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.
Tuesday, September 30, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
