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

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