Floor 48: Contact, Awarenesses, Aphorisms and Mini-Essays: Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy

On Being a Philosopher-Writer...

2011-06-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

You can ignore me, alienate me, ex-communicate me, dissociate yourself from me, disenfranchise me, temporarily suppress me -- but I won't go away...

When you leave Hegel's Hotel, ideally, you won't look at your world exactly the same way you did before you entered Hegel's Hotel...

Because I will rattle you, shake you, test your innermost philosophical and psychological foundations...

And hopefully, when you leave Hegel's Hotel, those of you who were 'righteously, narcissistically, and/or one-sidedly mummified' before you entered my philosophical premises, will start to become more 'dialectically and wholistically integrated' as you capture more and more of Hegel's 'Phenomenology of The Dialectic Mind and Spirit.

No promises...

But that is my goal...

Sometimes I will aim to do this softly with 'diplomatic balance'.

At other times I will aim to hit the target of my anger with my rhetorical 'Nietzschean Hammer'...

Or hang onto my most righteous point...

With a Pit Bull bite....

Other times I may just rage around...

Like a Bull caught in a China Shop...

Until I have your undivided attention...

If I have not philosophically affected you...

In one way or another...

Then as a philosopher and a writer...

I have probably not done my job..

As well as I wanted to...

But we will try again in the next essay...

Or re-write the ineffective one...

Then move on to new philosophical territory...

The world -- and the narcissistic hypocrisy of man -- is my philosophical oyster...

(Schopenhauer just rolled over in his grave.)

-- dgb, June 1st, 2011,

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...

-- Are Still in Process...

On The Courage To 'Be'...and To 'Become'....

2011-04-30T12:28:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I wrote this following piece...maybe a good ten years ago, give or take a couple of years...

Every once in a while it is worth re-writing for its motivational inspiration and thrust... So here it is again...

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

Under construction...April 30th, 2011...

The Courage To Be...and To Become...

Life is a race against death...
Don't let it slip away from you...
Without embracing it with your fullest passion...
Live and celebrate each day as if it is your last...
After all, none of us are likely to know which day...
Will be our last...

There is beauty in even the smallest things...
Each day is both a blessing and a challenge...
If you view it as a 'curse',
Then you are doing something wrong...
And you need to do something different...
Probably starting with an attitude adjustment...
From negative and destructive,
To positive and constructive...

Make the most of your 'daily blessing'...
And meet each daily challenge head on...
No side-stepping, avoiding, dancing around...
A problem that needs to be solved...
And/or a conflict that needs to be resolved...

Choose a project that is important to you...
Has meaning for you...
And embrace it with your fullest passion...
Invest yourself in the project -- totally.
Meet your project with preparation, courage, energy, effort --
And action...
Be proactive, not reactive...

Reactive people go the way the daily wind blows...
And are easily pushed off course...
Proactive people walk strongly with purpose...
And direction...
Through even strongly challenging windstorms...
Or at least take shelter...during the windstorm...
Only to regain their purpose and direction...
As soon as the wind has blown by...

They say that 'life is what happens to you...
While you are busy making other plans'...
But the strongest people don't discard their plans...
As long as their passion for their mission and their plan... Remain strong...

To Be or Not to Be?....What to Say and What Not to Say?...What To Write and What Not To Write?....These are The Questions...(Extrapolations on Hamlet's/Shakespeare's Famous Question...)

2011-04-30T09:53:00.000-07:00

Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.

Cyril Connolly

(1903 - 1974)

If There is One Thing Good To Be Said About Global Capitalism...

2011-04-25T09:16:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing good to say about Global Capitalism...it is perhaps this:

I am suffering such that millions of people in some of the poorest countries in the world --- who are much more impovertized and desparate than me -- can work -- and at least take something home to feed their families...

-- dgb, April 25th, 2011

-- David Gordon Bain

Don't Let A Theory Over-Rule You, Over-run You...

2011-04-25T08:13:00.000-07:00

Don't let a theory over-rule you, over-run you, and squash your open-mindedness, squash your ability to see outside your own particular restrictive, one-sided box; let the facts lead you to an undetermined conclusion -- don't let your theory lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

-- dgb, April 25th, 2011,

-- David Gordon Bain

Embrace The Day

2011-04-25T07:54:00.000-07:00

Embrace the day -- before it gets away -- and never comes back again...dgb

On 'Faith' and Taking That First, Anxiety-Provoking Step....

2011-03-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

"Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the
whole staircase."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Am I an 'eagle' or a 'hippopotamus'?

2011-03-23T10:34:00.000-07:00

Today's Inspirational Quote:

"There is an eagle in me that wants to soar, and there is a
hippopotamus in me that wants to wallow in the mud."

-- Carl Sandburg

2010-12-25T08:31:00.000-08:00

A Twelve Step Plan Towards Moving in The Direction of Your Own Destiny...

2010-12-23T04:46:00.000-08:00

Act on the world before the world acts on you!

1. Contact your inner self, your inner soul, your inner talents, your genetic and psychological template for your outer direction;

2. Envision where you want to be in 5 years, what you want to be doing;

3. How do you get there? Focus, concretize, prioritize!

4. Match your concrete focus, priorities, skills, needs, goals, and action plans...

5. With what you need to get you where you want to be in 5 years;

6. Don't accept 'no' for an answer, don't deviate from your gameplan except as your inner self and your 'matching gameplan' dictate your direction;

7. As I just heard one 'informercial guru' put it, and I am partly paraphrasing and extrapolating, stop making excuses, don't accept excuses, become the master of your own fate...ruled from your internal self-template...not part of the 95 percent 'walking dead' who have let themselves become ruled from the outside by the 'masters of someone else's partially hidden agenda, someone else's corporate template', especially those who would like nothing better than to exploit you, imprison you, keep you down in the mud, in the interest of greatly 'speeding up' their own trip to 'financial freedom'...

8. Beware the users, the exploiters, the manipulators, the 'sweet talkers with a hook', the compassionless...

9. Work for, and/or alongside, the humanists who want just as much to see you do well, and others do well, as they want to do well themselves...

10. Act now and act on the world before the world acts on you, and before the users, the exploiters, the manipulators, and the compassionless are standing in front of you, and looking at you with dollar signs in their eyes, ready to grab the negotiating advantage of you lacking direction, lacking firmness and substance, and lacking the money to say anything but, 'Make me your corporate slave because I don't know how to, or am afraid to, run my own ship, and control my own destiny.'

I realize that I have bi-polarized the corporate-government world into two opposing sets of players -- the 'companionless narcissists' (or the 'big, bad wolves' if you wish) vs. the 'humanistic-existentialists' (the people who actually want to see you do well), but life is both 'multi-bi-polar' -- opposites engaging and/or disengaging with each other -- and life is also 'multi-valued' as opposed to 'two-valued'.

In other words, there are a whole spectrum of people, animals, things, processes, characteristics, values, ideas, opinions, beliefs...that exist somewhere along the spectrum of 'narcissistic' vs. 'humanistic' (or 'altruistic'), just as the same 'spectrum principle' and 'multi-valued' principle can be applied to 'good' vs. 'evil', 'Apollonian' vs. 'Dionysian', 'rational' vs. 'irrational', 'Enlightenment' vs. 'Romantic', 'humanistic' (socially empathic) vs. 'existential' (self-assertive), 'constructive' vs. 'deconstructive', 'righteous' vs. 'rebellious', 'sadistic' vs. 'masochistic', 'dominant' vs. 'submissive'... and on and on we could/can go...til the end of time...

There are extremes and then there are 'moderations' or 'integrations' or 'syntheses' or 'synergies' or 'compromises' between these endless bi-polar extremes...

11. Stay close to your Self, and stay close to your humanistic-existential-ethical core -- with tolerance and respect for those who may think differently, feel differently, behave differently, than you, but who still have good motivations in their hearts...

12. Don't deviate -- away from your Self, away from your Dream, away from your Plan, and at the same time, away from your compassion and caring for others!

-- dgb, Dec. 22nd, 2010,

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,

-- Are Still in Process...

On Complaining, The Outer Face of Resentment

2009-10-03T05:51:00.001-07:00

Complaining -- the outer face of resentment -- is a 'hanging on bite' (A Fritz Perls and Gestalt expression).

Solve the problem, resolve the conflict, and you 'chew through' the complaint. The complaint ceases to exist.

Some people would sooner expend more energy dwelling on the same complaint, over and over again, ad nauseam, than solve the problem, and/or address the appropriate person, make good contact with the appropriate person, negotiate things through -- and resolve the conflict.

Of course, you need the other person(s) to want to resolve the conflict with you in a way that works for both of you. But even here, in the face of disagreement and struggle, at least there is a transparency to the conflict that brings you closer to its potential resolution.

Buried, the complaint, the problem, the conflict, detracts from the forward progress of the relationship, poisons it, sabotages it, destroys it...

Confronted -- and addressed properly from both sides -- the 'hanging on gestalt' can be negotiated from a Hegelian dialectic (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis) perspective, and with 'good will' and 'good creativity' usually 'resolved' in a 'win-win' manner, freeing both of you to move the relationship forward in a more positive direction.

To repeat, the complaint -- the hanging on bite and gestalt -- has been chewed through until it has been 'properly metabolized' -- and no one is left with 'psychic indigestion'.

-- dgb, Oct. 3rd, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

On Dialectic Paradox, Health, Pathology, Evolution, Alienation and Integration

2009-09-27T12:19:00.000-07:00

Man's 'mind-brain-body' is like a swimming pool full of dichotomies, paradoxes, multiple bi-polarities, desires, restraints, too many desires and not enough restraints, or not enough desires and too many restraints, too much planning or not enough planning, too much thinking or not enough thinking, too aggressive or too approval-seeking, and on and on we could go...

We swim -- and sometimes drown -- in this swimming pool full of dichotomies, paradoxes, bipolarities and oftentimes, underlying hypocrisies or 'dissociated, disconnected, alienated ego-states' in the personality that are not properly integrated into the rest of the personality, into the 'whole of the personality'.

The goal of most dialectic bi-polar psychotherapies -- Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Transactional Analysis -- including this DGB approach here, is to help bring about more 'wholistic multi-dialectic, multi-bi-polar, integration' both inside and outside of the personality.

-- dgb, Sept. 27th, 2009.

Evolution -- is 'multiple-bi-polar-dialectic-evolution'. Everything comes about either from 'power over' or from 'integrative union'. Where destruction or anhiliation is not the goal, the second type of evolution among men -- integrative union -- usually works much better with far less human tragedy, traumacy, 'insurgency', and casualties. Not all of the time but most of the time -- dgb, Sept. 27th, 2009.

Physical and psycho-pathology are differentiated -- but similar -- in that they both need to be located on a continuum of a multitude of swinging pendulums of health, balance ('The Golden Mean', 'The Middle Path' -- Aristotle) vs. extremism, extreme swings of the pendulum -- and the resulting physical and/or psycho-pathology that comes with extremism over the edge and into the darkest abyss of humanity, non-humanity, and/or ultimately death.

-- dgb, Sept. 27th, 2009.

Your Dinner Won't Come To You...

2009-09-19T08:41:00.000-07:00

You can wait a long time by the river before a roasted duck will fly into your mouth.

(Quoted from facebook...)

Two Hands Clapping...

2009-09-19T08:35:00.001-07:00

Two hands clapping are better than one hand clapping air...

-- dgb, Sept. 19th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

On Self-Advancement Thwarted by Self-Negation

2009-09-09T11:22:00.000-07:00

Self-advancement is sabotaged by self-negation. Plain and simple. For every one step forward we take in our mind, we second guess ourselves, and backtrack to where we started. Advancement -- nowhere. Zilch.

I found this following quote in a Business Depot outlet -- and it gets at the same point and the same problem in a different manner.

'The block of granite which was an obstacle in the path of the weak, becomes a stepping stone in the path of the strong.' (Unknown author)

Here's to 'stepping stones' and to not turning back once we have determined the direction of our desired 'self-advancement' -- regardless of the 'obstacles' in front of us.

-- dgb, Sept. 9th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...

-- Are still in process...

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

Ode to the Unknown Reader -- Tusar N. Mohapatra, Aug. 1st, 2007.

2009-03-22T06:10:00.000-07:00

I found this writer -- and his work -- connected to my own work on another website, and from there, a link to his own blogsite. -- dgb, Mar. 21st, 2009.

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

Tusar N. Mohapatra

Tusar N. Mohapatra

SRA-102-C, Shipra Riviera, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P. - 201014, Ph: 0120-2605636, 2815130, India
President, Savitri Era Party. [Savitri Era of those who adore, Om Sri Aurobindo & The Mother.] Director, Savitri Era Learning Forum. [SELF posits a model of counselling and communicative action as an instrument in order to stimulate the public sphere. The model aims at supplementing the individual’s struggle for a successful social adjustment with more aspirational inputs so as to help one take an informed and balanced attitude towards life as well as society.] tusarnmohapatra@gmail.com
View my complete profile

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Ode to the Unknown Reader

You come visiting every now and then
Either by some chance or by volition
May be several times within a day
And like to linger a little over there.

Must be due to some sly affinity
Like companionship in a sweet dream
Or the caress of a stealthy lover
Then you too leave, often without comments.

No appointments or answering doorbells
And we meet, talk, ruminate over things
Agreements or many disagreements
Your silent feelings inspire my next post.

Many are too restless to stay awhile
And leave the singe of their troubled psyche
But I refuse to be infected by angst
Or any agnostic peroration.

In the new world: I blog, therefore I am
Perhaps we equally need each other
More so for me, the belief that you exist
And in the frequency of your visits.

I sleep, I walk, I swim but still I am
Abroad in the expanse of cyberspace
Anticipation of your sweet footfall
Simmers forever in my tremulous heart.
[Wed-050706]
Posted by Tusar N Mohapatra at 6:00 PM
5 comments:
Anonymous said...
I come and go

I come and go,
Unseen and unknown,
for having a touch
of your mind and heart,
of your soul,
as beyond Time and Space,
at the Omega Point,
we have met and we are One,
and we are on the march
on the same way,
towards the same Goal :
The New Horizon

Yes and No...From 1999 In The 'Gap-DGB' Archives...

2009-03-21T19:53:00.000-07:00

This 'pseudo-poem', written by me about 1999, builds from the Fritz Perls 'Gestalt Prayer'...extending it a little further -- dgb, March 21-22, 2009.

Yes and No

I am I.
And you are you.
I am not you,
And you are not me,
This should seem obvious,
But it's not.
A bird wasn't meant to be a fish.
And a fish wasn't meant to be a bird.
This should seem obvious,
But it's not.

It all starts with authentic choice-making,
With the choice between 'yes' and 'no'.
'Yes' to state my interest, my attraction,
My likes, my wishes, my passion...
And 'no' to state my dislikes, my boundaries...

To respect another person means to respect their interests,
Their attractions, their likes, their wishes, their passions,
And it means respecting their dislikes, their boundaries,

Not to respect a person's wishes and boundaries,
Their freedom to make an authentic choice,
Even though we may not like this personal choice,
Is not to respect the person,
The person's individual differences.

Let's all respect each other,
Respect each other's individual right,
And our own individual right,
To make our own authentic choices,
And to be accountable for wherever they take us...

From moment to moment,
Transaction to transaction,
Encounter to encounter,
To say 'yes' or 'no',
And to mean it.

-- dgb, Undated (Written approximately in 1999, slightly modified and updated March 21st-22nd, 2009.)

-- David Gordon Bain

I Write Fast...'To Deliver The Baby'...

2009-03-19T11:56:00.001-07:00

I write fast to stay in touch with my passion.

I apologize for any 'technical imperfections' -- imperfect spelling and/or grammar. Maybe an editor will come along some day and fix these mistakes.

To paraphrase one of President Obama's sayings...

Let not my pursuit of 'the perfect essay' sabotage my efforts in delivering the publication of as many'pragmatically and/or emotionally important' essays as I can possibly write.

I need to write fast to -- 'deliver the baby', the essay, as quickly as possible -- to keep up with my continually evolving interests, challenges, and passions.

-- dgb, March 19th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

Never Say Never

2009-03-11T22:04:00.000-07:00

Never say never...one never knows what direction life is going to take us in next...

Either by coincidence...by fate...and/or by intentionality..

They all tend to meet on the shores of our personality movement and directionality...

On the shores of our personal transference complexes...

Coincidence...fate...and...intentionality...all coming together in one 'existential package'...

Being and becoming...

The cliff...the abyss...and the cliff on the other side...

With DGB Philosophy attempting to build another bridge across another abyss...

My 'little philosophy package' for tonight...

-- dgb, March 11th, 2009

-- David Gordon Bain

Gods, Idols, Archetypes, Humans - and The Shifting Dialectic

2008-12-28T16:49:00.000-08:00

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

The Two Biggest Mistakes An Owner and/or Manager of A Company Can Make

2008-11-27T02:46:00.001-08:00

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...

An Important Dialectic Split: Entropy and The Status Quo vs. New Action and Change

2008-11-26T17:11:00.001-08:00

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...

'Good' Capitalism is Not Rocket Science...

2008-11-24T17:17:00.001-08:00

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....

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

Anectdote about Alfred Korzybski: 'The Map is Not The Territory'

2008-11-21T04:07:00.001-08:00

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]

The Hegelian Evolutionary -- and/or Tragic -- Life-Cycle

2008-11-09T04:59:00.000-08:00

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.

On 'Trying' vs. 'Doing'

2008-10-28T16:39:00.000-07:00

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.

A Nietzsche Aphorism

2008-10-26T19:03:00.001-07:00

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)

On The 'Actualization' of Intellect, Knowledge, and Skill..(An Email to My Sister)

2008-10-17T18:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Reprise

2008-10-06T15:06:00.000-07:00

If you are good enough at what you do,
People will coming looking for you.

-- dgb, Oct. 6th, 2008.

A Glossary of 21 Important Concepts in DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...

2008-09-30T17:47:00.000-07:00

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.

On The 'Flip-Side' of 'Flip-Flopping'...

2008-09-27T06:26:00.001-07:00

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.

On The Insurmountability of All Human Knowledge -- and The Importance of Writers (and All of Us) To Have a 'Flair For The Dramatically Existential'...

2008-09-27T05:59:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Random, Evolving Coherence of My Essays

2008-08-26T17:50:00.001-07:00

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.

Six Things I Have Learned -- Or Am Learning -- About Writing on The Internet

2008-08-26T02:37:00.000-07:00

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.

More Thoughts on Idols

2008-08-24T12:50:00.000-07:00

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.

What is wrong with this world?

2008-08-24T06:07:00.001-07:00

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.

DGB Rational-Empiricism and The Multi-Dialectical Cycle

2008-08-23T18:41:00.000-07:00

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.

On Ethics vs. Narcissism

2008-08-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Contradiction Between Monogamy and Infidelity

2008-08-06T15:29:00.000-07:00

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.

On My Idols

2008-08-03T09:33:00.000-07:00

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.

On Idols

2008-08-02T17:43:00.000-07:00

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."

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

On Nietzsche -- and His Dionysian (Anti-Christian) Philosophy

2008-08-02T04:34:00.000-07:00

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.

On Intimacy vs. Games Playing

2008-07-26T15:41:00.001-07:00

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

On God, Nature, Man, and The Path of The Homeostatically Balanced, Multi-Integrative Dialectic

2008-07-25T07:29:00.000-07:00

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.

On Contradictions in Human Behaviour

2008-07-20T18:52:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Unpredictability of Being and Becoming

2008-07-20T17:40:00.000-07:00

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

On Freedom

2008-07-20T17:38:00.000-07:00

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

The Higher We Soar...

2008-07-19T14:43:00.000-07:00

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.

On Clarity

2008-07-19T14:39:00.000-07:00

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.

On Humanism

2008-07-18T06:12:00.000-07:00

People before money.

-- dgb, July 18th, 2008.

On The Dialectical Paradox Between Man's Stagnant Classification Systems and Life's Phenomenal -- Always Changing -- Processes

2008-07-18T05:33:00.000-07:00

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.

On Classifying, Life Processes, and Man's Number 1 Evolutionary Tool -- His/Her Brain

2008-07-18T04:53:00.000-07:00

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.

On Narcissism, Ethics, Hypocrisy, and Ideology...

2008-07-17T02:49:00.000-07:00

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.

On Sharing

2008-07-16T05:26:00.000-07:00

To extrapolate on Shakespeare (Hamlet)...

To share or not to share important thoughts and feelings: that is the question.

dgb, July 16th, 2008.

On Passion and Compassion

2008-07-15T18:34:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Relationship Between Lobbyism and Power

2008-07-13T08:00:00.000-07:00

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.

On Marx, Idealism, Ideology, Integrity and Character

2008-07-12T05:13:00.001-07:00

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.

On Character and Faith -- Reliigion, Atheism, and Humanistic-Existentialism

2008-07-12T04:37:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Seemingly 'Tragic Impasse'....

2008-07-11T06:44:00.000-07:00

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')

On Good and Bad Days, Good and Bad Humanistic Values...

2008-07-09T18:19:00.000-07:00

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.

On Narcissistic Dictators -- Goverment and Corporate

2008-07-08T15:30:00.000-07:00

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.

On Democracy

2008-07-08T15:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Our Seniors and Their Paltry Pension Plans...

2008-07-02T04:26:00.000-07:00

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

On Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, Discrimination, Preferentialism, and Reverse-Discrimination

2008-07-01T08:47:00.000-07:00

'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.

On 'The Axis Of Evil' -- and 'Dialectical Accountability'

2008-06-30T02:17:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2008-06-29T21:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Be Like The Birds -- Discard Quickly, Old, Out-dated, Dysfunctional Generalizations

2008-06-29T21:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Hegel's Hotel as 'Hotel California'

2008-06-21T09:53:00.000-07:00

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.

Words, Personal Invasions of Space and Privacy, Rejections, Betrayals, and Other Contextual Issues Are Important Factors In Cases of Domestic Violence

2008-06-21T06:58:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Toxic and Manipulative Use of Plea-Bargains

2008-06-21T06:12:00.000-07:00

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.

On The Imperative Neccessity of Background Contextual Information Relative to the Investigation of Any Alleged Criminal Case, Domestic or Otherwise

2008-06-21T05:12:00.000-07:00

It is imperative that all of the background, contextual information that is necessary to get the 'legal judgment in a court decision right' -- and this starts from the police officers investigating a potential crime scene, alleged domestic violence or otherwise -- be not overlooked or neglected or marginalized because of either of three factors or the combination of any two or all three: 1. the desire to 'close a case' in speedy fashion in order to get public pressure -- and in cases of 'alleged domestic violence', this includes 'feminist political pressure' -- off of 'the police force's and prosecution's back'; 2. 'special interests political and legal forces' that demand from the government a legal campaign, mission, and directive of 'zero tolerance' for a certain type of 'sub-culture crime' (this leads to 'racial, ethnic, and/or sexual profiling' which biases and prejudices any particular investigation towards a certain conclusion and outcome before the investigation even starts); and 3. any other form of police and/or prosection and/or political 'narcissistic benefit' that is derived from 'profiling' a particular individual and/or group of people and creating 'narcissistic bias and prejudice' before the facts of the case have been fully and objectively arrived at with all different 'possible relevant contexts' of the case being fully detailed and made legally and publicly transparent from the beginning of the arrival of police at the doorstep of the alleged crime to the bail judge -- who is in no position whatsoever to make any legal judgments before receiving 'the fully police investigated, non-biased, and contextually rich, relevant facts of a case', even if these are thrown together very quickly and are subject to change if the case moves forward beyond the bail hearing -- to the prosecution itself in collusion with the police or not, which have already started to develop a 'mindset of guilty' the minute the police throw handcuffs on a person, lay charges, and start the 'bias and prejudice of the collection of relevant information in such a way as to maximize the probability of a conviction'...This makes 'special interest political and legal groups' (read 'overzealous, hardline feminist groups') very happy but it does nothing to advance the cause of 'equal rights' and 'justice' in this country. Indeed, it takes it a gigantic step backward towards 'reverse discrimination' and 'preferential justice' in the name of protecting 'all women from the possibility of all men becoming that one 'very bad egg of a man' -- or heading in that direction -- who actually is or becomes a very violent and nasty man towards his wife or girlfriend...

But the laws didn't change and radically overcompensate when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis with a kitchen knife in 1993. The potential for the abuse of physical power, manipulation, intimidation, provocation, real, fake, and/or imagined threats, and the use of the police in a 'manipulative manner' and for 'manipulative reasons' -- is a 'two-sex problem'; not a 'one-sex problem' -- male or female.

-- dgb, June 21st, 2008.

On Equal Rights, Family Court Issues, Righteous Dialectic-Democratic Rage -- and The Law

2008-06-18T19:47:00.001-07:00

As a philosopher -- and particularly as a 'post-Hegelian, dialectic' philosopher -- I can put any of three philosophical hats on: 1. my white hat (DGB Creationism or Constructionism); 2. my black hat (DGB Deconstructionism); and 3. my 'gray hat' (DGB Integrationism or Compromisism).

I don't know how I got here (Equal Rights, Domesitic Violence, Support Payments, Property Divisions, etc...) -- that's a lie, I do know how I got here -- call it 'unfinished philosophical business'.

We have entered three realms of philosophy where I simply cannot play the role of 'Constructionist' or the role of 'Integrationist' until I have completely exhausted my role as a 'Raging, Dialectic-Democratic-Deconstructionist' (RDDD).

These three realms are: 1. 'equal rights'; 2. 'domestic violence' and 3. 'support payments and money and property division upon separation and/or divorce'.

Now people, in general are afraid of rage because they automatically connect it with 'the potential for violence'. But there are a few things that people don't often understand about rage. One, it is often needed by politicians, philosophers, and civilians alike to help clear away social, civil, cultural, political, philosophical, econmic, and legal toxins, pathologies -- and corruption. This is what I call 'civil rage' or 'democratic-dialectical rage'. This is where you take your rage and turn it towards the betterment of yourself and/or society...

Secondly, 'rage' itself is part of a 'dialectical-homeostatic process' -- with 'passivenss and submissiveness' on one side of the 'dialectic-democratic ledger' and 'aggressive-assertion-anger-rage' on the other side of the 'homeostatic-dialectic ledger'. Rage does not mean you have to 'wind up and hit somebody'. (In psychotherapy, they generally use 'pillows'.)

Excuse what some people might call my growing 'rigtheous extremism' -- and some might even say paranoia -- here but I look at the new age of 'liberal Anger Management Classes and Programs' and I see the 'newest instrument of social, political, legal, and emotional coercion' -- perpretated through and by the Domestic Court System, and one step further back, through/by the Political System...but behind it all is a hugely influential network of organizations -- some better, some worse than others -- but right here I will paint them all with the same brush (with room for qualifications, compromises, and integrations only much later) because I am angry at them -- very angry at them -- and thus, I will call them 'The League Of Nations For Narcissistic Women' who want much more than 'egalistarianism'; rather, they want 'all they can get from a 'Politically Correct Goverment of Canada' full of men who have completely lost their testosterone when facing off against these women, and who quiver on their knees before their power...

And I am just warming up...

This exercise is called 'How to Write Like Nietzsche In Half an Hour'...

Just put on your 'black hat'....feel your dialectic-democratic rage...get into a 'feeling and writing zone'...and 'don't look back...just go for it...and let them howl...

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

'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.'

-- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000, pg. 300.)

I do not want to be the angel of any home. I want for myself and I want for other women -- absolute equality. After that is secured then men and women can take turns at being angels.

-- Agnes Macphail, a champion of equal rights feminism (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000, pg. 303.)

These are my two favorite feminists in the history of Canada -- and my two favorite 'female deconstructionists'....

Let me define 'deconstructionism' again...

Philosophical, political, and legal deconstructionism is the art of detoxifying and uncorrupting government structures, processes, laws, and 'hidden directives' by defeating these structures, processes, laws, and hidden directives (as well as the men and women who are behind the forces of the government statu-quo, or behind pathological reform, with the power of superior reason, logic, satire, and/or rhetoric. -- dgb

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

I was trying to run away from this issue -- a quick 'hit and run' essay ond 'Equal Rights' and 'Two Different Types of Feminism' -- and then on to 'personality theory' I was planning to go. But I can see this is not going to happen...once I get in i wont get out...not until the subject is totally exhausted and i have re-lived a lot of pain, grief, anger -- and yes, even rage...against the Canadian government for turning a blind eye to the pain and anguish of single fathers in this country, rage against the women who sre at least equally at fault -- if not more -- for 'setting the stage for domestic violence' and then who go running to the police, running to the women and organizations who/that defend these type of women like they are total 'victims' and 'angel's (see Agnus McPhail's quote) and who cannot see that some women have lived their whole lives learning how to 'manipulate men' and turn their 'seemingly superior physical, social, corporate, political, and legal power' into a relic of the past...Too many women today are seeing all too clearly -- and manipulatively -- that they no longer live in a man's world -- they live in a feminist's world that now has significant power over the police, power over the politicians, and power over the domestic and sexual legal system.

The myth of a 'patriarchal society' today is exactly that -- a myth perpetrated by narcissistic feminists who want to retain the political and legal perception of the 'underdog' in society because this gives them 'underdog power in the Domestic Court Room' to mobilize judges into making decisions to their legal and economic advantage.

Of coursse, there are still many cases where women still are getting the 'short end of the stick' in divorces but these women have their own feminist organizations to turn to trumpet these individual injustices.

At this point in time, I speak for the huge number of largely 'Silent Men' out there who may speak amongst themselves but who are not civilly and political loud. In fact, they are mainly mute. I speak -- or at least I would like to think I speak -- for the large number of divorced or separated men, fathers or not, who now have inferior rights to women inside what was once their 'shared home', inferior rights in front of the police who will jail a man much, much faster than he will jail a woman, inferior rights in the Domestic Courts of Canada where everyday men are being abused and vicitimed by 'preferred female rights', and inferior rights in the Supreme Court of Canada, in the parliament of Canada where male politicians have lost their testosterone when it comes to dealing with 'equal rights' issues and 'Feminist Organizations', and in the Constitution of Canada -- where once again powerful women's organizations have established, and are establishing, greater and greater 'preferred rights' on the backs of what Trudeau started, 'Affirmative Action Programs' made way worse, and Liberal Governments kept 'riding the same horse' with 'Conservative Governments' not very far behind with no oranized, powerful, 'Men's Civil Rights' groups to challenge the narcissistic feminist rhetoric face to face, and head on.

I love women -- which is why I hate to be here. All I want is fair, equal rights for both side where a man does not have to feel like a stranger in his own home because of the laws of Canada, and because it has been deemed 'his responsibility' to run out of his house the minute his spouse starts to 'go Postal' on him.

If there is going to be 'zero tolerance' for domestic violence in the home, then the man needs to be just as well proteceted by the laws of Canada as the woman is. Or women need to more fully experience what 'zero tolerance' actually means. The woman's role in the escalation, initiation, provocation, intimidation, and perpetuation of domestic violence needs to be just as much clearly understood and appreciated by the laws of Canada as the man's role. Any thing else is 'Social Stereotyping' (of the 'reverse' type), 'Sexual Profiling' (of the 'reverse' type) 'Sexual Reductionism and Scapegoating' -- as opposed to looking at the whole issue 'wholistically'.

Have I forgotten anything?

Oh yes. And 'Feminist Hypocrisy'. Let us finish this essay with a brief masculine perspective on narcissistic feminist hypocrisy.

Ladies, for those of you who have never 'pushed a man in anger', or 'thrown furnature at him', or whatever, I give you all the respect in the world as well. But if you have ever lifted your arm and struck a man, or pushed him, or thrown something at him, or used a weapon against him, then you have no right to parade around as a 'victim of domestic violence'. And you have no right to 'preach zero tolerance laws against men' if you are not willing to fully abide by them yourself. If you strike or push your man first, then -- by the laws of today -- there should be no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It should be the man staying in the home and you being paraded away in handcuffs to experience exactly what it feels like to spend a cold, bright, night on a cold steel bed with cold steel bars and concrete floors. Under today's supposed 'equal rigthts and protections' laws, this would be the full extent of equal rights, not you being allowed to take the children and go off to a woman's shelter.

Anything else -- at least until we loosen up these discriminative laws against men -- is sheer, unbridled, feminist hypocrisy -- or the practical extension of it. Freminist groups can couch their words in the rhetoric of their choice -- and they can make it all sound so 'nice and fair', but until men actually start blowing the whistle on women practising violence in the home -- that means phoning the police the same way women are now, and the police respect these calls just like they would respect it from a woman, and the woman if she initiated the first physical blow to the man is marched away in handcuffs to jail -- until all this happens, ladies your 'equal rights rhetoric' is about as empty as the jail cell I spent Father's Day in ten years ago. I learned my lesson -- and I learned my lesson the hard way. But don't tell me that women are getting the same type of 'rough ride' that men are.
Because that is unmitigated hogwash.

I am not a politician and never will be. My power runs between my mind, my fingers, and my keyboard, no more, no less.

Either my words will hit home -- hit their desired target -- or they won't.

I will let each of you at least partly be the judge of that?

You can listen to all the 'politically correct rhetoric'. Or you can listen to your heart and to your own sense of reason, fairness, equality, and justice.

Given these parameters, I think you will know what I am writing about here. I am not writing in a social vaccuum although oftentimes, with the overall silence of men, it sure feels like it.

It is after midnight and I am burnt out for tonight.

Goodnight.

dgb, June. 18th, 2008.

On Context, Encounters, and Relationships

2008-06-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

You cannot take one person's single action out of the context of the encounter it came from without easily -- or purposely -- misunderstanding it. Likewise, in an ongoing relationship, you cannot take one encounter out of the context of the whole relationship without again easily -- or purposely -- misunderstanding it.

Context is crucial and ignoring context -- especially for someone like an arresting police officer, a journalist, a politician, or a judge -- is a grossly negligent act of duty and responsibility -- an act of 'reductionism' where a journalist is just looking for a provocative, controversial story, a campaigning politician is just looking to 'trash' his or her political opponent, or a policeman or judge is just looking for an easy legal scapegoat.

Call it 'narcissistic, Western justice'...or the misrepresentation of it...

dgb, June 15th, 2008.

On The Difference Between 'Egalitarian Feminism' and 'Narcissistic Feminism'

2008-06-15T13:56:00.000-07:00

(This is a little longer than my usual aphorism -- or even 'mini-essay' but the dialectic process that I will write about here has been building here...so this is where I will let it 'rip'...)

There is a radical difference between 'egalitarian feminism' and 'narcissistic feminism' even though the lines can get blurred in around the 'dividing point'.

The distinction is not too much different than the one between an 'egalitarian masculinist' if you will and a 'male chauvanist' (a male chauvanist being basically the equivalent of a 'male or masculine narcissist' or a 'narcissistic male' or a 'narcissistic masculinist'.

For those ladies who have absolutely no difficulty recognizing and pointing out the distinction between a narcissistic male and an egalitarian male, it is obviously totally 'egalitarian' that this type of logic and 'distinction-ability' should be totally reversable and applied to women as well. How much more egalitarian can this be?

Now I don't want to make a stereotypical, over-generalization here, in terms of painting all women with the same brush, any more than any man likes it when a woman paints all men with the same brush -- especially when it is a 'negative and/or toxic paint brush'. So I will put it this way: for most people -- men and women included -- it is much easier to recognize the narcissistic (selfish, egotistical, self-absorbed...) behavior of others than it is to recognize and label this type of behavior in ourselves. As a general rule of thumb, we see selfishness much easier in others than we do in ourselves. Most narcissistic people are blind to the extent of their own narcissism. They talk and see with 'blinders' on -- but they can't see their own blinders. They see the blinders very easily in others while not seeing the blinders at all -- or very little -- on themselves. They don't see their own prejudices, biases, and stereotypical distinctions in pre-judging others while 'crying foul' when anyone else puts such a stereotypical distinction on themselves. This is very much a big part of the nature and 'symptom-formation' of human narcissism.

And so it is with women as it is with men. The 'evolution of equal rights' -- whether coming from a man or a woman, a white, black, or brown person, has always been a mission mixed with personal, sexual, ethnic, and cultural narcissism. An 'equal rights' crusade on one level of human existence has generally been at least partly supported by 'hypocritical narcissism' on an other level of human existence. I don't have the time or energy now to do a thorough analysis throughout Western history but Thomas Jefferson, to my knowledge, had slaves. (Someone correct me if I am wrong.)

'Although politically radical, the women's suffragist movement was socially very conservative. Suffragists wanted to uphold Christian and British values, and often the same reformers who wanted the vote for women wanted it denied to Asian men. For many women, winning the vote was seen as simply the first stepping stone toward reforming society as a whole, and that including dealing with the corrupting influence of foreigners. Many of these early feminist crusaders stood for women's rights and -- in their own words -- a 'White Canada'. In this, they managed to be both progressive and reactionary at the same time.' (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000.)' (In my words, I would say 'egalitarian' and 'narcissistically righteous' or 'righteously narcissistic' at the same time.)

Now obviously the 'equal rights movement' on all levels -- sexual, racial, cultural...-- has made some giant strides from the 1910s, 20s, 30s, and 40s (indeed, in every new decade) -- but one thing hasn't changed: specifically, equal rights crusading and reforming still tends to come in a 'mixed bag of tricks' -- a combination of 'healthy, real equal rights issues' and a set of 'toxic, special interest, preferential rights issues' all nicely packaged together in the same 'reformation crusade' with a nice bow on top of it and a card that proclaims that 'These are all 'healthy, equal rights issues that need to be addressed and passsed as law in the name of a more democratic and "just" society.' And yes -- our famous and infamous Prime Minister Trudeau was one of the main initial perpetrators of 'toxic, unjust, special interest, preferential rights, reverse-discrimination' reforms beginning with his 'modification' of The Canadian Constitution.

The 'Affirmative Action' Program of the 1990s was probably the worst example of this type of 'preferential treatment' and 'reverse-discrimination' -- masked as 'equal rights'.

I remember reading job postings on TTC bulletin boards back in the middle 1990s that basically said at the top of each job posting that 'women and/or ethnic minorities were encouraged to apply'. Most 'white men' knew what that meant. Don't bother applying. In a contorted way, maybe the Affirmative Action Program was good in this sense and this sense only: it allowed white men to feel the very real negative experience of both sexual and racial discrimination at the same time. The Pendulum of Politics and Discrimination had swung 180 degrees the other way. White men got to experience in a very real and dramatic way for a few years what it was like to be 'discriminated against in the workplace'.

Egalitarian men and egalitarian women need to get their collective acts together. I know that you are out there but you are not operating cohesively on the same wavelength. Far too often, it is the 'rhetorically radical -- and the righteously narcissistic' that have the loudest voices, become the leaders of reformist movements, may generate some good, egalitarian changes but also some toxic, narcissistically preferential ones as well.

It is no different than the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDPs, and the Bloc Party squaring off against each other in parliament -- each with their own respective 'idealistic ideologies', left, right, centre -- and separate rights and laws for Quebec.

In this same manner, if we are going to have 'closer to real equal rights' in Canada (and I imagine the same to be true in the U.S.), then we are going to have to start all over and 'go back to the bargaining table again -- egalitarian feminist and masculine negotiators in the same room'. This is the only way that we are going to set about fixing the collosal mess of reverse-discrimination that is our Domestic and Sexual Court situation right now.

I have no figures to support me here -- and I am sure the government isn't keeping these figures, or if they are I am sure that they are not making them public. How many men in Lindsay Jail are there on domestic violence charges? What is the percentage of male inmates that are there on domestic violence charges? 50%? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? I don't know but somehow I would hazard a guess that it is somewhere around 90% The Canadian public needs to know what the exact number of inmates -- and the percentage of inmates -- that are locked up in Lindsay jail -- or any other jail for that matter -- and they need to know now.

Similarily, pick any female jail in the GTA area -- I think there is one around the airport. How many women in this jail are locked up on domestic violence charges? What percentage of the women locked up in this jail -- and any other -- are locked up on domestic violence charges? Again, we need to know this now.

How many men in the GTA area are being locked up at this time on domestic violence charges? How many women? What is the percentage of men being locked up on domestic charges in the GTA vs. women? In Ontario? In each province? In Canada?

If we are to find that there is a hugely radical difference in the number of men being locked up on domestic violence charges compared to the number of women in the GTA, in Ontario, in Canada...what are we to make of this hugely significant statistic? That domestic violence is by and large totally a masculine crime; not a feminine one? Or that domestic violence is generally a two-sex problem where both the man and the woman are usually at least partly guilty in escalating the crisis -- until one sex finally takes a 'swing at the other' or 'pushes him or her away' -- and yet, it is largely only one sex that is taking 'the fall' -- i.e. being scapegoated -- for a 'two-sex problem'.

The same is largely true in divorce cases relative to property and money divisions -- and support payments.

Indeed, there are so many different but related issues here that I barely know where to start.

I will make two final points here before I stop.

One, we have to do something about the problem of 'political lobbying' just like Obama is campaigning to do something about it in the U.S.

In the area of domestic problems and sexual crimes, it is grossly politically unfair -- and again I don't know the numbers here because the numbers are covert --that there are let us say 1000 feminist groups crusading in Ottawa for constant reforms and changes in Canadian law to both 'promote equally' and to 'promote narcissistically' the rights of women -- without probably more than a handful of 'masculine rights' groups operating in Ottawa, all of which are largely 'politically impotent' with all due respect to the courage of the men who are trying...and cannot make a 'dent' on the power of the women's groups who oppose them and hugely outnumber them while the vast majority of 'silent men' in Canada, who may otherwise be extremely intelligent and rhetorically gifted, lay at home on their particular couches watching the hockey game or the football game -- and continue to allow the feminist groups in Canada to politically and legally have their way with them. I've heard of being a 'gentleman' but this has gone extremely too far...

My second and final point. I would say that it is an act of 'brutal violence' on a part of a woman that she should go to court and 'trump up a case of domestic violence against the man she is facing' -- meaning distort, falsify, and/or embellish her evidence in order to 'make a good case against the man'. This -- without a doubt -- should be a criminal offense punishable by a significant jail term. (Indeed, it is essentially no different than the president of the United States or Prime Minister of Canada -- or any member of government for that matter -- standing up in front of the American or Canadian people and 'trumping up a case for war' by distorting, falsify, embellishing, or leaving out any detail that might be critically important in getting -- or not getting -- the support of the American/Canadian/British... people to go to war.

Lives are at stake. The life and death of people are at stake. Jail terms are at stake. Reputations are at stake. Character and integrity are at stake. Careers are at stake. The welfare -- or demolition -- of a family is at stake.

In short, we need to completely relook at, and re-negotiate, the whole 'equal rights' phenomenon -- and its narcissistic -- 'special rights' -- distortion.

There are thousands of lives that are grossly at stake. Men, women, children -- and families. The whole process cannot start too soon.

-- dgb, June 15th, 2008.

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

A Post-Script:

I was wondering why on this particular day -- Father's Day, June 15th, 2008, I chose to write probably my most provocative essay to date in Hegel's Hotel -- on 'equal rights'. I wrote a short 'warm-up' mini-essay on the subject yesterday, but before that, I had been heading into the subject of 'personality theory' and 'transference'. And then this essay on equal rights and feminism seemed to just 'creatively appear out of nowhere'...The subject matter was central to my writing about 8 or 9 years ago -- but not lately.

And then I went upstairs to go to bed, I lay down -- and then it hit me. This is about the 10th anniversary of the one and only night in my life that I spent in jail -- and it was on a charge of 'domestic violence'. As I lay in my bed upstairs, I suddenly had what I guess you might call a 'flashback' to the night I spent in the Richmond Hill jail. I remember the single cell, the steel bed, the concrete below it, and the bright light above me...I remember disappearing under the steel bed to the concrete floor beneath it to try to escape the bright light above me shining in my face and to try to find a darker, more comfortable place to sleep. The concrete was more comfortable than the steel. And I remember the paddywagon with the steel interior taking me to Newmarket court the next morning...Father's Day about 10 years ago -- steel and concrete -- that was the historical context out of which the essay above suddenly seemingly appeared out of nowhere in my consciousness. Freud would probably have a field day with that...His paper on this 'phenomenon' might be called 'Creativity, The Unconscious, The Instincts -- and Their Vicissitudes...

I had 'pushed' my girlfriend -- or ex-girlfriend -- at the time out of my bedroom because I had a 'brutal cold' that day, and had left work early because of it. Big mistake. She had just gotten a 'hang up' which she interpreted to be from my 'new girlfriend'. So she came into my bedroom in a storm and proceeded to 'go postal' on me. I had neither the energy nor the tolerance to deal with her that day -- especially after she said that she was afraid that I would pull a 'midnight move' on her and 'steal her stuff' (I ended up giving her a good, wood dining room table that was mine). Anyway, I (admittedly wrongfully) pushed her out of my bedroom to try to lock the door on her so she couldn't get back in. But she did get back in. I pushed her out again -- this time further into the hall, she fell onto a wooden chair and injured her shoulder -- and I was off for a night in jail, moved to Newmarket the next day, and was then tied up with lawyers and courts for a year. We finally settled out of court, I apologized, was able to avoid having to take an 'anger management program' (it was her with the much more volatile temper)...and I started dating my present girlfriend who I have now been with for 10 years without the repetition of any similar type of incident...She was there the day after that fateful Father's Day to help bail my 'sorry ass' out of jail...And now it's ten years later give or take a year...prompting an essay...and a flashback...

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

'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.'

-- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000, pg. 300.)

I do not want to be the angel of any home. I want for myself and I want for other women -- absolute equality. After that is secured then men and women can take turns at being angels.

-- Agnes Macphail, a champion of equal rights feminism (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000, pg. 303.)

On The Dialectic Tension Between Liberalism and Conservatism, Men's and Women's Equal Rights -- and The Good and The Bad of Patriotism

2008-06-15T05:17:00.000-07:00

There is a place for both Liberalism and Conservatism in the philosophy, the psycholgy, the economics, the law, and the politics of man. Indeed, in DGB Philosophy, I try to shoot for the best of both worlds and avoid the worst of both worlds -- in other words, to 'split the difference' and look for that 'ideal homesotatic, dialectic-democratic balnce'.

On the Conservative side, I say that 'excuses are for losers -- or at least for people who want to continue to play a losing game'. I've been there, done that. When I am late for work, I will fish for a 'reason' -- or rather, for an excuse as to why I am late. But the reality is, that once it becomes established as a 'negative habit' and/or a 'serial behavior pattern', then there is no more room for 'reasons' because the bottom line is that they are all excuses. The reality of the situation is that 'I want to be late because if I wanted to be on time badly enough -- more than I wanted to be late -- then I would change my behavior (get up earlier and/or move faster) -- and I would be on time. Case closed. End of conversation. Anything else said is 'verbal garbage'.

Now on the Liberal side, I look at the plight of many single mothers and fathers in this country -- particulary the ones who don't make excuses, and don't cry 'foul' or don't cry 'victim', the ones that are working their butts off every day trying to do the job of two parents -- as one. They may be working one job, two, or even three. They've made their daycare arrangmements, take the child or children to daycare or school, pick them up at the end of the day, come home, make dinner for the children, clean the house, prepare the child or children for daycare or school the next day -- and they barely get a moment to breathe, let alone to find any free time for themselves.

On the other side of the ledger, I've seen and experienced single fathers without their child or children get economically crucified in our so-called 'Domestic Equal Rights' Co;urts. A single father often walks into a Domestic Court today that is quite likely to be dominated by female lawyers and female judges -- and I say to myself, 'Gee, this must have been what it was like for a single woman of yesteryear to walk into a Domestic Court dominated by men... We haven't established 'equal rights' here because no body -- in this New Domestic Court System of 'Enlightened Female Rights' dominated in my opinion by 'Narcissistic Feminists' is giving any effort to protect the 'Equal Rights -- the Humanistic Rights -- of The Single Father'. Indeed, we've come 180 degrees from a male dominated Domestic Court System to a female dominated Domestic Court System.

We still haven't arrived at 'equal rights' yet -- we have arrived at a set of partly humanistic values and court directives aimed at protecting the economic welfare of the children and mother, but mainly economically crucifying the single father in the process. Many single fathers (not all) -- with good work incomes -- are left trying to cope with a loss of half their net income or more. The courts make sure that the mother and children get enough money from the father to 'maintain the lifestyle that they have been accustomed to'. But there is no provision in the court system for 'the man to maintain a lifestyle anywhere close to what he has been accustomed to'. He can crash and burn -- economically, psychologically, socially, spiritually -- just as long as he keeps those usually 'lavish' for the mother, 'brutal' for the father, monthly support payments' rolling to the ex-wife and kids. I am speaking in generalizations here, which obviously is not going to apply to each and every case -- just many, many of them. My point here is that -- domestically and legally speaking here -- what happened to the rights of the single father, with or without the kids? And if he has the kids, what are the chance of him getting support payments anywhere close to those of what he would be having to pay if it was the mother that had the kids and not him. In short, in the Domestic and Sexual Courts of Canada, we are now living in a country of 'reverse-discrimination' -- something that was written about briefly in the media in the late 1990s when NDP 'Affirmative Action' programs were dominating -- and being masked as 'equal rights'. But since then, the media have largely shut up, men continue to clam up, and at the same time, more and more of men's domestic and sexual rights contineu to be eaten away at by a storm of a 1000 largely narcissistic feminist lobbyist groups -- with virtually no 'men's domestic and sexual rights groups on the other side of the fence, on the other side of Ottawa to rhetorically confront this continually onslaught of Women's Special Interests Groups on Ottawa...

As a man -- and I believe an 'egalitarian or equal rights man' -- I say I am all for women's equal rights but in 'homeostatic balance' with men's equal rights and don't try to masquarade 'women's special legal treatment' -- or for that matter, any special treatment for any 'special interest group' and/or 'perceived minority group' -- as 'equal rights'. In two words -- 'It's not.'

The term 'humanistic-existential' is a 'dialectic word and idea'. There is a dialectic tension between the 'humanistic compassion of Liberalism' and the 'existential responsibility and accountability of Conservatism'. In America, you can substitute the dialectic tension between the 'Humanistic Compassion of the Democrats' and the 'Conservative Existential and Social Responsibility and Accountability of The Republicans'. Now, you can argue til the cows come home how well each of these Political Parties have lived up to their political idealism -- and will so in the near future -- but the reality of the situation is that the American people are caught between wanting the best of both political worlds while eliminating the worst. There is room for a third integrative political party -- 'The Democratic Republicans' or 'The Republican Democrats'...The wonder of a democracy is that generally speaking -- if you give people accurate information and a free right to vote, they will generally gravitate as a whole towrds a 'homeostatic-dialectic balance' somewhere in the middle. And one can expect that if the American people have been largely dis-satisfied with the performance of the Republicans in government, or visa versa, that they will gravitate towards the 'opposite political party' in the next election. That is, unless the party in power does a wonderful job of 're-inventing itself' in a way that the American people believe will be better than what they previously delivered, and/or what the American people can expect from the opposite party, particularly in a time of war and horrible econmics.

I have more trust in the American people than I do in American politics. If I was American, would that make me 'un-patriotic'. Is it 'un-patriotic' to disdain political corruption and narcissism -- regardless of what country it stems from/ Is it 'un-patriotic' to be trumpeting what you or I perceive as a 'better' form of poltical idealism and realism than what we have? Especially when what we have is steeped in much of the worst of human nature. We have to be very careful with the words 'patriotic' and 'unpatriotic' because these are very dangerous words. The key question should be this: Patriotic to what? Corruption? Narcissism? Tyranny? Power gone bad? When talking about patriotism we need to qualify what we mean by patriostism? Do we mean: Am I patriotic to America/Canada the good? Or am I patriotic to America/Canada bad? If you are patriotic to 'America/Canada the bad' -- then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

-- dgb, June 15th, 2008.

On 'Views of God' -- and Religion

2008-06-10T04:29:00.000-07:00

Judge not a person's view of God by your perception of its 'epistemological correctness'. Rather, judge it by the degree of 'humanistic-existentialism' in its ethical system -- in other words, its self and social value. .

Example: My mom has a view of God that is a very 'orthodox, Protestant view' -- she believes essentially what she was taught in Sunday School and Church.

My 'unorthodox, multi-dialectic, humanistic-existential view of God' is quite radically different than anything you would learn in Sunday School or Church -- particularly in its epistemological, metaphysical, and mythological manifestations.

However, my mom is a very kind, generous, giving woman who continues to do more good community and family deeds in a week than I will generally do in a month or even year. So who am I -- or anyone else -- to argue with the 'epistemological correctness' of her view of God and religion. Her view of God and religion certainly generates more community and family good will, harmony, and integration, than anything I will probably write in Hegel's Hotel in the duration of my lifetime.

However, I can only be me -- and by extension -- project my beliefs and values through Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy. To be sure, I would like to think that my more unorthodox 'multik-dialectic, humanistic-existential' view of God has similar self and social value -- probably stronger on the self-assertion, and weaker on the social altruism -- than my mother's view. And she's living her view while I write mine.

The point here then, is that epistemologically, metaphysically, and mythologically' these views may be quite different but as long as each view is supported by a 'strong system of humanistic-existential values' -- meaning a spiritual and/or religious philosophy and lifestyle showing a working balance of self-assertion and social compassion -- then what else can and do we want?

Is it worth our while to drag each other into the mud claiming that 'my view of God is right and your view of God is wrong'? Too much religious righteousness, narcissism -- and especially militancy -- will take us all right to 'Hell on earth' -- if not to that mythological and metaphysical place we call 'Hell' in the bowels of the earth.

Put another way, the more pre-occupied we become with drawing our epistemological and moral-ethical values so tight and conservative, so righteous and anal-retentive, so focused on the 'Either/Or', 'Heaven and Hell', divisive, intolerant, angry, hateful, and militant syndrome -- to the point where ourselves and others can barely breath and function without doing something 'religously wrong' (and/or hypocritically hiding our own 'sins' from others), the more self and socially dysfunctional this type of religion is going to become.

This type of vision does not promote 'the oil of human kindness, unity, integration, and harmony'. Rather, it promotes wars between individuals, between cultures and sub-cultures, between religions and sub-religions, between nations and parts of nations...

Conclusion: Judge not a person's view of God by your perception of its 'epistemological correctness'. Rather, judge it by its system of a balanced network of self-assertive and socially compassionate values -- projected metaphysicallly and mythologically into an 'all-encompasing idealistic view and vision of 'God' -- and then 're-owned' or 'assimilated' back into our personality in a way that suits us, fits for us, and makes us better people to live with, both within ourselves and outside of ourselves towrds all the people we need to share the Earth with cohesively; not fight and kill each other over it like Hobbes and Schopenhauer knew what they were writing about (which unfortunately, they at least partly did), or like we are all participants in William Golding's 'Lord of The Flies', 1954 (which it seems like we at least partly are).

-- dgb, June 10th, 2008, modified June 15th, 2008.

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

From Wikipedia...

Lord of the Flies is an allegorical novel by Nobel Prize-winning author William Golding. It discusses how culture created by man fails, using as an example a group of British school-boys stuck on a deserted island who try to govern themselves with disastrous results. Its stances on the already controversial subjects of human nature and individual welfare versus the common good earned it position 70 on the American Library Association's list of the 100 most frequently challenged Books of 1990–2000.[1] The novel was chosen by TIME magazine as one of the 100 best English-language novels from 1923 to the present.[2]

Published in 1954, Lord of the Flies was Golding's first novel, and although it was not a great success at the time — selling fewer than three thousand copies in the United States during 1955 before going out of print — it soon went on to become a bestseller, and by the early 1960s was required reading in many schools and colleges. It was adapted to film in 1963 by Peter Brook, and again in 1990 by Harry Hook (see "Film adaptations").

The title is said to be a reference to the Hebrew name Beelzebub (בעל זבוב, Ba'al-zvuv, "god of the fly", "host of the fly" or literally "Lord of Flies"), a name sometimes used as a synonym for Satan.[3]

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

On 'PCS' Disease...

2008-06-03T05:21:00.000-07:00

When you find yourself sinking into 'PCS Disease' (Pessimism-Cynicism-Sarcasm) -- (the main symptom being a 'hanging on pitbull bite' caused by not being more contactful and immediate with your assertive-I-you-aggression) -- give your head a shake and either come out directly, concretely, and honestly with your aggression so you can ideally negotiate and move on in a more positive direction with the person who is disturbing you, while at the same time getting some important 'closure' on the issue so that you don't 'transfer' it 'associatively' to the whole world, and/or close the issue yourself -- with yourself -- show some leadership, and don't poison the whole world with your poisonous, negative attitude... -- dgb, June 3rd, 2008

On Intelligent Design Theory...and Dandelions....

2008-06-01T17:38:00.000-07:00

Part of me would like to investigate further the the evolution and the reproduction of the dandelion. How does the evolution of the dandelion compare and contrast with the evolution of man? I read below that dandelions reproduce -- 'asexually' -- with loads and loads of seeds that do not need to be pollinated. That would maybe explain the nightmare in my backyard. The little terrors are amazing -- and actually not at all 'little' in my backyard, even worse in my neigbors.

They're huge. I uprooted what seemed like about a thousand of them in my backyeard a week or two ago and there were what seemed like a hundred more there today. Fresh ones! Maybe I missed a few from my last dual with them. I don't like the weedkiller my girlfriend got. Chemicals that may not be too friendly to the surrounding wildlife on my hill bordering the ravine/swamp of one portion of the Oakrides Morraine.

It's been probably over 40 years since the last time I seriously tried to dig up dandelions when i was about 10 and living on Greengrove, Toronto. Nothing seems to me to have changed much. There seem to be a few technological advances -- one that you press down with your foot and the weed comes up. Want to get the roots but I am tearing up the lawn in the process. Today I was using a little hand hoe -- dont' know what it's called but it kills the back after a while... Millions of dandelions with seeds on my neighbors back yard -- laughing at me -- just waiting to blow over onto my yard as soon as i go inside. I got the go-ahead to take charge of cutting my neighbor's grass as well. A formidable job indeed -- with I think I said millions of dandelions over there fresh with new seeds...laughing at me...

Who has the nerve to say that there wasn't/isn't an 'intelligent designer' behind this lawn nightmare we call a 'dandelion'...The same one I am using as a supplement to help improve bile production and the functioning of my liver...

-- dgb, June 1st, 2008.

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

From the internet, Wikipedia...

The common name Dandelion is given to members of the genus Taraxacum, a large genus of flowering plants in the family Asteraceae. In the Asteraceae (formerly Compositae) the "flowers" are morphologically a composite flower head consisting of many tiny flowers called florets. Dandelions are native to Europe and Asia and have been widely introduced elsewhere. Many Taraxacum species produce seeds asexually by apomixis, where the seeds are produced without pollination, resulting in offspring that are genetically identical to the parent plant.[1]

More On Fool's Gold -- And 'Promisary Notes'...

2008-06-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

Promise less -- and deliver more. The world is full of promises not kept -- fool's gold. People catch on to empty promises -- and your integrity and/or the integrity of your business sinks. As they are saying on school billboards these days -- 'Charmacter matters' -- and 'integrity' is an important component of character. I work in the taxi business dispatching taxis and from experience I can say: You can have all the computers in the world, you can spend millions of dollars on 'taxi software', but if you can't deliver a taxi to a person's dooer in 10-12 minutes, then your business nothing. Faster taxi cab services will take your business away and you are left sitting with a million dollar tab -- and less and less taxi drivers to go hand in hand with less and less business. Again, it's not rocket science -- simply a matter of whether you can deliver the goods and/or services to a customer in a good, timely fashion. If you can't, you're out of business.

-- dgb, June 1st, 2008.

To Be Inspired -- And Inspiring...

2008-05-28T16:37:00.000-07:00

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...)

2008-05-28T15:19:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-27T20:01:00.000-07:00

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....

2008-05-26T16:54:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-25T15:03:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-05-25T12:22:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-05-25T11:37:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-05-25T11:35:00.000-07:00

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'....

2008-05-21T16:15:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-21T16:11:00.000-07:00

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...

2008-05-21T15:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-21T15:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-18T03:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-17T05:30:00.000-07:00

(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)

2008-05-14T15:12:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-05-11T06:35:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-11T06:33:00.000-07:00

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

On Creating Essays

2008-05-06T18:39:00.000-07:00

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)

2008-05-04T15:45:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-04T14:59:00.000-07:00

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.

On Blogsite Writing and The 'Architecture' of Hegel's Hotel

2008-04-27T06:30:00.000-07:00

Hegel's Hotel is about life -- and about man's relationship to his world, his culture, and to his/or her self. Thus, there is no such thing as a 'false direction' or a 'side-track' because every potential direction has the potential to be meaningful. It's just a matter of timing -- and the evolution of the writer/reader, teacher/student dialectic -- between you and me.

It is this evolving dialectic that will tell us what is best to write about -- not some righteous, anal-retentive, pre-planned agenda that doesn't fit with our mutal ongoing dialectic.

The 'Table of Contents' of Hegel's Hotel can -- and will -- be changed a hundred times before it is finished. It is not this that determines the particular direction and timing of Hegel's Hotel except in some broad, general -- always subject to change -- manner.

Rather, it is the teaching/learning dialectic between me as writer and you as reader with even our so-called 'roles' changing as you give feedback and I listen, or you write and I read -- that will determine the direction -- and particularly the timing -- of 'which floor and which rooms are built first and last' -- in the building of Hegel's Hotel.

In this regard, it is a hundred times better to write to a 'concrete motivated, intelligent reader' who reads, reflects, and asks meaningful questions -- than it is to write to 'The All-Encompasing, Unknown Reader' who may know a lot about philosophy, a little, or none at all -- but any way you slice it -- is basically 'without existence', a 'blank screen' who has no lifeblood pulsating through his or her arteries, no reflections to build from, no feedback that I can engage with -- all so badly needed to push the dialectic forward, in a creative, meaningful manner and direction.

'Blogsite writing' has the potential to be a much more powerful form of teaching and learning than 'old style book writing' because it has the capability of being much more concrete and more immediate -- adapting to one reader, one dialectic -- and/or many.

It brings with it the lifeblood of fresh engagement -- and the ability to turn corners, and/or make new and creative adaptations, on the basis of this fresh engagement.

Blogsite writing brings with it the aliveness of the 'fresh gestalt' as determined by the ongoing, evolving, always subject-to-change, dialectic between writer and reader.

dgb, April 27th, 2008.