I come back to a point that I have made previously several times and will probably come back to at later points in time as well in different and similar ways: that it has been the history of Western man from the beginning of scientific thinking -- actually even before that to beginning of ancient Greek philosophy (Thales, Anaxamander, Anaxamenes, Heraclitus, Parmenides...) -- to Enlightenment thinking, to Capitalist thinking, to narcissistic thinking...to think 'reductionistically' , that is, to try to divide everything down to its lowest common denominator and also to divide and classify everything into different 'part-functions'.
The philosophers who attempt to 'divide everything into one lowest common denominator' have been given a name by the 'post-modernists' and the 'deconstructionists' -- these 'lowest common denominator' philosophers have been called 'Grand Narrative philosophers' as opposed to their opposites -- the above-mentioned post-modernists and deconstructionists who have no (professed) Grand Narrative other than to perhaps 'bring every Grand Narrative philosopher rhetorically and philosophically to his or her knees'... and the 'pluralist' philosophers who 'don't bite on this lowest common denominator carrot and who instead aim to philosophize about the complexity and pluralism of life...
Personally, I would like to think that I have taken Hegel's dialectic theory to a 'higher state of evolution' in that DGB Philosophy has aimed to compensate for, -- indeed has 'adjusted and made numerous philosophical modifications' -- to address the many criticisms that have been thrown by different philosophers and schools of philosophy -- Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Schelling, Marx, Nietzsche, the post-modernists, the deconstructionists the pluralists, the existentialists... -- in order to make DGB Post-Hegelian-Multi-Dialectic Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...a stronger version of Hegel's Dialectic Philosophy than the original, classic presentation...
In this regard, DGB Philosophy -- in extending, modifying, embellishing... -- the work of Hegel seeks to present a stronger Grand Narrative, a stronger version of 'Hegel's Hotel' than Hegel's original dialectic philosophy because it it more equipped to take on all comers -- come all ye deconstructionists, post-modernists, pluralists, existentialists, Capitalists, Socialists, Conservatives, Liberals... and make all of your criticisms -- but I think you will find that you can't, because all of you and your so-called 'anti-Hegelian' philosophies have simply been absorbed, encompassed, assimilated, and integrated into this growing, always evolving, Post-Hegelian, Multi-Dialectical, Humanistic-Existential philosophical rendition of Hegel's original dialectic presentation...
We come now to Sigmund Freud and the purpose of this little diatribe...
Freud was a scientist and a reductionist as well as being a brilliantly creative innovator in terms of the evolution of clinical psychology and the understanding of the human psyche (mind). In this regard, Freud had a whole mountain of always changing 'classification systems' that he incorporated into his always evolving rendition of the art and/or science that he started -- 'Psychoanalysis'.
In this regard as well, Freud was not immune to the dangers and potentially 'toxic side effects' of 'taking his/your own classification systems too seriously, too anal-retentively, too righteously -- and too narcissitically'. I have described this problem elsewhere under the concept of 'conceptual narcissism'. (See 'conceptual narcissism' .)
Life is always one step ahead -- or many steps ahead -- of all man-made classification systems. Life will always defeat all man-made attempts at classification systems because regardless of how hard man works and 'thinks' he has found 'the one and only, right classification system' -- life will always be there to have the last laugh, the last say, on all classification systems because: 1. classification systems are man-made abstraction and teaching devices that always miss some aspect of life that has been left behind; and 2. life is always changing, evolving, and 'creating new evolutionary integrative-phenomenological-existential hybrids that defy all old classification systems and demand the requirement for new ones to fit the new changing characteristics and features of life...
And so it is/was with Freud. Indeed, here is and was the paradox of Freud. (We are all full of dialectical tensions and paradoxes, including myself.)
On the one hand, Freud was a scientific-evolutionist. He was a scientist in the most positive sense of the word, in that he was continually adapting his conceptual theories to fit his new and changing experiential findings in his clinical practice. In some of his conceptual theories, he even used the clinical findings of other early pre-Psychoanalytic and/or Psychoanalytic co-workers or preceding philosophers (Breuer, Fliess, Paul Nacke, Havelock Ellis, Abrams, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and others...) to support his always evolving theories -- and classification systems...
But here is the kicker -- and I am not sure that I can't really blame Freud here because I am probably at least partly the same way -- once Freud had a particular clinical theory and classification system in place, he protected it like a pitbull, and often if not generally would not tolerate even mild deviations from a theme let alone significant ones. Adler, Jung, and a host of other Psychoanalytic thinkers all moved on to develop their own independent theories and classification systems when they could not reach any integrative solution to their differences with Freud and his theories...
We will talk about some of these major post-Freudian theories and classification systems at different points in time but for now let us focus on what I would consider to be some of the major turninging points, theories, and classification systems in the evolution of Psycholanalysis:
1. The Traumacy Theory (up to around 1895, 1896)
2. The Seduction Theory (1896)
3. Dream Theory, Libido Theory, Childhood Sexuality Theory, and Oedipal Theory (early 1900s)
4. Transference Theory (always changing from the end of 'Studies in Hysteria, 1895 to 'The Dynamics of the Transference', 1912, to 'Beyond the Pleasure Principle' and at', 1920...and perhaps even beyond this to roughly the end of his theorizing days, 'An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1940).
5. Narcissistic Theory (and its relationship to 'Libido' (Sexual) Theory, 'Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis', 1916-1917)
6. Death Instinct Theory, 'Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920)
7. Ego and Id Theory, 'The Ego and The Id' (1923).
Now, I've been spinning my wheels in this area for a while as I try to figure out just what it is I want to teach -- and how I want to teach it. I started out writing about 'classification systems' in this essay, and now I find myself struggling to work through just how exactly I want to classify my work in this area in order to best present it. Do I want to start from the top of personality structure and work down or do I want to start from the bottom of personality structure and work up. And how do I want to present my 'psychological influences' -- such as Freud, Adler, Jung, Berne, Fairbairn, Kohut, Fromm, and Perls. Do I want to write about their influences separately or do I want to integrate their influences into my work. Or both? And how does personality structure blend with personality dynamics?
Anyway, after asking myself all of these different but related types of questions, I came to the following structural conclusions that I could work from -- listed from top to bottom, that is, from most abstract to least abstract, and this is all highly debatable -- otherwise, there wouldn't be so many different schools of psychology. Indeed, as I look at the structure now, I see that both the top end and the bottom end of the structure are probably equally abstract -- we could start at either end, or both ends of the structure and meet in the middle. The concrete particularities lie in the behaviors and behavioral characteristics that they aim to describe.
This should be interesting whether I can successfully bring it all together into a coherent whole or not.
My DGB Psychology approach is entirely integrative and entirely post-Hegelian (menaing multi-dialectic) and entirely humanistic-existential -- all of these characteristics fit equally well to my particular approach to philosophy, politics, and everything else cultural, as well as psychology. I am sure that this structure will change as we move along, but here is our starting-point, our game-plan, and our template of DGB Personality Theory.
DGB Personality Theory
1. DGB Self-Actualization, Self-Alienation, and Self-Destruction Theory
2. DGB Toxification and Detoxification Theory
3. DGB Construction and Deconstruction Theory
4. DGB Creativity and Destruction Theory
5. DGB Dynamic Subconscious Theory
6. DGB Dreams, Mythology and 'God' (Religious) Theory
7. DGB Ego-State (Games) Theory
8. DGB Ego-State Dynamics
9. DGB Ego-State Structure
10.DGB Transference (Complex) Theory
11.DGB Transference Drive Theory
12.DGB Transference Fixation Theory
13.DGB Transference Relationship Theory
14.DGB Transference Encounter Theory
15.DGB Transference Memory Theory
16.DGB (Post-Adlerian) Lifestyle Theory
17.DGB Learning Theory
18.DGB Narcissistic Theory
19.DGB Narcissistic Drive Theory
20.DGB Narcissistic Fixation Theory
21.DGB Narcissistic Traumacy Theory
22.DGB Narcissistic Memory Theory
23.DGB Libido, Life and Death Energy Theory
24.DGB Multi-Bi-Polarity Theory
25.DGB Homeostatic Balance Theory
26.DGB Humanistic-Existential Theory
I look at this structure now and I see that it is definitely more Freudian in its structure than anything else. Freud is obviously the dominant influence here. But it is also definitely 'Post-Freudian'. It is Freud 'humanististically-existentialized' -- the scientific-determinsitic model is definitely out. And as I said above, there are definitely other influences included here: Adler, Berne, Jung, Perls, Fromm, the Cognitive and General Semanticists once we get into ego-epistemology theory, with the philosophical backdrop of influence of Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopehauer, and others...
Everything is wholistically connected. You can't decently understand one aspect of the dynamics of human behavior and the human personality without having at least a decent understanding of them all -- and how they interact with and play off each other.
I don't profess to be an experienced, practising clinical psychologist. I would call myself a 'hobby-psycho-theorist'. The main strengths of my ability as a 'psycho-theorist' are threefold: 1. my broad area of research; 2. my connecting or integrating abilities; and 3. my creative imagination.
These are the three main things we will be working with in my presentation about to come.
dgb, June 14th, 2008, modified June 16th, 2008.
