Aphorisms

On Aphorisms

An 'aphorism' is the smallest of small 'philosophical essays', ideally usually only a sentence or two long. Nietzsche - one of the most powerful of all philosophical writers - used aphorisms to his greatest of advantage. In his words, he used them to 'philosophize with a hammer' - he wanted to make his point quickly, concisely, and with a flourish. There was no one better at this than Nietzsxhe. He packed a powerful philosophical punch in a small amount of words. I would recommend that Helium have a spot where their aspiring philosophical writers can practise the art of the aphorism - philosophizing with a hammer a surgeon's scalpal or something with less of a violent image attached to it but just as fast, sharp, concise, and effective. - dgb, jan. 26th, updated mar. 16th, 2008.

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

On Essays As The Bridge From 'Being' to 'Becoming'

An essay a day keeps the alienation bug away - by keeping the 'creativity juices' flowing. Our creativity juices are our defense against wasting away from 'being' and 'becoming' to 'non-being' and 'non-becoming'. - dgb, dec. 16th, 2007; updated jan. 26th, 2007.

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

On Possibilities

Life is too short for hanging on to regrets and lost possibilities; move forward to new possibilities - and how shall I say it? - don't blow it this time; create yourself anew. - dgb, mar. 16th, 2008.

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

On Structure vs. Process; Familiarity vs. Unfamiliarity

In general, most people seem to prefer structure and familiarity to process and unfamiliarity (Structuralism vs. Process Theory). Structure and familiarity is easier to 'perceptually recognize, cognitively process, and give 'associative meaning to'. We all tend to evaluate things and experiences today based on our experiences from the past. Call this the 'bias of past experiences' which may or may not apply in the case we are now judging. Life however, is full of surprises and unpredictabilities - and the 'curveballs of non-expectation'. That is why DGB Philosophy aims to teach the Heraclitean, General Semantic, and Gestalt Principle of Process Theory and Change (Heraclitus, Aristotle, Korzybski, Hayakawa...) more than the Principle of Structuralism. We need both - a good 'dialectical- homeostatic balance' between structuralism and process theory - but in general, at least relative to my experience, people are more prone to making too many bad generalizations rather than not enough good ones. (Or often, they both tend to occur in the same package - too many bad generalizations, and not enough good ones.)
- dgb, Jan. 26th, updated Feb. 16th, 2008.

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

On The Fear of 'Going Across'

Man sometimes finds himself on the plank between the dread of a meaningless existence and the fear of failing or looking foolish. These are the twin abysses of man's existence looming precariously below him on both sides of his bold or petrified, progressive or regressive, 'going-across' of the proverbial Nietzschean tightrope - the tightrope from being to becoming. Have courage my friend, have courage. Don't look back and don't look down.

- dgb, September 13th, 2007.

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

On Passion

When you find your passion diminishing, it is time to free yourself up, to be courageous and creative, to do what little and/or big things you need to do, to re-invent yourself...and in so doing, to re-inspire yourself. As I heard a musician say not too long ago, you have to be inspired yourself in order to inspire others. db, jan. 11th, 2008.

........................................................< /p>

On Sexuality

Sexuality is the deepest, most intense, passionate form of playing out the multi-dialectic paradox in man's nature - in effect, playing out the discord between the opposite poles of his and her innermost values, impulses, and restraints in a way that satisfies (or doesn't satisfy) each person's individual striving for homeostatic (dialectic) balance. - dgb, Mar. 15/08

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

On War

War turns more and more live people into dead people, good people into bad people, happy people into miserable people, financially solid people into financially unstable people, friends and allies into enemies, trusting people into distrusting people - have I missed anything? The only thing that is going to stop a war that has not been totally dominated by one side over the other is people on both sides of the war getting sick and tired of all the negatives of war - particularly people dying. Don't we - or won't we - ever learn that there are no winners in war, only losers? And expanding a war - turning a regional war into a global one - that is pure, unadulterated, psycho-sociopathic thinking. Dr. Strangelove meets 21st Century Schizoid Man. - dgb, mar. 22nd, 2008.

........................................................
On Academic Institutions

Don't let yourself be victimized by how academic institutions judge you based on their oftentimes questionable ethical standards; rather, judge academic institutions by how relevant they are, and by how much they contribute to the growth of society and the individual as a whole, and/or conversely, allow themselves to be victimized by the same narcissism, the same special interests groups, and the same bias towards money that negatively affects all of our society and each individual in our society - again as a whole. - dgb, Mar. 23rd, 2008.

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

On Academic Technicalities

Don't let academic technicalities supersede the importance of, and the need for, pragmatic function, relevance, and vision. - dgb, Mar. 23rd, 2008.

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

On Business, Humanism, and Family

Don't allow the chase for the 'holy grail' - money - squash the huge importance of treating people like people in business - of treating people with respect, integrity, dignity, and compassion. Everyone in the workplace has the right to live a balanced life and lifestyle outside of work; work can never replace family, and to the extent that an emplooyer and/or employee tries to replace family with work, they are undermining and sabotaging the very fabric of our society - family. Too much work can - and often does - lead to no family. And that leaves both the individual and our society as a whole prone to a very shallow, uprooted and unrooted existence. Work and family need to be 'dialectically in balance with each other' - they both need to support and enhance each other, not undermine each other. - dgb, Mar. 23rd, 2008

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

On Humanism and Government Protection In The Workforce.

The sad reality is that there is very little humanism and goverment protection for the individual in most business workplaces. Money, narcissism, disrespect, dehumanization, and alienation replace respect, dignity, integrity, and compassion - this still in our so-called 'enlightened, democratic' society. Money and narcissism supersede humanism and humanistic-existentialism. - dgb, Mar. 23rd, 2008.

On Rating Systems

The essential questions are: Who does the rating? How qualified are they to rate what is being rated? How much time is being spent on the rating? Is the rating being done with care, respect, and professionalism? Or is it a 'fast food' type of rating system where what you put into it is what you get out? No rating system will ever be perfect because it will always involve some greater or lesser degrees of subjectivism and imperfection. But I say this again - if you want people to respect the rating system, then it has to be done with care, respect, and professionalism by someone who knows what they are rating. - dgb, udated mar. 16th, 2008.

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

On The Dialectic Process, Debate, Democracy, and Evolution

Free debate - utilizing the dialectic process in an efficient, productive manner - is the essence of democracy and healthy evolution. - db

Free debate - utilizing the dialectic process in an efficient productive manner - is the best means a society and an individual has to stay in touch with 'truth and value'. - db

Free dialectic debate functions as the 'truth and value police'. - db

Two brains - hearts, spirits, souls - working well together are better than one. It's often called 'chemistry'. - db

A study group on the internet - particularly if everyone comes to the group prepared - can be a fast and effient form of high-end learning. Is this 'cheating'? Or is it a 'better form of evolution'? Can our politicians learn something from this process? Is time spent in parliament, Congress, the Senate, any business or political meeting better utilized trash-taling and bringing each other down - or behaving like an urgent study group working together with the clock ticking towards the same goal? Is it fair to say that maybe our students on campus have 'reached a higher form of evolution' - than our politicians? Should our Facebook student be condemned and expelled? - or honoured and copied for his creative ingenuity and power of organizing people towards a common goal? - db

- dgb, Mar. 13th, 2008.

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

On The Canadian (American) Domestic Justice System and The War of the Sexes

It is funny. When men and women are getting along well together, they can generally share income and expenses fairly easily. However, when the top or bottom of the relationship blows apart, explodes or implodes, and when all mutual trust, respect, and compassion is gone, then the situation becomes like Lord of The Flies. Both parties are running and screaming and lying to protect their money and assets, as well as often, to get what they can from the other person. The goal now is not to share and care but to grab and conquer. Do we call that 'human nature'? Or do we call that 'human nature in the context of a narcissistic Capitalist socieity?' All I know is that the domestic court system (Canada and probably the U.S. too) wreaks of bias, subjectivism, and narcissism, and needs to be completely re-thought. It is devastating the Canadian family situation and the level of trust between men and women who have had to go through it. Both sexes lose as no one wants to risk going through this process again. The Canadian Domestic Courts are driving - or at least exasperating - a huge wedge between the sexes. Money is usually the main issue. Both sexes should be able to walk away from a court system without going broke on lawyers and/or without being povertized by the court judgment. Compassion for both sexes - both by the government and by the court system -is absolutely not happening. This is absolutely tragic in its short and long term consequences.
- dgb, March 14/08