To Be Inspired -- And Inspiring...

Have I written this already? To be inspired -- and inspiring -- I need a second person present -- and a passionate, dialectical encounter to engage in. If I feel like I am writing to thin air or outer space, then my writing tends to do the same. I need a second person to keep my writing more concrete, grounded -- and alive.

-- dgb, May 28th, 2008.

On God, Creation -- and Abraham's Test...(For Whitney...And All Those Who Wish To Escape The Authoritarianism of False Idols...)

And do I know that God created this world?....No...But somebody did....The functionality, the purpose, the integration, the wholism, the unity, the competition, the co-operation -- it is all too brilliant for someone or someones not to have created it... Call this 'God' -- call this anything you wish -- 'intelligent design' with an 'intelligent designer' perhaps -- but don't 'submit to false idols and false authorities' -- think and feel and do for yourself.

I believe in a 'Dialectic Humanistic-Existential God' -- one that built this world integrating and harmonizing opposites, not a 'Dictatorial, Authoritarian, and/or Sadistic God' that treats all people like slaves, servants and/or non-entities. Stand up, Man! Stand up on your own two feet! Treat other people with respect and compassion, as you would wish to be treated by them. Don't be like Abraham -- willing to slash a knife into your own son, your own flesh and blood -- at God's supposed word and command. If this was God's ultimate test to Abraham, then how do we know that it was not an 'existetial -- stand on your own two feet and think for yourself Abraham test' -- a test to stand strong against all false idols and authorities, not to melt like icecream in the hot sun, not to become irrelevant like yesterday's newspaper, not to mold like last week's bread...

'Stand up strong, man! Stand up strong against me, your idolized God!' That was God's message and test to Abraham -- or correction -- my interpretation of God's message and test to Abraham.

And so the test continues. Men and women play God. And men and women play Abraham...And men and women play Isaac. Each and every day, the re-enactment of God's test to Abraham continues...

Men and women, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, employers and employees, husbands and wives, leaders and civilians...each and every day, are forever re-living this test of God. Some fail, and melt like icecream in the hot sun. Worse, some become 'third party victims' like Issac. The strong survive, compensate, modify, and flourish -- 'That which doesn't kill me makes me stronger.' (Nietzsche).

And this, in DGB Philosophy, is what is meant by 'God creating man in his own image' -- or conversely -- man living life in God's image -- dialectically as both a Creator and a Creation each and every day, each and every moment. Creativity is transforming. Creativity transforms man into the image of God. 'Dialectical -- or multi-dialectic -- creativity' brings two or more people into presence and image of God -- at the same time.

Man is both the artist and the product of his art (Erich Fromm, Man for Himself). It is through man's transformation via the act of creativity -- unilaterally, dialectically, and/or mulit-dialectically -- that man approaches, contacts, touches -- God.

dgb, May 28th, 2008.

On DGB Integrative Dialectic-Deist-Pantheism

Integrative Deism-Pantheism by my definition integrates the 'spiritual-romantic-natural' part of religion without all the 'orthodox trappings' that lead to over-righteousness, 'either/or' divisions of people, and narcissistic 'either you believe or you don't believe' boundaries. In this deist-pantheist view, God, Nature, Man, Creation, and Evolution are all wholistically connected -- or at least have the potential to be -- without 'God saying this', and 'God saying that' (as interpreted by the person who says that God is doing the talking through him or her. No such person exists in my opinion who has a direct line to God -- even though a million and one different people might say they do). In this integrative deist-pantheist view, God is the bridge -- or at least the potential bridge -- between all people through the dialectic -- I and Thou, here and now -- and through the meaningful value of their natural world around them as God created it, not as man is polluting and destroying it...

-- dgb, May 27th, 2008

In The World of Performance....

In the world of performance, you are only as good as your last success -- so keep learning, adapting, modifying, compensating, creating, associating, distinguishing, focusing, perservering -- and succeeding.

Make sure you dot your 'i's and cross your 't's because if you don't, they will often come back to haunt you. In the 'dispatch world' I live in, we call these 'bombs' -- because if you miss them they will bomb you. Personally, I like it when I have a good 'detail' person working beside me because as I have said before 'two minds are generally better than one' -- particularly when the two people (minds and personalities) complement each other in their 'cohesive, integrative work output'. Of course you can always have the opposite in which case 'one mind may be better than two' (or in the words of another popular adage-aphorism -- 'Too many chefs spoil the broth.')

-- dgb, May 26th, 2008.

An Existentialist's Perspective On Depression

Depression is emotional constipation -- you grunt and you groan and you moan and nothing happens. Nothing changes. Your mind and your body both need to 'feel' and to 'do' and yet you are locked in an impasse -- a 'compromise-formation' between feeling and not feeling. It's like driving a car and having the gas on and the brake on at the same time. You go nowhere.

Similarily with depression, you just use up a lot of wasted energy moping around and/or walking around with a sour face -- with everything seemingly perpetually 'stuck in idle'. If grief is what you are feeling, then cry -- fully experience your grief in the here and now, with a friend or a counsellor if you need -- and then start to move 'forward' with your again. The more you feel and the more you do, the less you will feel emotionally constipated. The less you will feel 'depressed'.

There is a time when we all may need a little bit of a 'push' to get ourselves out of 'lethary', a 'dead end street', an 'emotionless and/or negative quagmire', an 'existential rut' or worse -- 'existential life-rot'...Call this a 'push'...towards more existential awareness, contact, meaning, and value...

-- dgb, May 25-26th, 2008.

On The Difference Between Deconstruction and Destruction...

The difference between 'deconstruction' and 'destruction' in DGB Philosophy is that the former is a necessary element of democracy and is a socially important function relative to eliminating social and political 'toxins'; whereas 'destruction' is a negative element of society based on such factors as: traumacy, rejection, resentment, anger, hate, rage, and the wish to 'hurt' -- with no socially useful function and no self-function other than to play out these 'perculating and escalating destructive features in one's personality'. These features should be played out in the therapist's office, not in real life. Rejection, abandonment, betrayal, aggression and violence all help to perpetuate more of the same. Everyone ends up a loser.

-- dgb, May 25th, 2008.

On Transference, Creativity, Destruction, Deconstruction, Love, and Hate...

I seek not the money although the money would obviously be nice. I do seek the social recognition -- although that's just an 'ego' thing; I am not really a very social person. When you spend a lifetime trying to be good at something, obviously it is nice to hear people complement you for your hard work. But nothing is written in stone. People will decide what they decide...

In order to be good at something, you need to believe that you are good. There is an element of 'narcisissistic egotism' in anyone who is pretty good at whatever his or her 'life specialty' is. Mind you, oftentimes, there is narcissistic egotism even amongst those who are not very good at whatever their life specialty is.

Thus, a certain element of narcissitic egotism is a pre-condition -- or a necessary factor -- for being good at whatever it is we do well, but certainly not an exclusive, determining factor. Or in other words, obviously we have to have talent -- and oftentimes one might say a 'genetic pre-disposition' -- for what we do well, as well. Social factors and genetic factors blending together into one 'creative whole'. And of the social factors, probably 'the transference factor' is the number one factor of importance. For it is the transference factor that usually creates the 'obsessional-compulsive' element in whatever it is that we persist at endlessly for hundreds and thousands of hours over the course of our lifetime in the most superhuman of efforts to reach and achieve our transference-lifestyle goal'. Sometimes we succeed. Sometimes we fail. But we usually die trying... And this is putting aside the often 'aggressive-destructive' and/or 'deconstructionist' elements of transference. There is a paradox between transference and the strongest of creative, destructive, and/or deconstructive drives in the personality. Usually all six of these elements -- transference, creativity, destruction, deconstruction, love, and hate -- are all neatly tied up with a bow in the same 'Christmas present'. We move on in our work to learn more about 'transference'.

-- dgb, May 25th, 2008

Either/Or vs. Integrationism...

There is a time for 'either/or' decisions. And there is a time for integrative decisions. The wisdom is knowing the difference. -- dgb, May 25th, 2008.

The 'Creative, United We'....

Sometimes the best creations come when you push a little harder -- past the point of the 'creative impasse' -- and you push not individually but dialectically. These creations come in the moment when you are most ready to give up, do not believe that anything can be accomplished and/or resolved -- you are ready to retire from the scene of the action, and/or indeed have retired from the scene of the action -- and then something changes: you come back to the table and then that magic moment -- that moment of the 'Dialectic Creation' -- is there for both of you to grab onto and hold onto. Out of the individual differences of the 'I' and the 'You' becomes a 'Creative, United We'...

-- dgb, May 21st, 2008.

On My Dialectic Creations

Most of my best creations are dialectic creations. They occur with or in the presence of a second person. Without the second person, they wouldn't have been created.

-- dgb, May 21st, 2008.

On That Magic Union...and...Touching God...

If you have arrived at a very special moment and place with a significant other -- your husband or wife, your boyfriend or girlfriend, your child or parent, your co-worker, your employee or employer, your friend from a different country or religion or race or culture, your environment and/or nature -- and this is a momentary time and place that doesn't happen too often and/or usually for too long -- I call it a 'Spiritual-Dialectic-Wholistic-Unified Moment' as well as a time and place of 'Spiritual Healing'...in my metaphysical and spiritual opinon -- you have 'touched the face of God'.

Once again, in my humble, metaphysical, spiritual opinion, God's greatest ongoing, evolving Creation in the world...is that momentary and/or ongoing place of...'Spiritual-Dialectic-Wholistic-Unity'. It's not contrived. It's not forced. It's not extorted. It's not bribed. It's not intimidated. Out of the 'magic of two people or two cultures or two races or two religions with the right chemistry creatively coming together...joining in a magic union...it is just...there...too often fleetingly...and then gone again as fast as it arrived...into and out of the face of God...

-- dgb, May 21st, 2008.

On Authoritarianism and/or Controllingness vs. Democracy

I think we all wrestle with authoritarianism and/or controllingness vs. democratic attitudes and perspectives. When it comes to our opinions, beliefs, and values -- especially the ones we believe in the most, and feel the most passionately about -- oftentimes, it is just plain, hard to let go. Still, in areas that are undefined by the law and do not violate human rights -- for example, matters of metaphysics, religion, ethics, and the like that do not have any mathematically 'right' or 'wrong' answers -- that is exactly what we need to do...let go before or after our editorial case has been made...and not keep 'hanging on' with a 'pitbull bite'... Either people find a way to integrate their opinions, beliefs, and/or values -- or they don't. There comes a point at which we all need to simply respect, accept, and/or tolerate our individual differences...

dgb, May 21st, 2008.

Various Aphorisms

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 Aphorisms

An 'aphorism' is the smallest of small 'essays', usually only a sentence or a paragraph long. But 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' - by making his point quickly, concisely, and with a flourish. I would recommend that Helium have a spot where their aspiring philosophical writers can practise the art of philosophizing with the quick hit and the flourish of a powerful aphorism. - dgb, jan. 26th, 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.

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

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 Rating Systems and Classification 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.

The same goes for 'classification systems'. No system of classification is perfect. All systems of classification entail some degree of subjectivity and imperfection. However, you want the person who is doing the classifying to be knowledgeable about what they are doing.

For example, just because three essays contain the word 'phenomenology' does not mean that all three are writing about the same subject matter. It takes some knowledge of philosophy to know that the 'phenomenology of spirit' that Hegel was writing about has nothing much to do with the type of 'phenomenology' that Husserl was writing about. If two people are writing about 'apples' under a category that is entitled 'apples', and a third person joins the mix to write about 'oranges', then someone knowledgeable in the area should know enough on the two respective fruits to know that an 'orange' isn't an 'apple'. The 'orange' essay shouuld be re-directed to the 'orange' category unless someone broadens the category and calls it 'fruits'. (Then we might get some interesting essays comparing and contrasting the two different types of 'fruits'. But please don't confuse an apple for an orange because then all knowledge - or at least the classification of knowledge - starts to deteriorate into unclarity, confusion, chaos...Opening up the dialectic (debate) - to promote the cyclical development of thesis, anti-thesis, and 'synthesis' - is probably the best way to police against the proliferation of un-truths, unbalanced discourse, the bad classification of knowledge', and so on.)
- dgb, March 10th-14th, 2008.

See Wikipedia for three different meanings of 'phenomeonology'. Two of them are listed below:

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

Phenomenology has at least three main meanings in philosophical history: one in the writings of G.W.F. Hegel, another in the writings of Edmund Husserl in 1920, and a third, deriving from Husserl's work, in the writings of his former research assistant Martin Heidegger in 1927:

For G.W.F. Hegel, phenomenology is an approach to philosophy that begins with an exploration of phenomena (what presents itself to us in conscious experience) as a means to finally grasp the absolute, logical, ontological and metaphysical Spirit that is behind phenomena. This has been called a "dialectical phenomenology".


For Edmund Husserl, phenomenology is "the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view."[1] Phenomenology takes the intuitive experience of phenomena (what presents itself to us in phenomenological reflexion) as its starting point and tries to extract from it the essential features of experiences and the essence of what we experience. When generalized to the essential features of any possible experience, this has been called "transcendental phenomenology". Husserl's view was based on aspects of the work of Franz Brentano and was developed further by philosophers such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Max Scheler, Edith Stein, Dietrich von Hildebrand and Emmanuel Levinas.

- copied and pasted from Wikipedia, March 10th, 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

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

On Creativity, Parameters, Democracy, and The Driving Force of The Dialectic

Creativity and stringent parameters do not make good bed partners. In fact, for the most part, they can't even exist in the same room together. They will fight like dogs and cats. Creativity defies stringent parameters and stringent parameters defy creativity. There is room enough for only one in the same room. When stringent parameters dominate a room, then creativity - and with it dialectic negotiation, integration, and evolution - leave.

Loosen the parameters up to give more freedom of expression, more room for variations on a theme, more room for the development and full evolution of 'anti-theses' and with all of this - the creation of new debates, new negotiations, new syntheses, new integrations, new creativity, new forms of the dialectic cycle in action - spring up, seemingly from nowhere.

It is not that creativity and dialectic evolution both disappear in the face of stringent parameters. They simply go underground. Creativity and dialectic evolution never die as long as man is alive - they are the driving force of life itself.

However, it is the paradox of man's nature and man's life that the 'will to make contact, to create, to unite, and to integrate' will always clash with the 'will to control'. Democracy is the homeostatic balance between domination and submission, between self-assertion and social sensitivity. Democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech, free dialectic interaction, exchange, and debate - and its resulting offspring: creative integration, synthesis, dialectic evolution.

We spend so much time pounding our chests and bragging about how great our country is - or perhaps how great it was - whether we are talking about either Canada and/or America - and we contrast this 'democratic idealism' with 'such and such an evil sadistic and dictatorial state' in the East, Middle East, Africa, or whereever... And usually there is at least a strong backbone of truth to our editorial assertions and tirades. There is no excuse for genocide, imprisoning and torturing people, blowing up buildings and people, denying people human rights, and so on. But oftentimes - in fact, most of the time - we cannot see the full extent of the lack of democracy and freedom of human expression in our own country, our own culture.

Democracy is not something that is achieved with a vote - although that is sometimes a huge first step. Democracy is not even something that is achieved during a campaign because we all know how well many politicians can speak and give us hope - only to crash us on the rocks once they have become elected. They only treat us well - and treat us as if we actually mean something to them - while their power is unstable and in our hands. The level of respect that they give us during an election campaign so easily disappears into the woodwork once they are elected. Then Washington - and Ottawa - rule.

Democracy - in its full essence - goes much, much deeper than this. Democracy starts in the family. If children don't learn democracy in the family - about the give and take of narcissism and altruism, self-assertiveness and social sensitivity, fairness, integrity, and equality - they probably won't learn it anywhere. But this is still not enough. We need more democracy in our schools - a 'trialectic exchange and interchange' between teachers, students, and educational administrators. We need more democracy and dialectic exchange in our industries and corporations - between employers, supervisors, and employees, not to mention customers...

And we need more democracy and dialectic exchange at Helium - between administrators and users. How do you make Helium more and more user-friendly - without sabotaging the main mission goals of Helium? How do you achieve the best possible 'working balance' between users and administrators.

I like Helium. I want to make good writing contributions to Helium while at the same time gain more public exposure for myself and this same writing. Give and take. Altruism and narcissism working in harmony with each other. But all is not perfectly 'homeostatically' (dialectically) balanced - at least in my own mind. I want Helium to be better just as I want my own writing to be better. Issues in any organizational structure and process are bound to spring up - issues such as self-assertiveness vs. social sensitivity, the good of the individual vs. the good of the whole, fairness vs. unfairness, integrity vs. manipulation and deceit, equality vs. discrimination and preferentialism, the cost-benefit of rules and parameters, money...and everything else that people argue about.

My main issue - which lies at the core of the post-Hegelian, (DGB) dialectic philosophy that I am trumpeting - is that I want to see the dialectic in Helium managed to its maximum benefit for both administrators and users, not marginalized and suppressed for fear of the ramifications of a 'largely free and unimpeded dialectic at work'. A largely free and unimpeded dialectic at work can function efficiently as the 'truth, value, and integrity police'.

Let our writers freely debate amongst each other, and give feedback to each other - in all areas of Helium, not just restricted spaces - respectfully of course, oo otherwise 'cremate any trash-talking, demeaning, and/or hateful discourse in cyberspace'.

Have I overstepped my welcome. I hope not. Once again, I like writing in and for Helium. I would like to become a bigger presence here. I want Helium to become better as much as I want to continue to become better as a writer...I can take constructive criticism from better writers than me...or from readers with constructive feedback...Helium needs to be open to such feedback as well...and open to keep changing, keep evolving in a productive, constructive direction...

I want to feel more comfortable writing here than I do when I bump up against the rather stringent parameter of 'one essay per writer per subject matter'...This short and simple - is a 'free dialectic exchange and evolution killer'.

I do have some 'deconstructionist' qualities in me. (See Nietzsche, Derrida...) That is not a bad thing. An organization uncriticized - and not reacting to the criticisms against it - is an organization not growing. I want Helium to grow - productively, efficiently, with a strong foundation, as it reaches for the stars, aiming to be the 'highest skycraper of knowledge on the internet'.

I don't want its growth to be stunted by a parameter that won't take 'us over ten floors high'.

I don't want its growth to be stunted like a garden full of beautiful flowers that are being suffocated by a big, bad weed that is hogging all the nourishment and sunlight in the garden.

Maybe I'm overstating my case. Maybe I'm not. For now at least, I rest my case.

dgb, March 9th-14th/08

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

Existentially Yours -- 'I' vs. 'IP'; Freedom vs. Determinism, Either/Or

(An email I just sent to an email friend of mine -- one of my first readers -- as stubborn in his own respective belief system as I am in mine. We must have sent fifty emails to each other over a period of over a year but in the end there was no 'philosophical Hegelian meeting place' for my more 'freedom-existential' position vs. his more 'scientific-determinism' position. Call it a 'Mexican standoff' in our respective belief systems...This was/is the jist of our philosophical disagreement...)

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

Hi Paul,

If I can take one thing that we seemed to agree upon in all the time we were emailing back and forth to each other for over a year, it seemed to be this: that a person's 'IP' (Individual Philosophy) -- your terminology that fit well with what I was saying and doing from a more 'freedom' vs. your more 'scientific, deterministic' perspective -- is the crucial, central ingredient in a person's motivation, personality -- and life. Everything -- and every behavior -- revolves around a person's IP. And so it is with you and I.

My IP has taken me into the study of personality theory -- with major influences by Freud, Jung, Adler, Berne, Perls, Hegel, Nietzsche, Spinoza...and others.

And your IP has taken you into territory that I am unfamiliar with.

Your work is still evolving as your IP continues (I would say, more 'existentially that you continue to use your IP...) to 'plug holes' in those areas where you think you can continue to make your work stronger.

And similarly, my work is still evolving in the same manner with the difference between your IP and my IP being significant in the different paths that our work leads us down...

This seems to be the main -- if not only -- common grouwnd in our work. Besides this, maybe it would be fair to say -- with no prejudice or bias intended (although obviously I like my belief system better than yours; otherwise, I'd move to yours) --that your work has taken you to -- in all honesty -- a different planet than the one I am on.

I remain on a more 'freedom-oriented' planet and you remain on a 'strictly deterministic' planet. That is the main 'thesis'/'anti-thesis' of our dialectic.

Maybe -- indeed, probably -- there is a 'freedom-deterministic' synthesis planet out there somewhere -- but neither of us has really found it, nor is willing to spend time there together.

I'm certainly willing to subscribe partly to a 'conflict-mediating Hegelian planet' -- indeed, that is what my work is all about (DGB -- standing for: Dialectical-Gap-Bridging). I can easily say that a person's 'IP determines his or her destiny'. Indeed, that introduces a strong element of 'shared determinism' into what we are talking about here.

But then we are still left with our one remaining bone of contention that we will probably never be able to resolve. I believe that a person can existentially change -- and/or at least functionally modify -- his or her IP in a way that re-introduces the element of 'freedom' into his or her destiny. In short, I believe in the 'existential I' in 'IP'. Where we left off -- you don't. Yours is a model that starts and ends with strict deterrminism.

And that remains our 'Mexican standoff'. We are both stubborn guys who believe in what we believe. In the end, I am not going to change you, and you are not going to change me. We are both going to go the respective ways of our IPs -- mine being a more 'freedom-existential' one; and yours being a more 'deterministic' one.

I will continue to believe that I have an 'existential choice' in my life: for example, either I can email you back -- or not. Kierkegaard's 'either/or' scenario confronts me -- in my belief system, all of us -- every waking moment of my/our life.

I will continue to believe that my 'IP does not tell me to write you or not' -- rather this is an existential decision, an existential choice, that goes deeper than my IP. 'I choose my IP -- and my IP does not choose for me'. In the end -- I choose to live with my IP as it is -- and/or accept it or not accept it as it is.

Or I choose to modify it in a direction of my pleasing. (IPs are 'narcissistically movtivated -- and created -- even if they end up taking an 'altruistic' direction.)

If I choose not to accept it, and at the same time, not to change or modify it -- then, I have nobody to blame but myself -- not God, not Nature, not my parents, not my upbringing, not my environment. Just me, myself, and I. This is my 'existential bottom line'.

Existentially yours,

dave

They Will Come To You (To My Niece)

If you are good enough at what you do, then eventually people will come to you. No hoops. And more hoops. And more hoops. No IQ tests. No need for 95 per cent averages. No need to compete with 500 or 1000 people for the same Master's and/or PHD position -- or high paying job. Because there is something that you simply do better than anyone else out there.

There is a time for initiative and assertiveness and networking. These qualities get positions and jobs that the lack of these qualities often don't. However, there is a time too when we need to draw the boundaries on our own self-integrity. Enough of jumping through hoops. Enough of networking and/or bending over backwards -- or forwards -- to get a much sought after academic position or job.

In the end, you either have it or you don't. You either do something better than most or all people at what you do -- or you don't. The 'proof is in the pudding'. And when people eventually see and taste your pudding -- and they realize it is good, indeed, better than anything and/or anyone else out there -- they will come to you.

dgb, May 14th, 2008.

Live Life as a 'Superman' -- But With ('Multi-Dialectic-Humanistic-Existential') Balance As Well!

Follow Nietzsche's advice: Live your life with 'existential gusto'! Live your life as a 'Superman' -- or 'Superwoman' (feminism was not in the masculine mindset back then).

Be 'God's Bridge' between the person you are -- and the best possible person you can be, preferrably in all dimensions of life, not just one.

Life is a paradox -- a 'dialectical dance' -- between existential extremism (Nietzsche's advice on the 'drive to be a Superman') and existential balance --keeping all of our different but integrated ego-functions in good proper, working order. (This is my modification of Nietzsche's 'existential righteousness and extremism'). -- dgb, May 11th, modified May 12th, 2008.

On Creativity

The secret to being creative is the ability to 'transform' where others simply 'transmit'. -- dgb, May 11th, 2008.

On Creating Essays

When I start an essay, I never know where it is going to take me. I may have an idea where I think it is going to take me but often I am surprised -- even shocked -- as to where it does take me. Often, I am left with the question: 'Where did that come from?' Or the statement: 'Wow, I wasn't expecting that! Creating an essay is usually at least partly -- if not mainly -- an act of 'unconscious projection, compensation, and/or transference'. These concepts will be described at a future time. Unconsciously, consciously, and/or ideally, it is an act of -- self-extrapolation, self-growth, and behavior aimed at either restoring or enhancing homeostatic (dialectic)balance. Often, this is achieved through 'good self-contact' just as in a good psychotherapy session. Thus, writing can be viewed as a form of 'self-psychotherapy'.

-- dgb, May 6th, 2008.

On Hoops, Hoops, and More Hoops...(Soliciting Commendations)

Social -- and ultimately economic -- credibility is based often on who gives you the right commendation at the right time. I dont' mind -- in fact, I very much like the real, unsolicited commendations; it's the artificial and/or solicited ones that I don't like.

Soliciting commendations is like selling encyclopedias door-to-door. (I did that once when I was young. I didn't last very long.). It is likely to generate a lot of mutual discomfort and shallow word play between salesperson and resistant customer. Better to set up an encyclopedia shop somewhere -- preferrably by a school maybe -- and attend honestly to the prospective customers who actually walk into your store and have a serious interest in buying a set of encyclopedias.

Google into DGB Philosophy and/or Hegel's Hotel and I will attend to you honestly, intellectually, passionately. and hopefully inspirationally. Because I will know that if you google into Hegel's Hotel, you are probably serious about buying what I have to sell (even if it is free!) -- i.e., reading what I have to write -- which is primarily a combination of philosophy, psychology, with all of its extensions into life, existence, being and becoming -- and culture... dgb, May 4th, 2008.

On The Paradox of Life and Death

On the paradox of death -- or prospective death -- often comes the prosperity and the embracement of new life...new life in a new body -- or new life in an old body --revitalized by a better appreciation of the fleeting hourglass of time.

-- dgb, March 4th, 2008.