This could be one of the most important essays that I write in Hegel's Hotel -- or at least the next series of essays. The next three or four essays are meant to encompass the 'core-essence' of Hegel's Hotel -- as we work towards a 'super-multi-dialectic-integrative' model of the human psyche.
Now one person's treasure can very easily be another person's trash. It is exactly what I want to do here that could easily infuriate a lot of 'psychology purists' -- the 'pitbull conceptual narcissisists', the 'anal-retentivists', the 'boundary protectors'...
What I wish to do is to is to take the essence of every school of psychology I have learned -- or partly learned -- over my some 20 years of studying -- or partly studying -- psychology (let us say 1972-1992). And put it in a big mixing machine (my integrative mind) and see what comes out...Before I do this I want to emphasize three points as an introduction to what is to follow.
1. It is only a model -- a metaphysical model. I don't view it as being 'epistemologically correct'. Epistemological correctness usually demands 'empirical validity' and this we cannot do when we are talking about mental processes inside the human mind -- or psyche. A surgeon can cut open my chest and visually view the 'existence' of my liver, how it is functioning, and how it is not functioning, what is healthy about it, and what is pathological about it.
We cannot do the same if I start talking about an 'ego-state' or a 'central mediating ego'. These -- if they exist at all -- are invisible to the naked eye. You couldn't even find an 'ego-state' with a microscope. Still you can 'infer' its existence by experiencing the behavior of many, many people -- the way a psychotherapist or clinical psychologist would do -- and seeing an assortment of similar ways in which different people behave and drawing some generalization-conclusions from these inferences. In court, they might call this 'circumstantial evidence' . The result is what might be called a 'metaphysical (above physics) construct'.
2. Metaphysical constructs involve the use of at least partly 'arbitrary boundaries' which can be expanded or reduced, or eliminated altogether -- at a moment's notice. Functional usefulness -- or pragmatism -- should be the main indicator of whether or not you have a useful metaphysical construct with good -- at least partly arbitrary -- conceptual boundaries. I say partly because partly because again these boundaries should be drawn up mainly on the principle of 'functionality'. Let's go back to the body as an example again -- and back to the liver again.
The liver has a whole host of different bodily functions to perform -- I couldn't come close to naming them all. Talk to a liver specialist and he could give you a much better educations on all of the different functions -- and dysfunctions of the liver. But for simple teaching purposes here, let us say that the liver has one main bodily function: 'detoxification'. Now the liver has physical empirical boundaries that could be traced with a pencil or a surgeon's knife; it is not made up of 'arbitrary, conceptual' boundaries -- like many a human concept is.
Livers are visible to the naked eye; concepts are invisible to the naked eye. But is there any of you out there who would disagree with me when I say that both 'livers' and 'concepts' -- 'exist'. They just exist in different ways. The first exists -- empirically; the second exists metaphysically.
However, having said this, science and courts of law tend to generally put more 'epistemological faith' into 'eye witness reports, and things or events that can be 'empirically validated' -- assuming they come from a credible witness -- than they do in 'metaphysical inferences, beliefs, and assumptions' that are not very solidly attached to eye witness reports and empirical validation. Epistemologically, scientifically, and legally speaking, physics is given more 'existential respect' than metaphysics. To extrapolate from a quote from Sartre -- 'Existence precedes essence' or 'Existence before essence' -- we can also say, epistemologically and scientifically speaking -- 'physics before metaphysics'.
Now what all are we including as 'metaphysics'? In DGB Philosopohy, an idea or concept is considered 'metaphysical' -- because it 'exists above phsics'. An idea cannot be seen with the naked eye -- nor a microsope nor a telescope. Thus, an idea -- from a DGB perspective -- is metaphysical.
Having said this, we can make a distinctions between 'extensional metaphysics' and 'intensional metaphysics'. Extensional metaphysics consist of ideas that can be empirically verified or validated -- such as a liver; 'intensional metaphysics' consist of ideas that cannot be empirically verified or validated -- such as 'God' or an 'ego-state' or a --'Rebellious-Deconstructive-Detoxification Ego'.
A deconstructive ego cannot be empirically verified or validated. However, its metaphysical existence can be argued for and supported on the basis of such things as: function, pragmatics, and logic. The 'boundaries' of a 'deconstructive ego' are not physical boundaries -- like a liver -- but rather, partly arbitrary, conceptual boundaries based partly on -- again, function, pragmatics, and logic.
What is the function of the liver? Detoxification of the body. What is the function of the deconstructive ego? Detoxification of the personality. Why would it not be perfectly logical for God and/or Nature to create man's personality, mind, and/or psyche -- metaphysically -- in the same image as He/She did man's body? Why would not 'The Wisdom of The Mind' be the same as 'The Wisdom of The Body' (W.B. Cannon, 1932.)?
Why would not the principle of 'homeostasis' or 'homeostatic balance' or 'dialectical balance' be the same ruling principle that governs the mind-psyche-personality just as much as it does the body? Freud (Psychoanalysis), Jung (Jungian Psychology), and Perls (Gestalt Therapy) all subscribed basically to the principle of homeostasis. So did Hegel even though Hegel was philosophizing about 125 years before Cannon created the term -- homeostasis.
Why would we not associate Hegel's 'dialectical logic' -- thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- with the principle of homeostasis? When you integrate one 'polar concept or polar phenomenon with another polar concept or polar phenomenon you get an integrative balance, a dialectical balance, and/or a homeostatic balance' -- ideally speaking at least.
Some concepts might not mix. Some phenomena might not mix. Some people might not mix. Ideally speaking, a man and a woman -- when they come together -- should create a homeostatic (dialectic) balance. Obviously, this is not going to happen with every man and woman, with every couple -- or with every couple over time due to the fact that many factors can sabotage a relationship that might have started out as a good homeostatic (dialectic) balance.
One can even dig much deeper into history -- into ancient Greece and ancient China to see that some of the earliest philosophers in recorded history (Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Confucious? and/or the Han Philosophers -- 'yin'/'yang'...) were playing around with and/or seriously developing the idea of homeostasis, homeostatic balance, and/or dialectic balance. This is not a new idea in the history of medicine (too much blood-sugar vs. not enough blood-sugar, high blood pressure vs. low blood pressure, too acidic vs. too alkaline, too much water vs. not enough water, too much food vs. not enough food, too much iron vs. not enough iron...) or the history of psychology (too much 'superego' vs. too much 'id', too critical vs. too pampering...)or the history of philosophy (too idealistic vs. too empirical...too rational vs. too romantic...)or the history of politics (liberal/conservative; Republican/Democrat...) or the history of law (the prosecution vs. the defense...)
The principle of homeostasis -- or homeostatic/dialectic balance -- governs every aspect of man's body, man's psyche, man's culture -- and even the natural environment, the ebb and flow of life, and the principle of 'ecological balance'.
Why would we not assume -- logically speaking -- that man's mind was created metaphysically the same way his body was created physically. With the principle of homeostasis as its governing force.
Life is 'multi-bi-polar' -- and so too is both man's body and man's psyche.
Thus, this is the number one governing principle of DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...
dgb, May 6th, 2008.
