'Topologically' (or structurally) speaking -- and let us not forget that this is a 'conceptual-metaphysical' model that we are talking about here, not an empirically verifiable model like the model of a heart or liver or some other 'physical organ' --the first and third floors of the DGB model of the psyche are about as close to the Eric Berne 'structural-analysis' model as you are going to get. The 'four corner ego-states' are virtually identical -- only named a little differently: in Berne's model, they are called: 'The Nurturing Parent', 'The Controlling Parent', 'The Adaptive Child' and 'The Rebellious Child'; in my DGB model they are called: 'The Nurturing (Supportive, Encouraging) Topdog', 'The Righteous (Rejecting) Topdog', 'The Approval-Seeking (Co-Operative, Supportive) Underdog', and 'The Righteous-Rebellious Underdog'.
Power-relations is the name of the game here between two or more of the various ego-states -- between authority and co-operation, authority and rebellion, nurturing and co-operation, nurturing and rebellion, and/or some other mixture of the above. This is either a good or a bad thing -- or both -- depending on the content and dynamics of the particular ego-states involved.
The personality -- man's psychology -- is creatively built just like the body -- man's biology. The human mind/psyche is creatively built to achieve -- or at least to continually strive for, idealistically speaking -- homeostatic (dialectic/democratic) balance.
Both man's body and his/her psychology is creatively -- homeostatically, dialectically,and democratically -- built in terms 'multi-bi-polarites'. This is the physical -- and the psychological-philosophical -- mechanism for achieving -- or at least moving towards -- homeostatic/dialectic/democratic balance.
Besides power-relations which we will get into shortly, there is also the issue of sexuality. Freud started to get into this issue -- in particular, the issue of 'bi-sexuality in the personality' and then backed away. I will peruse through the Freud/Fliess letters and get back to you on what happened with Freud when I re-fresh my memory. Both before and after Freud, however, one can argue that others have contributed to the idea of -bi-sexuality in the personality from Plato and Chinese philosophy to today's present-day scientific knowledge that both sexes have both sexual hormones -- testosterone and estrogen -- at work in the body in different proportions depending both on the particular sex of the person and also the individual person.
The Chinese have worked with the 'yin' (femininity) and 'yang' (masculinity) concepts for thousands of years -- in biology and medicine, and in philosophy spilling over into psychology.
Let's go back to an example in biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine that is near and dear to my hear -- mainly because whether I am right or wrong will probably go a long way towards determining how long I have to live on this earth. Now I am not a doctor nor do I have anything close to a PHD in biology, physics, chemistry, and/or biochemistry -- so there is a very big 'caveat emptor' here -- I am speaking as an individual and philosopher here with a right to my own opinion; not as any type of 'medical expert' giving any kind of 'expert advice' to anyone who reads this. I believe that when it comes our own physical well-being, we are all responsible for ourselves and where and when we choose to get our 'expert advice' from. Again, I am only expressing an individual -- and a philosophical -- opinion here.
Call this 'fairytale biology and medicine' if you wish but the principle of 'homesotatstic balance' applies to both Western and Eastern medicine, and so too doe Hippocrites First Oath: 'First, do the patient no harm.' And the principle of 'yin' and 'yang' can be applied to the biology and biochemistry of the body -- with a certain amount of 'common sense' as long as we are very careful with our inferences, generalizations, and judgments, where they take us, and where they don't, and -- not to go 'haywire, overboard' with what we conclude. There is probably no such thing as too much medical education and advice but in the end we all have to be responsible for ourselves -- our choices, our actions, and which medical direction we choose to go.
The doctors conclusions on my liver were: 1. infection (of which hepatitis is probably the worst in the liver -- and this has been ruled out many times in my own praticular case); 2. a 'stone' blocking proper liver function; or 3. something more ominous (presumably like a 'tumor'). They gave me anti-biotics for a possible infection; two ERCPs looking for a stone blocking a liver duct or somewhere else on the passageway to my intestines; and 'pictures' (I think it was a couple of MRIs and maybe one set of Xrays). Next up was a 'liver biopsy' which was when I bailed...The operations were getting more and more invasive, I felt like i was improving on at least two occasions -- only to go 'crashing' into another relapse with another ERCP operation (this is where the particular surgeon goes looking for a stone). Of course, medical results pertaining to any type of operation are always open to debate and controversy as everyone throws in their two cents about what they think 'caused what'. I am no different and this is my interpretation, not the doctor's who would probably argue that the resultss were more favorable towards my improvement.
I saw myself going down the road of a 'Clint Eastwood' style of medicine -- first the biopsy and then God -- and the doctors -- only know what. It was not the road I wanted to go. I came to a possible 'fourth conclusion' -- that maybe I was simply dealing with an 'over-stressed, over-toxified' liver that need time, rest, relaxation -- and proper nutrition. No coffee, no alcohol, no debatable herbs, lots of fruits and veggies, soya milk, beet-veggie juice and chlorophyl from the health store, water, chicken noodle soup, very light on the meat -- and a focus on two herbs that all the 'natural health' literature said were good for the liver -- indeed, would help to 'regenerate' it and/or help to make it function better -- and that was 'milk thistle' and 'dandelion'.
From a 'yin'/'yang' perspective, the philosophy is simply this: if your liver is 'on fire', then common sense suggests that you may need to 'soothe it' with 'yin' (relaxing, soothing) foods such as: water, soya milk, chlorophyl, beet and tomato/veggie juice and the like; when your liver is 'comotose', not functioning properly -- or at all -- your yellow, jaundice, backed up with toxins that are going the wrong way in your body -- and ruling out any infection, stone blockage, and/or tumor -- then your liver may need some sort of 'yang-stimulant' like 'milk thistle', 'dandelion', 'ginger', a circulation enhancer that is not too aggressive, massage -- or something of this nature to bring the liver back into 'life and proper functioning again'. If the 'yellow' -- i.e., the 'jaundice' -- starts to 'retreat' in your body and your eyes, then you know that you are doing something right.
That was last August. For better or for worse, my body is normal color today, my eyes are white, not yellow, I'm back to working 50 to 57 hours a week as a dispatcher, my energy levels for the most part continue to improve -- not including a rather nasty flu virus that wouldn't let me go for the better part of a month or more but seems to be under control now...
To me that is the common sense of 'yin/yang' wholistic, homeostatic balance medicine -- of which I believe that Western medicine as a whole -- especially when it is 'narcissistically biased by money and trying to speed up therapy procedures' --does not always properly attend to. Western medicine -- when it is 'stuck' inside its 'Clint Eastwood...more guns, bombs, and ammunition is better' philosophy (kind of like Hillary Clinton when she went after Obama with 'everything including the kitchen sink, hoping that something would 'stick' -- and one or two things did).
It does no good if the infection, stone, and/or tumor is gone -- if the patient is 'gone' too.
The moral of this little story is that there is a need for both 'yin' (soothing, relaxing foods, herbs, and medicine, proper nutrition, etc...) and 'yang' medicine (stimulants and detoxification procedures...). Worded otherwise, there is a room for a delicate, homestatic balance in any type of medical and/or therapy process between 'constructionism' on the one hand (building new cells, re-generating life in the client/patient) and 'deconstructionism' on the other hand (clearing away toxins, pathogens, pollutants, etc.) Too much emphasis on the 'deconstructive' aspect of any type of medical and/or therapy procedure -- what I am calling the 'Clint Eastwood' approach to medicine -- and you may have a 'dead patient' on your hands because the delicate homeostatic balance between yin and yang, constructionism and deconstructionism, has been lost -- all 'deconstructionism' will eventually lead to a completely 'deconstructed patient' -- i.e., a dead one.
That's biology, bio-chemistry, and medicine. Now, let's come back to personality theory where the same rule of thumb applies. Conceptually, metaphysically, and topographically speaking, we have a 'yin' and a 'yang' topdog (the nurturing, supportive topdog -- the 'yin topdog' vs. the righteous, rejecting topdog -- the 'yang topdog' on the third floor of the personality -- both of which are basically 'introjected parental' ego-states (sterotypically speaking here, the 'yin' of the mother vs. the 'yang' of the father although everything can be completely different depending on the particular case. And we have the same on the first floor of the personality in terms of the 'yin' of the 'approval-seeking, co-operative underdog' vs. the 'yang' of the 'righteous, rebellious, rejecting underdog' -- both of which involve the 'compensatory' measures of 'adaptive, childhood ego-states'.
And that is where I will leave you today...
dgb, May 24th, 2008.
