/or admit their contradictions, and their ethical transgressions from these contradictions.
In Gestalt Therapy, they used to say you can't - or won't - change until you first know and accept who you are now.
But in the mean time, even if we are not prepared to change, we can all work harder at not throwing stones if and/or when we live in glass houses.
- dgb, July 20th, modified, July 26th, 2008.
Hypocrisy is not admitting our contradictions - our bi-polarities -- or even worse, not seeing them. Contradictions abound in human nature, and hypocrisy abounds in people who cannot or will not see and/or admit their contradictions, and their ethical transgressions from these contradictions.
In Gestalt Therapy, they used to say you can't - or won't - change until you first know and accept who you are now.
But in the mean time, even if we are not prepared to change, we can all work harder at not throwing stones if and/or when we live in glass houses.
- dgb, July 20th, modified, July 26th, 2008.
On The Unpredictability of Being and Becoming
It's like you've got yesterday, today, and tomorrow all in the same room. There's no telling what can happen.
-- From the movie, I'm Not There
-- From the movie, I'm Not There
On Freedom
People believe that freedom means being able to live a certain life
without being kicked around.
Of course, the more we live a certain life, the less it feels like freedom.
-- From the movie, I'm Not There
without being kicked around.
Of course, the more we live a certain life, the less it feels like freedom.
-- From the movie, I'm Not There
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Higher We Soar...
The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.
-- Nietzsche
(However, those who don't return to earth may end up in mental institutions.)
-- DGB, July 19th, 2008.
-- Nietzsche
(However, those who don't return to earth may end up in mental institutions.)
-- DGB, July 19th, 2008.
On Clarity
Don't talk about clarity -- and leave me here chasing the moon.
Many philosophers do this - talk about clarity and then hit the outer stratosphere of abstraction (eg. Wittgenstein).
The same goes with many of us, ordinary, day-to-day, people who may or may not live in ivory towers but who talk about being intimate while running away from what we really feel, and/or who talk with a suit of armour around our heart. (I couldn't be talking about myself, could I?)
- dgb, July 19th, modified, July 26th, 2008.
Many philosophers do this - talk about clarity and then hit the outer stratosphere of abstraction (eg. Wittgenstein).
The same goes with many of us, ordinary, day-to-day, people who may or may not live in ivory towers but who talk about being intimate while running away from what we really feel, and/or who talk with a suit of armour around our heart. (I couldn't be talking about myself, could I?)
- dgb, July 19th, modified, July 26th, 2008.
Friday, July 18, 2008
On The Dialectical Paradox Between Man's Stagnant Classification Systems and Life's Phenomenal -- Always Changing -- Processes
Man loves similarities, associations, and generalization because these breed consistenceis, predictabilities -- and 'psychological securities'. However, if life 'zigs' where man's thought process 'zags', then all consistencies and predictabilities go out the window.
In the meantime, man is left humming along with a 'false sense of psychological security' until the day or the moment that there is a loud or soft 'crash' -- and often, with it, a very unpleasant 'shock to man's psychological as well as physiological system' between what man 'thought was consistent and predictable', and what in the end -- wasn't. Advantage -- life. Disadvantage -- man.
We must remember this when we are going 'hog-wild' trying to 'classifying the similar and different reductionistic pieces of life' becasue classifying is always aimed at achieving generalizations, consistencies, and predictabilities. Life isn't. Life is often geared towards defying and defeating these same man-made classfication systems.
The moral of this min-essay is this: Life processes preceed -- and should always take precedence over -- man-made classificaiton systems.
Think 'life processes' first -- and 'classification systems' second -- with an important 'caveat emptor' at the end of every man-made classificatio system which I borrow and extrapolate from what I learned from studying Heralclitus, Korzybski, Hayakawa, and Perls -- a combination of General Semantics and Gestalt Therapy:
This classification system is always flexible and subject to change, contingent on another better classification system that will inevitably come along, created by some new classifyer, scientist, and/or philosopher on the meeting ground of dialectical freedom, humanistic-existentialism, narcissism (money, greed, selfishness..), and/or evolutionary functionality.
Man -- and science -- seeks consistency and predictability while life is based on a combination of consistency-predictability (Parmenides)-- and its opposite: 'You can never step into the same river twice.' -- Heraclitus. Don't get so caught up in the philosophical lessons of Parmenides that you miss the philosophical lessons of Heraclitus, Korzybski, Hayakawa, and Perls:
'Life is always subject to change.'
July 18th, 2008.
In the meantime, man is left humming along with a 'false sense of psychological security' until the day or the moment that there is a loud or soft 'crash' -- and often, with it, a very unpleasant 'shock to man's psychological as well as physiological system' between what man 'thought was consistent and predictable', and what in the end -- wasn't. Advantage -- life. Disadvantage -- man.
We must remember this when we are going 'hog-wild' trying to 'classifying the similar and different reductionistic pieces of life' becasue classifying is always aimed at achieving generalizations, consistencies, and predictabilities. Life isn't. Life is often geared towards defying and defeating these same man-made classfication systems.
The moral of this min-essay is this: Life processes preceed -- and should always take precedence over -- man-made classificaiton systems.
Think 'life processes' first -- and 'classification systems' second -- with an important 'caveat emptor' at the end of every man-made classificatio system which I borrow and extrapolate from what I learned from studying Heralclitus, Korzybski, Hayakawa, and Perls -- a combination of General Semantics and Gestalt Therapy:
This classification system is always flexible and subject to change, contingent on another better classification system that will inevitably come along, created by some new classifyer, scientist, and/or philosopher on the meeting ground of dialectical freedom, humanistic-existentialism, narcissism (money, greed, selfishness..), and/or evolutionary functionality.
Man -- and science -- seeks consistency and predictability while life is based on a combination of consistency-predictability (Parmenides)-- and its opposite: 'You can never step into the same river twice.' -- Heraclitus. Don't get so caught up in the philosophical lessons of Parmenides that you miss the philosophical lessons of Heraclitus, Korzybski, Hayakawa, and Perls:
'Life is always subject to change.'
July 18th, 2008.
On Classifying, Life Processes, and Man's Number 1 Evolutionary Tool -- His/Her Brain
Let me be clear on this point. No one will ever find a perfect classification system. Life will always defeat your classification process because life doesn't care about classifications systems. Life just -- is. Life is biologically diverse -- infinitely diverse -- because with every step of evolution, there is a new mutation, or conversely put, with every new mutation, every new combination -- by design or by accident -- evolution proceeds in a new and different way. Classification processes and systems can and will never keep up because life will always be one, or a hundred, or a thousand steps ahead. You think that bacteria and viruses are not 'smart'. Then why do we now have 'drug-resistant bacteria and viruses'. Because they mutated, they they compensated, they evolved -- they 'outsmarted' the drugs -- and man. And man is left scratching his head, saying: 'Bacteria and viruses are not supposed to be this way. They are not supposed to be able to defeat our wonderful, all powerful anti-biotics?' But they do. And for man -- and science -- it is back to the drawing room, back to the continual game of adjustment and re-adjustment, compensation, and further compensation...
Man's number one evolutionary tool rmaains his 'brain', and to maintain this evolutinary advantage, man has to continually stay on top of life's changes -- as well as its consistencies and its similarities until these consistencies and similarities break off and become something 'nwe' -- then again, man has to stay on top of these changes, and follow with 'life's new program'. Where life goes, science and philosophy need to follow right behind, like a 'stotm tracker' or a 'tornado chaser' follows a storm/tornado with all its twists and turns, and changes in directon. If a storm tracker or a tornado chaser, misses a tornado's sudden turn -- somebody could die (including the tornado chaser him or hsrself). Science's functionality/usefulness/value to mankind depends on it catching all of life's new twists and turns. The job of philosophy is mainly to keep science on the right track, and to keep it ethically honest, so that, for example, science doesn't start chasing money rather than what it is supposed to be chasing -- i.e., the 'truth' about life with all its different twists and turns.
-- dgb, July 18th, 2008.
Man's number one evolutionary tool rmaains his 'brain', and to maintain this evolutinary advantage, man has to continually stay on top of life's changes -- as well as its consistencies and its similarities until these consistencies and similarities break off and become something 'nwe' -- then again, man has to stay on top of these changes, and follow with 'life's new program'. Where life goes, science and philosophy need to follow right behind, like a 'stotm tracker' or a 'tornado chaser' follows a storm/tornado with all its twists and turns, and changes in directon. If a storm tracker or a tornado chaser, misses a tornado's sudden turn -- somebody could die (including the tornado chaser him or hsrself). Science's functionality/usefulness/value to mankind depends on it catching all of life's new twists and turns. The job of philosophy is mainly to keep science on the right track, and to keep it ethically honest, so that, for example, science doesn't start chasing money rather than what it is supposed to be chasing -- i.e., the 'truth' about life with all its different twists and turns.
-- dgb, July 18th, 2008.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
On Narcissism, Ethics, Hypocrisy, and Ideology...
From Hobbes', Schopenhauer's, Marx's, and Freud's line of philosophy...
A gemeralization in human behavior (nature?)...a cynic's and/or non-naive person's interpretation...
Narcissism and the 'pleasure-power principle' rule; ethics and ideology fool...
-- dgb, July 17th, 2008.
A gemeralization in human behavior (nature?)...a cynic's and/or non-naive person's interpretation...
Narcissism and the 'pleasure-power principle' rule; ethics and ideology fool...
-- dgb, July 17th, 2008.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
On Sharing
To extrapolate on Shakespeare (Hamlet)...
To share or not to share important thoughts and feelings: that is the question.
dgb, July 16th, 2008.
To share or not to share important thoughts and feelings: that is the question.
dgb, July 16th, 2008.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
On Passion and Compassion
Don't ever lose your passion and compassion for people. The more we lock people out, the more we lock ourselves in. The more we push people aside, the more we push ourselves inside. Some people need more lone time than others -- a time to reflect -- but again a dialectic is needed to establish a homeostatic balance: a balance between the type of creative growth we get from being alone, and the type of creative growth we get from being others. Either polarity by itself establishes a one-sided existence. And sometimes people who spend a lot of time with people can be the loneliest people. We avoid and defend against the questions and answers that take us closest to our heart. No adventure -- no loss. No passion. No compassion. A life above our necks and/or below our belts. Our heart beats for no one and hides from everyone.
-- dgb, July 15th, 2008.
-- dgb, July 15th, 2008.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
On The Relationship Between Lobbyism and Power
In order to cure the ills of North American Democracy and the Government War on The 'Average, Middle Class Citizen' (meaning a citizen who does not have a powerful lobbyist person and/or group working for him or her), we need to recognize and cure the problem of 'Covert, Left and Right Wing, Special Interest Politician and Lobbyist Meetings and Collusions'. Let me explain...
...............................................................................
1. Look after the rich and the rich will help to keep you in power...That is basically the philosophy/relationship between corrupt -- and/or 'politically expedient' -- Conservative/Republican Right Wings politicians and their powerful, rich Corporate Lobbyist Special Interest Supporters...
2. Look after the 'Left-Wing, Socially Active, Special Interest Groups' and these left-wing special interest groups will help to keep you in power...That is basically the philosophy/relationship between corrupt -- and/or 'politically expedient' -- Liberal/Left Wing politicians and their Left Wing, Special Interest Supporters...
Political/Economic Lobbyism -- Left and Right Wing both -- is basically the 'killer of North American Democracy and Equal Rights'. And it all starts along 'the campaign road to the President's/Prime Minister's Office. Political candidates need money -- a lot of money -- to run for the President's/Prime Minister's Office. This democratic problem is much worse -- meaning much more expensive -- in America than in Canada but it is still relevant money. When campaign runners start to run short of money, they start looking for lobbyist financial supporters -- and the bigger the better as a general rule. The money required to run a campaign for the Democrat/Republican nomination -- and then the President's office -- as seen in this current American election, is staggering, in the millions and millions of dollars. Not even most of the richest people in America can afford it unless they are willing to take on a staggering debt in the process -- witness Hillary Clinton.
So underhanded, covert, non-transparent, collusive 'deals' or 'promises' are struck up between politicians looking for money and lobbyists looking for power. That's the essence of the 'Un-Democratic Political/Economical Lobbyist Deal' -- money for power.
American/Canadian Democracy crumbles in the process. You can start to hear more and more about it on CNN, the Lou Dobbs Show, in new books coming out and being promoted on this show such as -- 'Free Lunch'.
Solve the American/Canadian Political/Economic Lobbyist problem and you go a long way towards solving the problem of 'The Un-Democratic Lobbyist-Pampered American and Canadian Democracy'. This is what Lou Dobbs essentially describes as 'The War on The Middle Class'. That is -- the 'pampering' of Left and Right Wing Special Interest Lobbyist Groups.
Get rid of covert, non-transparent political-economic lobbyism in America and Canada -- or at least make it politically transparent to the general public -- and you go a long way towards 'curing the ills of North American Democracy'.
Obama has been one of the first politicians to seriously speak out on the issue -- although I do not even believe that he is entireley 'lobbyist-free'. Obama has shown his 'politically expedient' side of his character -- for example, when he found out that he could raise much more money than his political competitors -- Clinton, McCain, and others -- through internet campaign donations: i.e. many, many more smaller donations by your average middle class citizens with no serious lobbyist intentions -- or threats -- to the American people behind them.
This should be the way of raising campaign donations in the future...unless the American people want a basically 'equal economic footing' for Presidential candidates which is probably more or less impossible to enforce...such as so much of American tax money being used for campaign purposes equally for all Presidential candidates...or the two last candiates standing (the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee -- Obama turned down going this route because he knew he could raise more money than McCain through his 'internet donations'.)
In the meantime, both America and Canada need to find a way to get the thousands and thousands of 'collusive' lobbyists in Washington/Ottawa out of Washington/Ottawa or change the laws so that these people do their business in 'transparent, general public, open forums -- not behind 'closed, narcissistic doors, in restaurants, bars and/or alley ways, or on the phone -- and definitely no 'cash envelopes'.
-- July 13th, 2008.
...............................................................................
1. Look after the rich and the rich will help to keep you in power...That is basically the philosophy/relationship between corrupt -- and/or 'politically expedient' -- Conservative/Republican Right Wings politicians and their powerful, rich Corporate Lobbyist Special Interest Supporters...
2. Look after the 'Left-Wing, Socially Active, Special Interest Groups' and these left-wing special interest groups will help to keep you in power...That is basically the philosophy/relationship between corrupt -- and/or 'politically expedient' -- Liberal/Left Wing politicians and their Left Wing, Special Interest Supporters...
Political/Economic Lobbyism -- Left and Right Wing both -- is basically the 'killer of North American Democracy and Equal Rights'. And it all starts along 'the campaign road to the President's/Prime Minister's Office. Political candidates need money -- a lot of money -- to run for the President's/Prime Minister's Office. This democratic problem is much worse -- meaning much more expensive -- in America than in Canada but it is still relevant money. When campaign runners start to run short of money, they start looking for lobbyist financial supporters -- and the bigger the better as a general rule. The money required to run a campaign for the Democrat/Republican nomination -- and then the President's office -- as seen in this current American election, is staggering, in the millions and millions of dollars. Not even most of the richest people in America can afford it unless they are willing to take on a staggering debt in the process -- witness Hillary Clinton.
So underhanded, covert, non-transparent, collusive 'deals' or 'promises' are struck up between politicians looking for money and lobbyists looking for power. That's the essence of the 'Un-Democratic Political/Economical Lobbyist Deal' -- money for power.
American/Canadian Democracy crumbles in the process. You can start to hear more and more about it on CNN, the Lou Dobbs Show, in new books coming out and being promoted on this show such as -- 'Free Lunch'.
Solve the American/Canadian Political/Economic Lobbyist problem and you go a long way towards solving the problem of 'The Un-Democratic Lobbyist-Pampered American and Canadian Democracy'. This is what Lou Dobbs essentially describes as 'The War on The Middle Class'. That is -- the 'pampering' of Left and Right Wing Special Interest Lobbyist Groups.
Get rid of covert, non-transparent political-economic lobbyism in America and Canada -- or at least make it politically transparent to the general public -- and you go a long way towards 'curing the ills of North American Democracy'.
Obama has been one of the first politicians to seriously speak out on the issue -- although I do not even believe that he is entireley 'lobbyist-free'. Obama has shown his 'politically expedient' side of his character -- for example, when he found out that he could raise much more money than his political competitors -- Clinton, McCain, and others -- through internet campaign donations: i.e. many, many more smaller donations by your average middle class citizens with no serious lobbyist intentions -- or threats -- to the American people behind them.
This should be the way of raising campaign donations in the future...unless the American people want a basically 'equal economic footing' for Presidential candidates which is probably more or less impossible to enforce...such as so much of American tax money being used for campaign purposes equally for all Presidential candidates...or the two last candiates standing (the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee -- Obama turned down going this route because he knew he could raise more money than McCain through his 'internet donations'.)
In the meantime, both America and Canada need to find a way to get the thousands and thousands of 'collusive' lobbyists in Washington/Ottawa out of Washington/Ottawa or change the laws so that these people do their business in 'transparent, general public, open forums -- not behind 'closed, narcissistic doors, in restaurants, bars and/or alley ways, or on the phone -- and definitely no 'cash envelopes'.
-- July 13th, 2008.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
On Marx, Idealism, Ideology, Integrity and Character
In a Marxian sense, there is a very critical difference between 'idealism' and 'ideology'.
'Idealism' pertains to the values that a person professes to believe in.
However, Marx, probably more than any other philosopher in Western history could and did see through man's hypocrisy -- the internal lack of congruence between a person's professed idealism and the true underlying nature and extent of their individual and/or collective narcissism.
Thus, Marx created a second concept -- 'ideology' -- to account for this idealistic/ideological hypocrisy and the true underlying narcissism in his nature.
Thus, the name that Marx used to account for this human hypocrisy between 'professed belief' and 'real belief' was -- 'ideology'. Ideology represents a person's/politician's/businessman's professed set of beliefs but not his real set of beliefts. To get to his real set of beliefs, Marx believed that you had to cut through a person's professed and hypocritical ideology to get to their real underlying narcissism -- especially, in his eyes, as it was/is exasperated by Capitalism.
Little did Marx know or realize that two of the worst examples of human ideology and hypocrisy at its worst would be played out by two of the most anti-humanistic, anti-Capitalist leaders in the history of man -- Lenin and Stalin.
Thus, hypocrisy and hypocritical ideology has nothing to do with Capitalism -- although the two are often found hand in hand. Rather, hypocrisy and hypocritical ideology is more connected to the wish to hide human/government/corporate/individual narcissism -- and the wish to hide human narcissism is not limited to what set of economic and/or political and/or religious beliefs you believe in -- whether this be of Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and/or Jewish perspective.
Human narcissism and hypocrisy -- like a very sharp knife -- cuts through any and all human perspectives -- and ideologies...
Thus, much of the congruence, honesty, and integrity of a person can be judged by the degree to which his or her professed beliefs and values can be seen and experienced by himself/herself, and/or others as matching with the real idealistic beliefs that the person actually lives his or her life by -- or doesn't.
When idealism matches ideology and demonstrated action -- you have a congruent, honest person who is living her or her life with integrity and ethical/moral transparency.
When idealism does not match ideology and demonstrated action -- well then, we still have some significant work to do to improve the integrity of our character.
And when this hypocrisy and hypocritical idealism/ideology is serious enough -- well then, we deserve to be called an ethical fraud.
-- dgb, July 12th, 2008.
'Idealism' pertains to the values that a person professes to believe in.
However, Marx, probably more than any other philosopher in Western history could and did see through man's hypocrisy -- the internal lack of congruence between a person's professed idealism and the true underlying nature and extent of their individual and/or collective narcissism.
Thus, Marx created a second concept -- 'ideology' -- to account for this idealistic/ideological hypocrisy and the true underlying narcissism in his nature.
Thus, the name that Marx used to account for this human hypocrisy between 'professed belief' and 'real belief' was -- 'ideology'. Ideology represents a person's/politician's/businessman's professed set of beliefs but not his real set of beliefts. To get to his real set of beliefs, Marx believed that you had to cut through a person's professed and hypocritical ideology to get to their real underlying narcissism -- especially, in his eyes, as it was/is exasperated by Capitalism.
Little did Marx know or realize that two of the worst examples of human ideology and hypocrisy at its worst would be played out by two of the most anti-humanistic, anti-Capitalist leaders in the history of man -- Lenin and Stalin.
Thus, hypocrisy and hypocritical ideology has nothing to do with Capitalism -- although the two are often found hand in hand. Rather, hypocrisy and hypocritical ideology is more connected to the wish to hide human/government/corporate/individual narcissism -- and the wish to hide human narcissism is not limited to what set of economic and/or political and/or religious beliefs you believe in -- whether this be of Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and/or Jewish perspective.
Human narcissism and hypocrisy -- like a very sharp knife -- cuts through any and all human perspectives -- and ideologies...
Thus, much of the congruence, honesty, and integrity of a person can be judged by the degree to which his or her professed beliefs and values can be seen and experienced by himself/herself, and/or others as matching with the real idealistic beliefs that the person actually lives his or her life by -- or doesn't.
When idealism matches ideology and demonstrated action -- you have a congruent, honest person who is living her or her life with integrity and ethical/moral transparency.
When idealism does not match ideology and demonstrated action -- well then, we still have some significant work to do to improve the integrity of our character.
And when this hypocrisy and hypocritical idealism/ideology is serious enough -- well then, we deserve to be called an ethical fraud.
-- dgb, July 12th, 2008.
On Character and Faith -- Reliigion, Atheism, and Humanistic-Existentialism
It is not a man's faith or religion that determines the quality of his or her character -- although in the best of circumstances it can certainly help; rather, it a man's character that determines the quality of his or her faith, religion, non-faith, and/or non-religion.
There are humanistic Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Budhists, Pantheists, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists...And there are narcissistic, nasty, evil people in the world who call themselves by any of the same names...
The key is not their God, their Faith, their religion -- or their lack of it.
Rather, the key is a combination of self-assertiveness, self-responsibility, self-accountability which included honesty and integrity -- and a certain element of narcissism, hedonism, sensuality, excitement, egotism, and self-confidence...held in check and balanced by the other side of the 'self-social equation' which includes: social compassion, caring, sensitivity, empathy, love, generosity, altruism...
The last part of the self-social equation I refer to as: 'humanism' (social compassion); the first part of the self-social equation I refer to as 'existentialism' (self-assertiveness, self-responsibilitiy, self-accountability...).
In short form, I call the self-social equation -- 'humanistic-existentialism'.
So re-worded, my self-social formula can be presented in this manner:
It is not a person's God, Faith, Religion, or non-Religion that determines his or her character; but rather, the extent of his or her 'humanistic-existentilism' -- whether that be 'religious humnistic-existentialism' on the one end of the religious bi-polarity spectrum, 'pantheism' and 'deism' somewhere in the middle of the religious bi-polarity spectrum, or 'atheist humanistic-existentialism' on the other far end of the religious-non-religious bi-polarity spectrum.
Simplied, the extent of a person's humanistic-existentialism is more important to the make-up of his or her character than the religion or non-religion, Faith or non-Faith, that he or she follows -- or professes to follow.
That is why freedom of religion/non-religion remains so importnat to the constitutinal rights of any citizen -- and to his or her rights in the military, govenrment, and/or any other social and/or business organization.
And that is why I give my vote of support for the rights of 'The Atheist Soldier'. (See the CNN article on this most important constitutional issue.)
dgb, July 12th, 2008.
There are humanistic Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, Budhists, Pantheists, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists...And there are narcissistic, nasty, evil people in the world who call themselves by any of the same names...
The key is not their God, their Faith, their religion -- or their lack of it.
Rather, the key is a combination of self-assertiveness, self-responsibility, self-accountability which included honesty and integrity -- and a certain element of narcissism, hedonism, sensuality, excitement, egotism, and self-confidence...held in check and balanced by the other side of the 'self-social equation' which includes: social compassion, caring, sensitivity, empathy, love, generosity, altruism...
The last part of the self-social equation I refer to as: 'humanism' (social compassion); the first part of the self-social equation I refer to as 'existentialism' (self-assertiveness, self-responsibilitiy, self-accountability...).
In short form, I call the self-social equation -- 'humanistic-existentialism'.
So re-worded, my self-social formula can be presented in this manner:
It is not a person's God, Faith, Religion, or non-Religion that determines his or her character; but rather, the extent of his or her 'humanistic-existentilism' -- whether that be 'religious humnistic-existentialism' on the one end of the religious bi-polarity spectrum, 'pantheism' and 'deism' somewhere in the middle of the religious bi-polarity spectrum, or 'atheist humanistic-existentialism' on the other far end of the religious-non-religious bi-polarity spectrum.
Simplied, the extent of a person's humanistic-existentialism is more important to the make-up of his or her character than the religion or non-religion, Faith or non-Faith, that he or she follows -- or professes to follow.
That is why freedom of religion/non-religion remains so importnat to the constitutinal rights of any citizen -- and to his or her rights in the military, govenrment, and/or any other social and/or business organization.
And that is why I give my vote of support for the rights of 'The Atheist Soldier'. (See the CNN article on this most important constitutional issue.)
dgb, July 12th, 2008.
Friday, July 11, 2008
On The Seemingly 'Tragic Impasse'....
If you can get by the seemingly tragic impasse between thesis and anti-thesis, employer and employee, husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend...there is a creative resolution, a creative solution, that is waiting for you...It just takes one creative open-minded person, two creative, open-minded persons, or a group of creative, open-minded persons -- utilizing a combination of self-assertivenesss and social sensitivity, narcissism and altruism, and the 'democratic-dialectic' -- to get there...Unilateral, one-sided solutions don't generally work unless your sole purpose is to hammer your opposition into submission and you have the power to do it...These types of solutins tend to be very unstable, breed more conflict, resentment, anger, hate, and war...and what goes around generally comes around...live as a unilateralist, dictator, die as a unilateralist, dictator...If you don't have compassion for people, then people are not going to have compassion for you. -- dgb, July 11th, 2008.
'Even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked.' -- Bob Dylan ('It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding')
'Even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked.' -- Bob Dylan ('It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding')
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
On Good and Bad Days, Good and Bad Humanistic Values...
Some days I feel like I can change the world; other days I want to hide from the world. Some days I feel in charge of my life and moving in a direction that I like; other days I feel like walking into work and handing in my resignation slip -- changing jobs, changing provinces, or even changing countries...Some days I feel proud of my day's accomplishments; other days I feel beaten and battered by the stress of my job and not being able to keep up with its continuous minute to minute demands; some days I feel like I have made a positive impact on the corporate values of the company; other days I feel carried away in a tidal wave of corporate pathology...Sometimes I ask myself if the paycheque I bring home is that imperative to my survival in the middle class that I can continue to work in a place where the corporate values make me...well...not want to work where I work...
I make mistakes in my job for sure, but generally not mistakes in human values...Businesses often need to be tough in order to survive; they don't need to gouge and make windfall profits at the expense of their customers and/or employees. Win-win solutions breed succesful companies and corporations; win-lose solutions in the end usually mean that everyone loses...but perhaps not as long as the balance of power remains untoppled...
There is a difference between 'dialectic-democratic resolutions' and 'unilateral-dialectic powerplays'. The first breeds 'dialectical unity, integrationsim,wholism and peace'; the second breeds 'dialectical divisionism, righteousness, anger, hate, rebellion, and war'.
That is, unless the unilateral, dialectic powerplay is so powerful as to be esentially uncontested until the balance of power finally swings..and the old power sources are toppled...Machiavillian philosophy wins some of the time...but I have faith in the eventual strength and the power of the people to topple oppressive dictators and/or corrupt, narcissistic leaders...
-- dgb, July 9th, 2008.
I make mistakes in my job for sure, but generally not mistakes in human values...Businesses often need to be tough in order to survive; they don't need to gouge and make windfall profits at the expense of their customers and/or employees. Win-win solutions breed succesful companies and corporations; win-lose solutions in the end usually mean that everyone loses...but perhaps not as long as the balance of power remains untoppled...
There is a difference between 'dialectic-democratic resolutions' and 'unilateral-dialectic powerplays'. The first breeds 'dialectical unity, integrationsim,wholism and peace'; the second breeds 'dialectical divisionism, righteousness, anger, hate, rebellion, and war'.
That is, unless the unilateral, dialectic powerplay is so powerful as to be esentially uncontested until the balance of power finally swings..and the old power sources are toppled...Machiavillian philosophy wins some of the time...but I have faith in the eventual strength and the power of the people to topple oppressive dictators and/or corrupt, narcissistic leaders...
-- dgb, July 9th, 2008.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
On Narcissistic Dictators -- Goverment and Corporate
Dictators are often paradoxical, hypocritcial people -- actually all personality types are often paradoxical, hypocritical people. But we will talk about dictators here for a moment.
1. The most rebellious, anarchists are often covert dictators -- or overt dictators once they seize power. Their hate of dictators seems to be at least partly a jealousy, envy thing. In the end, it is they who want to be the dictator.
2. Dictatorial leaders often say that they hate being around 'weak, yes-people' yet they will often kill, maim, jail, and/or torture those who disagree with them. In the business world they will simply fire the serious disagreeers and especially the 'employee rights social activists'.
3. Dialectical-democratic leaders seek to negotiate win-win resolutions with their employee-workers.
4. Unilateral, dictatorial leaders seek to squash and intimidate their employee-workers.
5. In a corporate sea of narcissistic, unilateral, dictatorial businesses, governments and labour boards do precious little to protect the rights of employees and control the use and abuse of power by dictatorial corporate leaders.
6. Is it any wonder employees usually have to resort to looking for 'unions' to protect them from narcissistic, abusive corporate leaders. The problem is that union leaders are often just as narcissistic and abusive. But they are the best of two evil worlds.
7. But even getting to a union is very tricky business for most un-unionized companies. Companies will often seek to fire the 'union-activist-ring-leaders' of a company before they grab a good hold of a union with serious power. The labour board or government is usually no where around when this happens -- or looks the other way.
8. I've seen what can happen in a company that has two sets of employees -- unionized and non-unioned -- during a period of downsizing. The non-unionized workers usually get obliterated while the unionized workers remain solidly protected from firings and drops in pay. The drops in pay wouldn't seem so bad if everyone was taking the same kind of hit. But most businesses are run by narcissistic leaders -- not fair ones. Here's what often happens. The top managers fire -- or 'downsize'/eliminate many of the 'mid-manager positionss'. The mid-maanagers may fire many of the regular workers. The workers who are left over have to do twice as much work -- with no extra pay. The mid-managers left over have to do twice as much work -- with or without no extra pay. The top managers will then give themselves all 'fat raises' for all the money they saved the company and the fact that they all now have 'extra responsibilities'. This is the law of the jungle -- I mean -- the law of 'corporate downsizing'.
Cheers everone! Take your demotion, your extra work-load -- and put on a 'happy corporate face for company and your top company leaders' Be happy -- they could have fired you -- unless you were protected by a union -- and/or some sort of government 'equal rights/affirmative action' program.
dgb, July 9th, 2008.
1. The most rebellious, anarchists are often covert dictators -- or overt dictators once they seize power. Their hate of dictators seems to be at least partly a jealousy, envy thing. In the end, it is they who want to be the dictator.
2. Dictatorial leaders often say that they hate being around 'weak, yes-people' yet they will often kill, maim, jail, and/or torture those who disagree with them. In the business world they will simply fire the serious disagreeers and especially the 'employee rights social activists'.
3. Dialectical-democratic leaders seek to negotiate win-win resolutions with their employee-workers.
4. Unilateral, dictatorial leaders seek to squash and intimidate their employee-workers.
5. In a corporate sea of narcissistic, unilateral, dictatorial businesses, governments and labour boards do precious little to protect the rights of employees and control the use and abuse of power by dictatorial corporate leaders.
6. Is it any wonder employees usually have to resort to looking for 'unions' to protect them from narcissistic, abusive corporate leaders. The problem is that union leaders are often just as narcissistic and abusive. But they are the best of two evil worlds.
7. But even getting to a union is very tricky business for most un-unionized companies. Companies will often seek to fire the 'union-activist-ring-leaders' of a company before they grab a good hold of a union with serious power. The labour board or government is usually no where around when this happens -- or looks the other way.
8. I've seen what can happen in a company that has two sets of employees -- unionized and non-unioned -- during a period of downsizing. The non-unionized workers usually get obliterated while the unionized workers remain solidly protected from firings and drops in pay. The drops in pay wouldn't seem so bad if everyone was taking the same kind of hit. But most businesses are run by narcissistic leaders -- not fair ones. Here's what often happens. The top managers fire -- or 'downsize'/eliminate many of the 'mid-manager positionss'. The mid-maanagers may fire many of the regular workers. The workers who are left over have to do twice as much work -- with no extra pay. The mid-managers left over have to do twice as much work -- with or without no extra pay. The top managers will then give themselves all 'fat raises' for all the money they saved the company and the fact that they all now have 'extra responsibilities'. This is the law of the jungle -- I mean -- the law of 'corporate downsizing'.
Cheers everone! Take your demotion, your extra work-load -- and put on a 'happy corporate face for company and your top company leaders' Be happy -- they could have fired you -- unless you were protected by a union -- and/or some sort of government 'equal rights/affirmative action' program.
dgb, July 9th, 2008.
On Democracy
As long as there is dictatorship or collusion and/or lobbyism going on behind the scenes in a democracy, then a democracy is not a democracy -- at least until election time. Rather, it is a 'pseudo-democracy' or to put it more bluntly -- a fake democracy.
dgb. July 9th, 2008.
dgb. July 9th, 2008.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Our Seniors and Their Paltry Pension Plans...
Our seniors deserve to be treated 'preferentially' -- they have worked their whole lives for our country and deserve to retire in dignity without having to be scared about not having enough money. Indeed, the Canadian government needs to do something bout those seniors who are falling underneath our current social safety net. This should not be construed as an act of altruism but rather as an act of 'squaring things up and turning an unfair situation into a fair one'. Most of our current seniors -- plus the thousands of upcoming seniors from the 'baby boom' years will, by the time they have retired, put thousands and thousands of dollars more into The CPP than they will ever see back from it...This, in my opinion, is a government crime...How many billions of dollars are there in The CPP -- that is either still there or has been syphoned out of it -- that belongs to seniors today who are living a retirement life of fear and axiety about not having enough money, or have had to keep working through their retirement years, because they have been cheated out of anything close to the amount of money that they put into The CPP...They trusted their government -- or were forced to give CPP money to their goverment without trusting it (most people have some idea by now what kind of scam is going on, and/or has been going on, with their CPP money) -- and their government duped them just like they duped our native aborignals in days gone by.
We, the Canadian people, if we want to retire with proper respect and dignity, need to fix our CPP until the money we get back from it much more accurately reflects what we put into it. Our politicians -- from every party -- have made sure that their own deep pension plans will allow them to retire in anxiety-free luxury; this is noxious and repugnant when compared to the paltry pension plans that the rest of our seniors are getting who don't have the luxury of such pension plans, or any type of private one; and the fact that so many millions or even billions of dollars have basically been taken from them under false pretenses. Money coming out does not come anywhere close to money put in. Where did the rest of it go? And what is the remaining excess 'baby boom pension money' now being used for other than as a government 'slush fund'? If it is being taken out of the CPP for other reasons, then this is fraud, unless the Canadian people know about it -- and why. This is an example of government coversion and narcissism at its worst...A democratic, uncorrupt government is honest with its people and transparent with the use of its tax money; it doesn't take tax money -- overtax people -- and then use this money for other, undeclared purposes...such as overfilling their own pension funds and leaving the rest of the country dry and economically scared and/or miserable during their retirement years...
Furthermore, our seniors -- particularly the ones making under $30,000 should not be taxed at all...Take away their GST and PST...Take away their property tax...and maybe then our seniors will have more time to relax and breathe easier without cringing at every dollar spent...Again, they deserve it...they have worked hard for Canada and their children...it is time for our government and the generation below our seniors to give back to them...
-- dgb, July 2nd, 2008
We, the Canadian people, if we want to retire with proper respect and dignity, need to fix our CPP until the money we get back from it much more accurately reflects what we put into it. Our politicians -- from every party -- have made sure that their own deep pension plans will allow them to retire in anxiety-free luxury; this is noxious and repugnant when compared to the paltry pension plans that the rest of our seniors are getting who don't have the luxury of such pension plans, or any type of private one; and the fact that so many millions or even billions of dollars have basically been taken from them under false pretenses. Money coming out does not come anywhere close to money put in. Where did the rest of it go? And what is the remaining excess 'baby boom pension money' now being used for other than as a government 'slush fund'? If it is being taken out of the CPP for other reasons, then this is fraud, unless the Canadian people know about it -- and why. This is an example of government coversion and narcissism at its worst...A democratic, uncorrupt government is honest with its people and transparent with the use of its tax money; it doesn't take tax money -- overtax people -- and then use this money for other, undeclared purposes...such as overfilling their own pension funds and leaving the rest of the country dry and economically scared and/or miserable during their retirement years...
Furthermore, our seniors -- particularly the ones making under $30,000 should not be taxed at all...Take away their GST and PST...Take away their property tax...and maybe then our seniors will have more time to relax and breathe easier without cringing at every dollar spent...Again, they deserve it...they have worked hard for Canada and their children...it is time for our government and the generation below our seniors to give back to them...
-- dgb, July 2nd, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
On Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Discrimination, Preferentialism, and Reverse-Discrimination
'Sexual stereotyping, discrimination, and profiling (targeting)' is no different than 'racial stereotypeing and profiling (targeting)' and can be used manipulatively and pathologically against either sex and/or any race against either sex and/or any race.
This is an imperatively important point to make because many so-called 'equal rights' groups have somehow come to the conclusion that equal rights for 'customarily discriminated against groups' -- meaning so-called 'minority ethnic groups' and 'women' -- should involve 'preferential rights' and 'preferential treatment' for these groups in order to 'offset the customary disadvantage' of the 'customary discrimination'.
This logic is full of holes...such as:
1. It believes that somehow 'two discriminatory wrongs make a right';
2. It is reverse-discriminating against 'so-called non-minority ethnic groups (meaning 'whites')' and 'men';
3. It believes that given 'equal rights' and 'equal opporunity' by the government -- even if it is legally bound in 'The Canadian Constitution', that somehow this is still not enough, that employers will still discriminate against these groups, and that therefore these still need an extra 'handicap push' ('affirmative action' programs, government (guilt?) handouts, special free training programs, etc.) from government in order to offset 'the residual of old discriminatory habits and practises by employers, white males, private citizens, etc... These so called 'equal (narcissistic, preferential) rights' groups don't talk about the possibility -- indeed, inevitability -- of these 'reverse-discriminatory practises on the part of government' inflaming new racial and sexual tensions (and not of the pleasurable, pleasant type)...Furthermore, they don't talk about the fact that this idea of 'preferential pushing' is simply another form of discrimination -- not only against the other groups in society that are not getting the preferential treatment but also against the 'pampered groups' groups as well, because it is treating them like they are 'handicapped' and 'need government help'...in effect, it is a backhanded insult to the particular race, culture, and/or ethnic group involved 'that they need help' because given equal rights and equal opportunity is still not enough to help them progress up Western society's (economic) ladder, and similarily, it is an insult against women...Plus, these types of benefits are going to be used narcissistically, manipulatively, and unfairly...In the meantime, for example, there are thousands of women and members of so-called 'ethnic minority groups' that have more money at their disposal than I will ever see in a lifetime...The goal of 'equal rights' and 'equal opportunity' should be nothing more, and nothing less. If there are going to be any 'economic handouts' then these 'freebies' should be equally available for any and every race, culture, religion, and both sexes -- otherwise, the government is practising the same type of discrimination that it is trying to get rid of...Things like 'free seminars for women who want to start their own business' should be equally available for men -- at the same price, i.e., 'free'; otherwise, it is discriminatory against men. And this is just a very small starting point. The type of 'reverse-discrimination' is systemically rampant in Canadian Goverment and in the Canadian Domestic/Family Courts...
As a white, Canadian male dispatcher, I would sooner work beside any man or woman of any colour from any cultural, religious, and/or racial background that knows what they are doing in the job they are doing than to 'stereotype, profile, and target' someone who is a 'white, male' -- and doesn't know what he is doing. And I am only surmising here, but I believe that in the end, most employers in Canada today want someone who can do the job they are hired to do -- properly and well -- not 'stereotype, profile and target' someone who can't do the job they are hired to do... This is not to say that 'discrimination' is not still happening in Canadian society because most definitely it is -- but it is happening in all directions against 'whites' and 'males' as well as against all other forms of the currently government 'stereotyped, profiled, and targeted' forms of discrimination...
I have no problem with 'social safety nets' in society for the poor and for our seniors but this has nothing to do with race, culture, religion, colour, or sex...I'm a liberal as well as a conservative working to integrate the two -- 'liberal-conservatisim' -- in a dialectical union.
-- dgb, July 1st, Canada Day, 2008.
This is an imperatively important point to make because many so-called 'equal rights' groups have somehow come to the conclusion that equal rights for 'customarily discriminated against groups' -- meaning so-called 'minority ethnic groups' and 'women' -- should involve 'preferential rights' and 'preferential treatment' for these groups in order to 'offset the customary disadvantage' of the 'customary discrimination'.
This logic is full of holes...such as:
1. It believes that somehow 'two discriminatory wrongs make a right';
2. It is reverse-discriminating against 'so-called non-minority ethnic groups (meaning 'whites')' and 'men';
3. It believes that given 'equal rights' and 'equal opporunity' by the government -- even if it is legally bound in 'The Canadian Constitution', that somehow this is still not enough, that employers will still discriminate against these groups, and that therefore these still need an extra 'handicap push' ('affirmative action' programs, government (guilt?) handouts, special free training programs, etc.) from government in order to offset 'the residual of old discriminatory habits and practises by employers, white males, private citizens, etc... These so called 'equal (narcissistic, preferential) rights' groups don't talk about the possibility -- indeed, inevitability -- of these 'reverse-discriminatory practises on the part of government' inflaming new racial and sexual tensions (and not of the pleasurable, pleasant type)...Furthermore, they don't talk about the fact that this idea of 'preferential pushing' is simply another form of discrimination -- not only against the other groups in society that are not getting the preferential treatment but also against the 'pampered groups' groups as well, because it is treating them like they are 'handicapped' and 'need government help'...in effect, it is a backhanded insult to the particular race, culture, and/or ethnic group involved 'that they need help' because given equal rights and equal opportunity is still not enough to help them progress up Western society's (economic) ladder, and similarily, it is an insult against women...Plus, these types of benefits are going to be used narcissistically, manipulatively, and unfairly...In the meantime, for example, there are thousands of women and members of so-called 'ethnic minority groups' that have more money at their disposal than I will ever see in a lifetime...The goal of 'equal rights' and 'equal opportunity' should be nothing more, and nothing less. If there are going to be any 'economic handouts' then these 'freebies' should be equally available for any and every race, culture, religion, and both sexes -- otherwise, the government is practising the same type of discrimination that it is trying to get rid of...Things like 'free seminars for women who want to start their own business' should be equally available for men -- at the same price, i.e., 'free'; otherwise, it is discriminatory against men. And this is just a very small starting point. The type of 'reverse-discrimination' is systemically rampant in Canadian Goverment and in the Canadian Domestic/Family Courts...
As a white, Canadian male dispatcher, I would sooner work beside any man or woman of any colour from any cultural, religious, and/or racial background that knows what they are doing in the job they are doing than to 'stereotype, profile, and target' someone who is a 'white, male' -- and doesn't know what he is doing. And I am only surmising here, but I believe that in the end, most employers in Canada today want someone who can do the job they are hired to do -- properly and well -- not 'stereotype, profile and target' someone who can't do the job they are hired to do... This is not to say that 'discrimination' is not still happening in Canadian society because most definitely it is -- but it is happening in all directions against 'whites' and 'males' as well as against all other forms of the currently government 'stereotyped, profiled, and targeted' forms of discrimination...
I have no problem with 'social safety nets' in society for the poor and for our seniors but this has nothing to do with race, culture, religion, colour, or sex...I'm a liberal as well as a conservative working to integrate the two -- 'liberal-conservatisim' -- in a dialectical union.
-- dgb, July 1st, Canada Day, 2008.
Monday, June 30, 2008
On 'The Axis Of Evil' -- and 'Dialectical Accountability'
A culture, ethnic group, or nation invaded, pillaged, victimized, traumatized... is a nation later capable of invading, pillaging, vitimizing, traumatizing... Call this a 'cultural, ethnic, and/or national identification with the aggressor'. To label the second culture, ethnic group, and/or nation as lying on, or belonging to, an 'axis of evil' -- even if there is 'evilness' involved in the second group's or nation's destruction and/or threatened destruction of other people -- is to take this attitude and action out of context and to hide the attitude and/or action of the first group and/or nation -- along with its element of responsibility and accountability in the evolution of the axis of evil of the second group or nation unless it too is included as part of the entire axis of evil.
This is what I call 'dialectical accountability' as opposed to 'unilateral accountability'. It occurs both between individual people and between groups, cultures, religions, and nations...
-- dgb, June 30th, 2008.
This is what I call 'dialectical accountability' as opposed to 'unilateral accountability'. It occurs both between individual people and between groups, cultures, religions, and nations...
-- dgb, June 30th, 2008.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
If You Are a Business Owner or Manager and You Want to Run a Successful Company -- Then Be Where The Action Is; Not Miles Away From It
Beware of centralized decisions that come from centralized owners or centralized managers or centralized politicians -- who are miles and miles away from where the source of the action is relative to the decisions they are making. Decisions that take place far away from the source of the action are generally unhealthy, pathological decisions that have no bearing, or little bearing, with what is actually happening and what decisions actually need to be made to 'properly adjust to' what is happening, or what isn't happening, at the source of the action.
The two 'dialectical parts' -- the action and the decisions -- need to coincide with each other, make sense relative to each other, blend into each other; and decisions made far away from the scene of the action, without any proper contact and/or context to guide the decision-making process -- are likely to leave employees at the scene of the action shaking their heads in shocked disbelief. The source of the action -- 'A' -- demands decision 'D' -- and down through the chain of command, from owner, to manager, to supervisor, to employee -- comes decision 'X' -- 'X' as in wrong; please try again before we are out of business and all of us are out on the street without jobs.
-- dgb, June 29th, 2008.
The two 'dialectical parts' -- the action and the decisions -- need to coincide with each other, make sense relative to each other, blend into each other; and decisions made far away from the scene of the action, without any proper contact and/or context to guide the decision-making process -- are likely to leave employees at the scene of the action shaking their heads in shocked disbelief. The source of the action -- 'A' -- demands decision 'D' -- and down through the chain of command, from owner, to manager, to supervisor, to employee -- comes decision 'X' -- 'X' as in wrong; please try again before we are out of business and all of us are out on the street without jobs.
-- dgb, June 29th, 2008.
Be Like The Birds -- Discard Quickly, Old, Out-dated, Dysfunctional Generalizations
Even birds -- indeed, probably all animals with any kind of a brain -- make generalizations. And sometimes these generalizations take them away from 'reality' and away from 'functionality'. But they recover quickly. People too often make generalizations that take them away from reality and away from functionality. However, people don't always recover as quickly as birds do from their 'dysfunctional generalizations'. Birds are very 'reality-bound'. People can lose reality -- and not come back.
I moved my bird-feeder today from outside my upstairs living room window and sliding door with a black metal fence on it -- to the downstairs and outside backyard, a distance of about 20 feet outwards towards the swamp at the end of my backyard as well as down to the ground below.
Having re-constructed by bird-feeder -- fresh with new bird feed -- down below and out in the backyard, I sat upstairs and watched as first a morning dove and then a blackbird flew over to my upstairs ledge where the bird-feeder used to be and parked themselves, looking around for the food that wasn't there any more except perhaps a few tidbit leftovers still on my ledge... I don't know whether they figured out that the bird feeder had been moved at this exact moment or not, but having looked around for about 5 minutes, each, respectively, they both up and flew away, not to the new birdfeeder site -- but just away to a tree that they came from or something...
A half an hour of this, and the rest of the birds seemed to have figured things out properly -- the bird feeder had been moved to probably a better place for their reasoned safety -- and no more birds came back to my ledge. Now all the bird action was in my back yard -- at the site of the new feeder.
The birds had 'adjusted to reality' -- and left their 'dysfunctional generalizations' that led them away from the reality of where their food now was located -- behind. It only took half an hour with only two birds falling temporary victims to their 'outdated generalizations'.
That man should discard so quickly his (or her) outdated, dysfunctional generalizations.
People often take a lot longer to 'adjust to new circumstances'. Reality changes -- and they/we keep persisting with the same old, outdated, dysfunctional generalizations. Reality evolves -- and we stay the same. Our 'food' moves and we keep looking for our 'food' in 'the old place' where it no longer is.
Be like the birds. Learn fast, evolve -- and move on with new, fresh, up-to-date, functional generalizations. Go to where the food is; not to where the food was.
dgb, June 29th, 2008.
I moved my bird-feeder today from outside my upstairs living room window and sliding door with a black metal fence on it -- to the downstairs and outside backyard, a distance of about 20 feet outwards towards the swamp at the end of my backyard as well as down to the ground below.
Having re-constructed by bird-feeder -- fresh with new bird feed -- down below and out in the backyard, I sat upstairs and watched as first a morning dove and then a blackbird flew over to my upstairs ledge where the bird-feeder used to be and parked themselves, looking around for the food that wasn't there any more except perhaps a few tidbit leftovers still on my ledge... I don't know whether they figured out that the bird feeder had been moved at this exact moment or not, but having looked around for about 5 minutes, each, respectively, they both up and flew away, not to the new birdfeeder site -- but just away to a tree that they came from or something...
A half an hour of this, and the rest of the birds seemed to have figured things out properly -- the bird feeder had been moved to probably a better place for their reasoned safety -- and no more birds came back to my ledge. Now all the bird action was in my back yard -- at the site of the new feeder.
The birds had 'adjusted to reality' -- and left their 'dysfunctional generalizations' that led them away from the reality of where their food now was located -- behind. It only took half an hour with only two birds falling temporary victims to their 'outdated generalizations'.
That man should discard so quickly his (or her) outdated, dysfunctional generalizations.
People often take a lot longer to 'adjust to new circumstances'. Reality changes -- and they/we keep persisting with the same old, outdated, dysfunctional generalizations. Reality evolves -- and we stay the same. Our 'food' moves and we keep looking for our 'food' in 'the old place' where it no longer is.
Be like the birds. Learn fast, evolve -- and move on with new, fresh, up-to-date, functional generalizations. Go to where the food is; not to where the food was.
dgb, June 29th, 2008.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Hegel's Hotel as 'Hotel California'
Once you get into 'heavy' areas of philosophical, ethical, political, and religious controversy and differences of opinion, Hegel's Hotel becomes like 'Hotel California' -- you can get in but you may never get out...
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
Words, Personal Invasions of Space and Privacy, Rejections, Betrayals, and Other Contextual Issues Are Important Factors In Cases of Domestic Violence
For the most part -- if not the entire part -- the issue of 'words' has been marginalized and pushed aside in the information-gathering process and evolution of 'domestic violence' cases.
This is a big mistake -- as is the issue of 'personal invasions of space and privacy', which I will talk about a little more in the next 'mini-essay' in this section.
Words make up an important part of the 'context' of a domestic violence case. What words were said? Who issued them? Why were they issued? Were there threats of intimidation or coercion involved? What were the nature of the provocations that led up to the alleged domestic assault? What was the contextual background of what was going on here? Was one person being rejected? Betrayed? Cheated on? Leaving? Was there jealousy involved? Possessiveness? Money? What triggered the escalation of the domestic scene to one of violence? What was the extent of the violence? Does one person have a history -- a track record -- of violence? Or a completely clean record? What is the mental stability or instability of each of the participants in the situation? Is there a track record of one of the persons along this line? The main question here is 'What were the triggers -- verbal and/or preceding behavioral -- that escalated the scene to one of violence -- or alleged violence -- and one person calling the police?
Let me give you an example from outside the realm of domestic violence. There was an infamous baseball scene here in Toronto back in the 1990s where one of Toronto star baseball players -- Roberto Alomar -- apat on an umpire's face. Alomar's reputation in Toronto -- and else where -- his character and integrity, took a huge negative hit. I'm sure he was suspended by the baseball commissioner at the time although I don't know for how many games.
Now here is the point. Alomar committed the act that he committed and it was in essence and 'assault' although I don't think he was charged for assault. Likewise, perhaps worse, if he'd wound up, taken a swing at the umpire, and broken his jaw or given him a black eye, a bruise or something. I am certainly not advocatinng or supporting any type of violence here -- even in a sports event between two grown men who may or may not both be willing participants.
However, not too long ago, earlier this year sometime, and over ten years after the fact of this negative incident (I can't remember what year it was when this incident happened but I am sure I can probably find it on the internet and get back to you) -- it came out in some news forum or some interview that what the umpire said to Alomar was truly 'nasty' and 'under the belt'.
Why are we only hearing about this -- allegedly true infomration -- about 15 years after the fact? It is important contextual information relative to what happened? What did the umpire say? How bad was it? Even though Alomar still needs to be held acountable and responsible for what he did, he also deserves a fair 'trial' -- if only in this case in the court of public opinion. If the umpire involved in the incident, said something to Alomar that was truly 'despicable' and a 'low blow' -- then he should be held accountable and responsible for his proportion of guilt in what happened.
And so it is in scenes of 'real or alleged domestic violence'. If one person says something to the other that is truly 'nasty' and 'despicable' or 'totally disrespectful' or a 'threat of intimidation' ...or anything along this line, then this information needs to be collected by the examining police officers -- and not 'marginalized', or 'neglected', and/or 'conveniently swept aside' in order to 'narcissistically and discriminatively' move the investigation along in a biased and prejudicial fashion that they were 'taught to move the investigation along in' before they even arrived at the scene.
If one police officer says to one of the participants in the scene of alleged domestic violence, 'It doesn't matter what words she said to you, or how 'postal' she went on you, or what 'threats' she made to you, or how much she 'invaded your personal space' (how many different rooms of the house she chased you into to give you a piece of her mind...) -- the only thing that is important here is 'who struck who -- or who pushed who -- first? And if that was you, my man, then I have explicit instructions to handcuff you, charge you, and take you to straight to jail.
That kind of a message from a police officer to a participant (it was said to me by a male police officer) corrupts, biase, prejudices, and toxifies a 'domestic violence' case -- and its rightful collection of 'potentially relevant and important contextual data' -- right at the beginning of the case. And everything that happens afterwards in the case is both tainted by, and indeed, adds to the corruption, pollution, discrimination, bias and prejudice, as it continues to develop and move along. In by far the majority of alleged domestic assualt cases, the man doesn't have a 'snowball's chance in Hell' of getting a fair hearing and a fair trial. Everything is corrupted, politically and legally systemic and discriminatory before the process even starts...
The irony and hypocrisy of the situation is that the same 'contextual background factors' that narcissistic feminists want overtly or covertly eliminated from the investigation scene when it is the man being charged with the assault -- they will be the first ones to 'cry foul' if it is a woman being charged with the assualt and it the 'background contextual factors' that are being ignored or marginalized in her case. The hardest line groups of 'narcissistic feminists' do not want equal rights; they want to 'have their cake and eat it too'. And more than this, being outspoken and politically powerful in all of their individual and collective voices, philosophies, rhetorical arguments, intimidations, manipulations, and 'backroom negotiations -- dare I say collusion or will I get sued? -- with politicians, the most shocking part of all of this is that so many of their 'hardline-one-sided-agendas -- have become domestic law. In essence, a male-dominated domestic legal system has now been turned upside down and become a female dominated domestic legal system.
And that, my friends, is no closer to 'equal rights' than we were fifty years ago -- it is just turning the legalized discrimination of a patriarchal society against women into the legalized discrimination of a matriarchal society against men.
Neither are equal rights. Both involve preferential bias and discriminatory bias.
Both are equally corrupt, toxic, and poisonous to a democratic -- indeed, any -- society.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
This is a big mistake -- as is the issue of 'personal invasions of space and privacy', which I will talk about a little more in the next 'mini-essay' in this section.
Words make up an important part of the 'context' of a domestic violence case. What words were said? Who issued them? Why were they issued? Were there threats of intimidation or coercion involved? What were the nature of the provocations that led up to the alleged domestic assault? What was the contextual background of what was going on here? Was one person being rejected? Betrayed? Cheated on? Leaving? Was there jealousy involved? Possessiveness? Money? What triggered the escalation of the domestic scene to one of violence? What was the extent of the violence? Does one person have a history -- a track record -- of violence? Or a completely clean record? What is the mental stability or instability of each of the participants in the situation? Is there a track record of one of the persons along this line? The main question here is 'What were the triggers -- verbal and/or preceding behavioral -- that escalated the scene to one of violence -- or alleged violence -- and one person calling the police?
Let me give you an example from outside the realm of domestic violence. There was an infamous baseball scene here in Toronto back in the 1990s where one of Toronto star baseball players -- Roberto Alomar -- apat on an umpire's face. Alomar's reputation in Toronto -- and else where -- his character and integrity, took a huge negative hit. I'm sure he was suspended by the baseball commissioner at the time although I don't know for how many games.
Now here is the point. Alomar committed the act that he committed and it was in essence and 'assault' although I don't think he was charged for assault. Likewise, perhaps worse, if he'd wound up, taken a swing at the umpire, and broken his jaw or given him a black eye, a bruise or something. I am certainly not advocatinng or supporting any type of violence here -- even in a sports event between two grown men who may or may not both be willing participants.
However, not too long ago, earlier this year sometime, and over ten years after the fact of this negative incident (I can't remember what year it was when this incident happened but I am sure I can probably find it on the internet and get back to you) -- it came out in some news forum or some interview that what the umpire said to Alomar was truly 'nasty' and 'under the belt'.
Why are we only hearing about this -- allegedly true infomration -- about 15 years after the fact? It is important contextual information relative to what happened? What did the umpire say? How bad was it? Even though Alomar still needs to be held acountable and responsible for what he did, he also deserves a fair 'trial' -- if only in this case in the court of public opinion. If the umpire involved in the incident, said something to Alomar that was truly 'despicable' and a 'low blow' -- then he should be held accountable and responsible for his proportion of guilt in what happened.
And so it is in scenes of 'real or alleged domestic violence'. If one person says something to the other that is truly 'nasty' and 'despicable' or 'totally disrespectful' or a 'threat of intimidation' ...or anything along this line, then this information needs to be collected by the examining police officers -- and not 'marginalized', or 'neglected', and/or 'conveniently swept aside' in order to 'narcissistically and discriminatively' move the investigation along in a biased and prejudicial fashion that they were 'taught to move the investigation along in' before they even arrived at the scene.
If one police officer says to one of the participants in the scene of alleged domestic violence, 'It doesn't matter what words she said to you, or how 'postal' she went on you, or what 'threats' she made to you, or how much she 'invaded your personal space' (how many different rooms of the house she chased you into to give you a piece of her mind...) -- the only thing that is important here is 'who struck who -- or who pushed who -- first? And if that was you, my man, then I have explicit instructions to handcuff you, charge you, and take you to straight to jail.
That kind of a message from a police officer to a participant (it was said to me by a male police officer) corrupts, biase, prejudices, and toxifies a 'domestic violence' case -- and its rightful collection of 'potentially relevant and important contextual data' -- right at the beginning of the case. And everything that happens afterwards in the case is both tainted by, and indeed, adds to the corruption, pollution, discrimination, bias and prejudice, as it continues to develop and move along. In by far the majority of alleged domestic assualt cases, the man doesn't have a 'snowball's chance in Hell' of getting a fair hearing and a fair trial. Everything is corrupted, politically and legally systemic and discriminatory before the process even starts...
The irony and hypocrisy of the situation is that the same 'contextual background factors' that narcissistic feminists want overtly or covertly eliminated from the investigation scene when it is the man being charged with the assault -- they will be the first ones to 'cry foul' if it is a woman being charged with the assualt and it the 'background contextual factors' that are being ignored or marginalized in her case. The hardest line groups of 'narcissistic feminists' do not want equal rights; they want to 'have their cake and eat it too'. And more than this, being outspoken and politically powerful in all of their individual and collective voices, philosophies, rhetorical arguments, intimidations, manipulations, and 'backroom negotiations -- dare I say collusion or will I get sued? -- with politicians, the most shocking part of all of this is that so many of their 'hardline-one-sided-agendas -- have become domestic law. In essence, a male-dominated domestic legal system has now been turned upside down and become a female dominated domestic legal system.
And that, my friends, is no closer to 'equal rights' than we were fifty years ago -- it is just turning the legalized discrimination of a patriarchal society against women into the legalized discrimination of a matriarchal society against men.
Neither are equal rights. Both involve preferential bias and discriminatory bias.
Both are equally corrupt, toxic, and poisonous to a democratic -- indeed, any -- society.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
On The Toxic and Manipulative Use of Plea-Bargains
Beyond the issue of political, legal, and taxpayer expedience, plea-bargains are good for the guilty and bad for the innocent. For the guilty, allows the guilty person who committed a crime to get off with a lesser charge that often does not do justice to the actual severity of the crime; and for the innocent, the plea-bargain often intimidates an innocent person to plead guilty to a 'lesser charge' that he or she rightfully should or would not be found guilty on -- however, the potential prospect of losing the case and facing a much 'stiffer penalty' -- eg., either jail time or significantly more jail time than would be connected to the 'lesser charge and conviction' -- threatens, intimidates, and coerces the person on trial into pleading guilty to a charge -- even if it is the lesser one -- that he or she should not rightfully be convicted of. The case of the man in Toronto that is just receiving media attention here now who pleaded guilty to an assault that carried a two year sentence when it now looks like it may have been a 'Bernardo assault' is a perfect example of the type of 'wrongful conviction' I am talking about.
This is probably the case also in hundreds of 'domestic violence charges' (my pure speculation without the facts to back me because there aren't any facts to write about, just conjecture and a 'warped sense of domestic justice' -- again, my editorial and obviously male-biased opinion). Men plead guilty to a 'lesser sentence' that may or may not carry a 'criminal record' but still carries a 'black stain on the man's integrity and character' complete with recorded police fingerprints and a file on the man's conviction in order to avoid the threat, intimidation, and coercion of jail time -- even though, in actuality, for the one man who does one day have the courage to push the ple-bargain aside, the right man in the right case should be challenging the 'abuse of the man's Charter of Rights in the home, by police, by the bail judge, by the prosecution, and by the Government of Canada. Equal rights means equally fair treatment -- and equal punishment -- for both sexes; it doesn't mean that one sex gets 'profiled and scapegoated' for the problem of 'domestic violence' when the issue is by far and large -- a 'two-sex problem' with generally 'two victims and two victimizers of similar or different proportions'.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
This is probably the case also in hundreds of 'domestic violence charges' (my pure speculation without the facts to back me because there aren't any facts to write about, just conjecture and a 'warped sense of domestic justice' -- again, my editorial and obviously male-biased opinion). Men plead guilty to a 'lesser sentence' that may or may not carry a 'criminal record' but still carries a 'black stain on the man's integrity and character' complete with recorded police fingerprints and a file on the man's conviction in order to avoid the threat, intimidation, and coercion of jail time -- even though, in actuality, for the one man who does one day have the courage to push the ple-bargain aside, the right man in the right case should be challenging the 'abuse of the man's Charter of Rights in the home, by police, by the bail judge, by the prosecution, and by the Government of Canada. Equal rights means equally fair treatment -- and equal punishment -- for both sexes; it doesn't mean that one sex gets 'profiled and scapegoated' for the problem of 'domestic violence' when the issue is by far and large -- a 'two-sex problem' with generally 'two victims and two victimizers of similar or different proportions'.
-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
