1. Bi-Polarity (Multi-Bi-Polarity, Bi-Partisan Agreement, Opposite Polarities, Paradoxes...)
2. The Dialectic (The dialectic process, dialectic-democracy, dialectic negotiating, dialectic dancing, dialectic agreement, dialectic balance, dialectic-democratic balance)
3. Gods, Idols, and Archetypes
4. Anti-gods, villains, and demons
5. Ego-States
6. Gaps, Voids, Abysses, Chasms
7. Superior and Inferior Power Functions (Processes, Organs, Ego-states, Power Dialectics...)
8. Homeostatic Balance (Dialectic Balance, Dialectic-Democratic Balance, Homeostatic Balance Dialectics, Win-Win Dialectics...)
9. Projection
10 Introjection and Identification
11. Distinction (differentation) and Association
12. 'Loose' and 'tight' associations
13. 'Positive' and 'negative' stereotyping
14. Transference ('Positive' and 'negative' transferences, Transference Complexes, Transference Memories, Transference Scenes...)
15. Compensation (Compensatory attitudes, beliefs, values, behaviors, lifestyles, philosophies, transferences...)
16. Narcissism and Altruism
17. Truth and Sophism
18. Empiricism and Rationalism
19. Concreteness and Abrstraction ('Being grounded' and 'flying high with words and abstractions')
20. Classifying, labelling, 'negative labelling', confusing a 'negative label' with the 'reality of the situation and/or the person'.
21. Reductionism and wholism
-- dgb, Sept. 30th, 2008, updated October 1st, 2008.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
On The 'Flip-Side' of 'Flip-Flopping'...Obama vs. McCain
Both American political parties and presidential candidates have accused the other side of 'flip-flopping'. Flip-flopping is generally deemed to be a sign of philosophical -- and political -- lack of comittment. Or shall we say, often a matter of political expedience. Going with what the American people want to hear, and/or with what is working, and/or changing your political tune from one state to another, or from one audience to one audience, according to the wishes of the particular state or audience you are speaking to...
However, there is another side of 'flip-flopping' as well. Flip-flopping can be a side of 'humanistic, psychological, philosophical and political -- evolution and growth'.
In the world of psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, Gestalt Theray, and Psycho-Drama, these different schools of psychotherapy all use 'flip-flopping' as a form of 'bi-polar psychotherapy'.
Specifically, a person may be asked to 'dramatically role play one side of his personality (the Hegelian idea of 'thesis'), then dramatically role-play the opposite 'suppressed and/or potential' side of his or her personality (the Hegelian idea of 'anti-thesis') with the result of all this 'internal, back and forth, flip-flopping' -- from 'topdog' to 'underdog'and back again, or from 'Superego' to 'Id' and back again, or from 'Persona' to 'Shadow' and back again -- being the start of a more 'bi-polarity integrated' -- and healthier, more open-minded and broad-minded -- person.
Now, borrowing on this process from 'bi-polarity psychotherapy', can you imagine if, half way through the Presidential Debate last night between Obama and McCain, that the moderator had suddenly asked each candidate to 'switch places' or 'switch hats', and for Obama to argue the Republican line of campaign rhetoric, while McCain took up the Democratic line of campaign rhetoric?
Would this process have messed up the heads of both candidates? Would it have messed up the debate? Would it have messed up the audience?
Or would it perhaps have started America -- and both candidates and political parties -- towards a healthier potential political process? What I call a 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic Bi-Polar-Integrative Political Process'.
Personally, I am sick and tired of McCain and Obama -- and The Republican and Democratic Parties -- 'going at each other, head to head'. It is all about political posturing, political rhetoric, and political sophisms. It is all about 'either/or, right or wrong' politics, and distort the other's political position until you have completely negatively stereotyped and ridiculed it.. This is all wasted time and energy and does little to further the cause of democracy.
It's all about divide and split up America. Compartmentalize America by sending two polarized political parties -- like pitbulls -- at each other's respective throats. Both have important things to say. Both have the capability of adding to each other's perspective. Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis. And both parties have important, intelligent people working in their respective parties.
But the energy -- through two years of 'drag the other down' campaigning -- is all negative, divisional -- and largely non-productive. Government efficiency at its worst.
No wonder why we have so many different types of 'bi-polar pathologies'. People do not know how to integrate opposite perspectives. The whole American Political -- and Economic and Business and Scientific and Religious and Educational -- Process is about 'Polar Divisionism'. 'Divide and conquer'. Or maybe it should be better stated: 'Divide and self-destruct'. Lost in the process, is the 'wholism' of Spinoza, the 'polar unity and wholism' of Heraclitus, the bi-polarity psychotherapy of most schools of psychology, the post-Hegelian, post-Cannon, DGB biological-psychological-philosphical-political evolutionary concept of 'dialectic opposition engaging in a productive, constructive manner with each other, leading to polar unity and homeostatic balance'. Or call this simply 'bi-partisan politics if you will.
Specialization, compartmentalization and reductionism are nothing without -- Re-Unified Dialectical-Democratic Wholism.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of 'Divisionist, Either/Or; Right or Wrong' politics.
For one time in his 8 years of being in power, Bush finally got it right when he invited both Presidential Candidates into the 'Emergency Wall Street Bailout Meeting'. (I think McCain went there a little easier and got more involved than Obama. Political expedience and consequences are still playing a part in their respective behaviors.
Personally, I would prefer to see a united 'Republican-Democratic Party' working together for the good of America.
The best politicians and economists in America -- regardless of partisan political beliefs -- working together in the best board room in America aiming to get this economic nightmare and disaster on Wall Street fixed to the best of their combined abilities, and/or at least heading back in the right direction.
To be sure, one man -- or woman -- has to call the final shots.
And it is a horrible time for this Wall Street Disaster to happen -- less than six weeks away from the election. But Wall Street will not wait. Let's get a united bailout with conditions into effect almost immediately.
Gentlemen. Senator McCain and Senator Obama. We know your respective arguments. And we know your counter-arguments.
The real test is at the 'Wall Street Financial Negotiating Table'. Can either of you -- or ideally, both of you in conjunction with Bush and the other people at the table -- be able to get a deal done that will restore the confidence of Wall Street investors, not benefit unethical, greedy CEOs, and protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and homeowners in the same way that Wall Street Banking and Mortgage Institutions are being protected and kept alive when they would otherwise die and leave America in financial shambles.
Anyway, enough is enough. Enough of the political posturing, grand-standing and negative advertising. Let the real President stand up and stand out.
Let's elect a new American President and get on with the task of re-uniting America, striving for new heights in 'ethical idealism', work at reducing the national debt, improving the national health and education system, getting out of wars that are bankrupting the nation as soon as pragmatically possible, putting a lid on corporate lobbyism that should be illegal, definitely is unethical and undemocratic, and which basically continues to 'skewer the general American people' by catering to the special interests of the oil corporations and other corporate barons who's main interest is in winning government contracts, getting tax-breaks and government grants -- and narcissistically lining their own personal pockets, not serving the general interests of the American people as a whole.
Yes, American businesses need to be able to function in a political and economic environment that they can happily and healthily survive in. But the best of American politicians and business leaders need to both be setting an ethical example here that the American people can be proud of; not meeting in private rooms or dark alleys, making cash deals with each other, or getting $200,000 home renovations for free behind the backs of the American people. This is not what America -- and The American Dream -- is all about.
The American people want more. They demand more from their politicians and business leaders.
Washington and Wall Street -- get it together. Bush and Congress -- get it together. Obama and McCain -- get it together.
The whole world is watching -- and waiting.
-- dgb, Sat. September 27th, 2008.
However, there is another side of 'flip-flopping' as well. Flip-flopping can be a side of 'humanistic, psychological, philosophical and political -- evolution and growth'.
In the world of psychoanalysis, Jungian psychology, Gestalt Theray, and Psycho-Drama, these different schools of psychotherapy all use 'flip-flopping' as a form of 'bi-polar psychotherapy'.
Specifically, a person may be asked to 'dramatically role play one side of his personality (the Hegelian idea of 'thesis'), then dramatically role-play the opposite 'suppressed and/or potential' side of his or her personality (the Hegelian idea of 'anti-thesis') with the result of all this 'internal, back and forth, flip-flopping' -- from 'topdog' to 'underdog'and back again, or from 'Superego' to 'Id' and back again, or from 'Persona' to 'Shadow' and back again -- being the start of a more 'bi-polarity integrated' -- and healthier, more open-minded and broad-minded -- person.
Now, borrowing on this process from 'bi-polarity psychotherapy', can you imagine if, half way through the Presidential Debate last night between Obama and McCain, that the moderator had suddenly asked each candidate to 'switch places' or 'switch hats', and for Obama to argue the Republican line of campaign rhetoric, while McCain took up the Democratic line of campaign rhetoric?
Would this process have messed up the heads of both candidates? Would it have messed up the debate? Would it have messed up the audience?
Or would it perhaps have started America -- and both candidates and political parties -- towards a healthier potential political process? What I call a 'DGB Dialectic-Democratic Bi-Polar-Integrative Political Process'.
Personally, I am sick and tired of McCain and Obama -- and The Republican and Democratic Parties -- 'going at each other, head to head'. It is all about political posturing, political rhetoric, and political sophisms. It is all about 'either/or, right or wrong' politics, and distort the other's political position until you have completely negatively stereotyped and ridiculed it.. This is all wasted time and energy and does little to further the cause of democracy.
It's all about divide and split up America. Compartmentalize America by sending two polarized political parties -- like pitbulls -- at each other's respective throats. Both have important things to say. Both have the capability of adding to each other's perspective. Thesis. Anti-thesis. Synthesis. And both parties have important, intelligent people working in their respective parties.
But the energy -- through two years of 'drag the other down' campaigning -- is all negative, divisional -- and largely non-productive. Government efficiency at its worst.
No wonder why we have so many different types of 'bi-polar pathologies'. People do not know how to integrate opposite perspectives. The whole American Political -- and Economic and Business and Scientific and Religious and Educational -- Process is about 'Polar Divisionism'. 'Divide and conquer'. Or maybe it should be better stated: 'Divide and self-destruct'. Lost in the process, is the 'wholism' of Spinoza, the 'polar unity and wholism' of Heraclitus, the bi-polarity psychotherapy of most schools of psychology, the post-Hegelian, post-Cannon, DGB biological-psychological-philosphical-political evolutionary concept of 'dialectic opposition engaging in a productive, constructive manner with each other, leading to polar unity and homeostatic balance'. Or call this simply 'bi-partisan politics if you will.
Specialization, compartmentalization and reductionism are nothing without -- Re-Unified Dialectical-Democratic Wholism.
Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of 'Divisionist, Either/Or; Right or Wrong' politics.
For one time in his 8 years of being in power, Bush finally got it right when he invited both Presidential Candidates into the 'Emergency Wall Street Bailout Meeting'. (I think McCain went there a little easier and got more involved than Obama. Political expedience and consequences are still playing a part in their respective behaviors.
Personally, I would prefer to see a united 'Republican-Democratic Party' working together for the good of America.
The best politicians and economists in America -- regardless of partisan political beliefs -- working together in the best board room in America aiming to get this economic nightmare and disaster on Wall Street fixed to the best of their combined abilities, and/or at least heading back in the right direction.
To be sure, one man -- or woman -- has to call the final shots.
And it is a horrible time for this Wall Street Disaster to happen -- less than six weeks away from the election. But Wall Street will not wait. Let's get a united bailout with conditions into effect almost immediately.
Gentlemen. Senator McCain and Senator Obama. We know your respective arguments. And we know your counter-arguments.
The real test is at the 'Wall Street Financial Negotiating Table'. Can either of you -- or ideally, both of you in conjunction with Bush and the other people at the table -- be able to get a deal done that will restore the confidence of Wall Street investors, not benefit unethical, greedy CEOs, and protect the rights and interests of taxpayers and homeowners in the same way that Wall Street Banking and Mortgage Institutions are being protected and kept alive when they would otherwise die and leave America in financial shambles.
Anyway, enough is enough. Enough of the political posturing, grand-standing and negative advertising. Let the real President stand up and stand out.
Let's elect a new American President and get on with the task of re-uniting America, striving for new heights in 'ethical idealism', work at reducing the national debt, improving the national health and education system, getting out of wars that are bankrupting the nation as soon as pragmatically possible, putting a lid on corporate lobbyism that should be illegal, definitely is unethical and undemocratic, and which basically continues to 'skewer the general American people' by catering to the special interests of the oil corporations and other corporate barons who's main interest is in winning government contracts, getting tax-breaks and government grants -- and narcissistically lining their own personal pockets, not serving the general interests of the American people as a whole.
Yes, American businesses need to be able to function in a political and economic environment that they can happily and healthily survive in. But the best of American politicians and business leaders need to both be setting an ethical example here that the American people can be proud of; not meeting in private rooms or dark alleys, making cash deals with each other, or getting $200,000 home renovations for free behind the backs of the American people. This is not what America -- and The American Dream -- is all about.
The American people want more. They demand more from their politicians and business leaders.
Washington and Wall Street -- get it together. Bush and Congress -- get it together. Obama and McCain -- get it together.
The whole world is watching -- and waiting.
-- dgb, Sat. September 27th, 2008.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Evaluation and Health: Then (1979) and Now (2008), Part 1: Introduction
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Introduction
The issue of values and evaluation represents a crucial problem in regard to man's life. On the one hand, man is free to evaluate and respond to the situations he is confronted with in his day-to-day life as he or she pleases, but on the other hand, man is not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations and responses on his or her life and well-being.
A person's evaluations then, can be said to be 'effective' or 'functional' to the extent that they are life-serving -- that is, they work towards protecting and/or enhancing the person's health and happiness. Conversely, a person's evaluations can be said to be 'ineffective' and 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are life-negating -- that is, they work towards sabotaging the person's health and happiness.
........................................................................
Editorial Commments, dgb, 2008
In 1979, I was 24 years old. My main influence in the top two paragraphs was Nathaniel Branden and his book, 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem'. Nathaniel Branden was working very closely with Ayn Rand at the time, herself an avid Capitalist writer-philosopher in the Adam Smith mold. I had read Rand's famous book, 'The Fountainhead', 1943which I was smitten by, and breezed through in short order, so I was not unfamiliar with Ayn Rand. On top of both of these factors, my dad was an 'Adam Smith-Ayn Rand Capitalist' and he had introduced me to The Fountainhead -- so none of this stuff I was reading in The Psychology of Self-Esteem was really new to me; it was simply building on a philosophy that I already largely believed in -- Nathaniel Branden was writing to a sold believer in me, he was singing to the choir.
............................................................................
The Psychology of Self-Esteem*
This major psychological work presents a brilliant new concept of human nature, of mental health and illness, and of the conditions necessary for the achievement of mental well-being. Nathaniel Branden breaks radically with the mainstream of contemporary psychology, challenging and rejecting the basic premises of both psychoanalysis and behaviorism. his book is a revolutionary contribution to man's understanding of himself.
From the introduction to The Psychology of Self-Esteem
The central theme of this book is the role of self-esteem in man's life: the need of self-esteem, the nature of that need, the conditions of its fulfillment, the consequences of its frustration — and the impact of man's self-esteem (or lack of it) on his values, responses, and goals.
Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature of self-esteem, the reasons why man needs it, and the conditions he must satisfy if he is to achieve it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only vaguely, that there is a relationship between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that relationship, nor the causes of it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation, i.e. his behavior in the spheres of work, love, and human relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified the principles involved. Such are the issues with which this book deals.
If the science of psychology is to achieve an accurate portrait of man, it must, I submit, question and challenge many of the deepest premises prevalent in the field today — must break away from the anti-biological, anti-intellectual, automaton view of human nature that dominates contemporary theory. Neither the view of man as an instinct-manipulated puppet (psychoanalysis), nor the view of him as a stimulus-response machine (behaviorism), bears any resemblance to man the biological entity whom it is the task of psychology to study: the organism uniquely characterized by the power of conceptual thought, propositional speech, explicit reasoning and self-awareness.
This work serves as the theoretical foundation for much of Branden's later writings.
......................................................................
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. The book's title is a reference to Rand's statement that "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress".
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is a young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. He refuses to pander to the prevailing "architect by committee" taste in building design. Roark is a singular force that takes a stand against the establishment, and in his own unique way, prevails. The manuscript was rejected by twelve publishers before a young editor, Archibald Ogden, at the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house wired to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you." Despite generally negative early reviews from the contemporary media, the book gained a following by word of mouth and sold hundreds of thousands of copies, along with garnering critical acclaim over time.[citation needed] The Fountainhead was made into a Hollywood film in 1949, with Gary Cooper in the lead role of Howard Roark, and with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself.
......................................................................
More Editorial Comments, dgb, 2008
Having said what I just said in my editorial comments above, Erich Fromm had also become one of my 'philosopher-heros' back in the mid to 1970s. And Erich Fromm was a known post-Marxian humanistic philosopher. So without knowing it at the time, this was perhaps my first academic introduction to what we might call a 'dialectical split' -- two obviously very intelligent sets of men and women believing in two totally opposite philosophical points of view -- Capitalism vs. Socialism. I was left trying to walk down the middle and sort out the strengths and weaknesses of each respective philosophical system -- and then decide where this left me and my own particular philosophical viewpoint.
A second and a third dialectical split were also starting to crop up in my work with or without my awareness. The second was the dialectical split between 'freedom and determinism'. You can catch Branden talking about this dialectical -- and philosophical -- split in his introduction where he sees his own 'Psychology of Self-Esteem' approaching man's life and his philosophy from an entirely different angle than two of his philosophical-psychological competitors: 1. Psychoanalysis (and its theory of 'instinctual determinism'; and 2. Behaviorism (and its theory of 'external, social-conditioning determinism'). In contrast, Branden -- following partly in both Adam Smith's and Ayn Rand's philosophical footsteps, laid out a 'cognitive-free-will' philosophy-psychology of man.
So did/do I, in what was/is to come in 'Evaluation and Health', although today, I incorporate a strong Freudian and post-Freudian influence into my philosophical-pscyhological thinking.
At issue in Evaluation and Health -- although buried in my lack of knowledge and awareness at the time -- was the famous 'Kantian subjective-objective dialectical split' How do we know that what we believe to be true -- is true? This is the 50 million dollar epistemological question of the last 225 years in Western philosophy, going back to the epistemology of Emmanuel Kant in 'The Critique of Pure Reason', 1781, and longer even than that if you want to go back to the epistemology of John Locke, The Conduct of Understanding (published posthumously in 1706, John Locke, 1632-1704), and before that to Sir Francis Bacon, The Four Idols, 1620, or still even further back to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's Razor'...
................................................................
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
.......................................................
Final Editorial Comment, dgb, 2008
At stake in the famous 'subjective-objective' split is not only the epistemological issue of 'truth' and 'fact', but also the ethical-moral issue of 'value'.
How do you know or judge which is better: Capitalism or Socialism; religion or science, evolution or creation theory, conservatism or liberalism, Republicanism or Democratism, the Kantian moral imperative, or the Nietzschean Dionysian existential imperative?
Do we live every day as if it is our last -- or would that make our life too 'wild', too 'Dionysian', 'too existentially extreme', not properly factoring in the feelings of our loved ones? Is a life of 'existential balance' the better way to go, the better way to be?
'To be or not to be.' -- Shakespeare wrote that.
'How should I be. How do I want to be. How do I want to behave each and every day. Am I living the life I want to live? Or am I living a 'shadow' of the life I want to live.? God, can you divide my mind and my body into two different people -- call one the 'Apollonian David Bain, and the other the 'Dionysian David Bain' -- and I will live one life according to Kant's moral imperative, and the other life according to Nietzsche's Dionysian existential extremism -- and we can meet again after this life is over, in either Heaven and/or in Hell -- and take up the argument again. Then I will be able to make perhaps a better judgment based on my dual, dialectical experience.
Apollo and Dionysus went for a walk. They argued with each other, had a fight with each other, defied each other, defiled each other, both were strong -- but only one came back.' Who came back for you? Apollo or Dionysus? Or both partly beaten up but one, the smiling victor, the other, the grudging loser, still beating you up from the shadows? Who's the grudging loser -- Apollo raging righteously at you with guilt-trips from his corner in your personality? Or Dionysus and Nietzsche second-guessing you for not having 'made a move', or fully experienced a potential encounter, for in effect, having turned your back on life?
These are the types of questions that haunt me now...
These are the types of questions whose answers define you in your life, from moment to moment, day to day. They determine your personal history.
You are what you choose.
But, of course, that is me at 53, not 24. At 24, I was simply racing ahead on my cognitive-expistmological horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially come.
Let's go back to my 1979 'charging epistemologically idealistic horse'.
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008.
-- Erich Fromm
Introduction
The issue of values and evaluation represents a crucial problem in regard to man's life. On the one hand, man is free to evaluate and respond to the situations he is confronted with in his day-to-day life as he or she pleases, but on the other hand, man is not free from the very real consequences that these evaluations and responses on his or her life and well-being.
A person's evaluations then, can be said to be 'effective' or 'functional' to the extent that they are life-serving -- that is, they work towards protecting and/or enhancing the person's health and happiness. Conversely, a person's evaluations can be said to be 'ineffective' and 'dysfunctional' to the extent that they are life-negating -- that is, they work towards sabotaging the person's health and happiness.
........................................................................
Editorial Commments, dgb, 2008
In 1979, I was 24 years old. My main influence in the top two paragraphs was Nathaniel Branden and his book, 'The Psychology of Self-Esteem'. Nathaniel Branden was working very closely with Ayn Rand at the time, herself an avid Capitalist writer-philosopher in the Adam Smith mold. I had read Rand's famous book, 'The Fountainhead', 1943which I was smitten by, and breezed through in short order, so I was not unfamiliar with Ayn Rand. On top of both of these factors, my dad was an 'Adam Smith-Ayn Rand Capitalist' and he had introduced me to The Fountainhead -- so none of this stuff I was reading in The Psychology of Self-Esteem was really new to me; it was simply building on a philosophy that I already largely believed in -- Nathaniel Branden was writing to a sold believer in me, he was singing to the choir.
............................................................................
The Psychology of Self-Esteem*
This major psychological work presents a brilliant new concept of human nature, of mental health and illness, and of the conditions necessary for the achievement of mental well-being. Nathaniel Branden breaks radically with the mainstream of contemporary psychology, challenging and rejecting the basic premises of both psychoanalysis and behaviorism. his book is a revolutionary contribution to man's understanding of himself.
From the introduction to The Psychology of Self-Esteem
The central theme of this book is the role of self-esteem in man's life: the need of self-esteem, the nature of that need, the conditions of its fulfillment, the consequences of its frustration — and the impact of man's self-esteem (or lack of it) on his values, responses, and goals.
Virtually all psychologists recognize that man experiences a need of self-esteem. But what they have not identified is the nature of self-esteem, the reasons why man needs it, and the conditions he must satisfy if he is to achieve it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only vaguely, that there is a relationship between the degree of a man's self-esteem and the degree of his mental health. But they have not identified the nature of that relationship, nor the causes of it.
Virtually all psychologists recognize, if only dimly, that there is some relationship between the nature and degree of a man's self-esteem and his motivation, i.e. his behavior in the spheres of work, love, and human relationships. But they have not explained why, nor identified the principles involved. Such are the issues with which this book deals.
If the science of psychology is to achieve an accurate portrait of man, it must, I submit, question and challenge many of the deepest premises prevalent in the field today — must break away from the anti-biological, anti-intellectual, automaton view of human nature that dominates contemporary theory. Neither the view of man as an instinct-manipulated puppet (psychoanalysis), nor the view of him as a stimulus-response machine (behaviorism), bears any resemblance to man the biological entity whom it is the task of psychology to study: the organism uniquely characterized by the power of conceptual thought, propositional speech, explicit reasoning and self-awareness.
This work serves as the theoretical foundation for much of Branden's later writings.
......................................................................
The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand. It was Rand's first major literary success and its royalties and movie rights brought her fame and financial security. The book's title is a reference to Rand's statement that "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress".
The Fountainhead's protagonist, Howard Roark, is a young architect who chooses to struggle in obscurity rather than compromise his artistic and personal vision. He refuses to pander to the prevailing "architect by committee" taste in building design. Roark is a singular force that takes a stand against the establishment, and in his own unique way, prevails. The manuscript was rejected by twelve publishers before a young editor, Archibald Ogden, at the Bobbs-Merrill Company publishing house wired to the head office, "If this is not the book for you, then I am not the editor for you." Despite generally negative early reviews from the contemporary media, the book gained a following by word of mouth and sold hundreds of thousands of copies, along with garnering critical acclaim over time.[citation needed] The Fountainhead was made into a Hollywood film in 1949, with Gary Cooper in the lead role of Howard Roark, and with a screenplay by Ayn Rand herself.
......................................................................
More Editorial Comments, dgb, 2008
Having said what I just said in my editorial comments above, Erich Fromm had also become one of my 'philosopher-heros' back in the mid to 1970s. And Erich Fromm was a known post-Marxian humanistic philosopher. So without knowing it at the time, this was perhaps my first academic introduction to what we might call a 'dialectical split' -- two obviously very intelligent sets of men and women believing in two totally opposite philosophical points of view -- Capitalism vs. Socialism. I was left trying to walk down the middle and sort out the strengths and weaknesses of each respective philosophical system -- and then decide where this left me and my own particular philosophical viewpoint.
A second and a third dialectical split were also starting to crop up in my work with or without my awareness. The second was the dialectical split between 'freedom and determinism'. You can catch Branden talking about this dialectical -- and philosophical -- split in his introduction where he sees his own 'Psychology of Self-Esteem' approaching man's life and his philosophy from an entirely different angle than two of his philosophical-psychological competitors: 1. Psychoanalysis (and its theory of 'instinctual determinism'; and 2. Behaviorism (and its theory of 'external, social-conditioning determinism'). In contrast, Branden -- following partly in both Adam Smith's and Ayn Rand's philosophical footsteps, laid out a 'cognitive-free-will' philosophy-psychology of man.
So did/do I, in what was/is to come in 'Evaluation and Health', although today, I incorporate a strong Freudian and post-Freudian influence into my philosophical-pscyhological thinking.
At issue in Evaluation and Health -- although buried in my lack of knowledge and awareness at the time -- was the famous 'Kantian subjective-objective dialectical split' How do we know that what we believe to be true -- is true? This is the 50 million dollar epistemological question of the last 225 years in Western philosophy, going back to the epistemology of Emmanuel Kant in 'The Critique of Pure Reason', 1781, and longer even than that if you want to go back to the epistemology of John Locke, The Conduct of Understanding (published posthumously in 1706, John Locke, 1632-1704), and before that to Sir Francis Bacon, The Four Idols, 1620, or still even further back to William of Ockham, famous for 'Ockham's Razor'...
................................................................
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity".
This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific theories.
.......................................................
Final Editorial Comment, dgb, 2008
At stake in the famous 'subjective-objective' split is not only the epistemological issue of 'truth' and 'fact', but also the ethical-moral issue of 'value'.
How do you know or judge which is better: Capitalism or Socialism; religion or science, evolution or creation theory, conservatism or liberalism, Republicanism or Democratism, the Kantian moral imperative, or the Nietzschean Dionysian existential imperative?
Do we live every day as if it is our last -- or would that make our life too 'wild', too 'Dionysian', 'too existentially extreme', not properly factoring in the feelings of our loved ones? Is a life of 'existential balance' the better way to go, the better way to be?
'To be or not to be.' -- Shakespeare wrote that.
'How should I be. How do I want to be. How do I want to behave each and every day. Am I living the life I want to live? Or am I living a 'shadow' of the life I want to live.? God, can you divide my mind and my body into two different people -- call one the 'Apollonian David Bain, and the other the 'Dionysian David Bain' -- and I will live one life according to Kant's moral imperative, and the other life according to Nietzsche's Dionysian existential extremism -- and we can meet again after this life is over, in either Heaven and/or in Hell -- and take up the argument again. Then I will be able to make perhaps a better judgment based on my dual, dialectical experience.
Apollo and Dionysus went for a walk. They argued with each other, had a fight with each other, defied each other, defiled each other, both were strong -- but only one came back.' Who came back for you? Apollo or Dionysus? Or both partly beaten up but one, the smiling victor, the other, the grudging loser, still beating you up from the shadows? Who's the grudging loser -- Apollo raging righteously at you with guilt-trips from his corner in your personality? Or Dionysus and Nietzsche second-guessing you for not having 'made a move', or fully experienced a potential encounter, for in effect, having turned your back on life?
These are the types of questions that haunt me now...
These are the types of questions whose answers define you in your life, from moment to moment, day to day. They determine your personal history.
You are what you choose.
But, of course, that is me at 53, not 24. At 24, I was simply racing ahead on my cognitive-expistmological horse -- with just a hint of what was to dialectically and existentially come.
Let's go back to my 1979 'charging epistemologically idealistic horse'.
-- dgb, Sept. 13th, 2008, modified Sept. 15th, 2008.
The 'Bush-League' Republicans Have About as Much Diplomacy and Finesse in International Relations As a Bull In A China Shop
I'm not into starting or embellishing 'witchhunts' where the wrong man, woman, party, or people get nailed to the cross for something they don't, and/or didn't deserve. Indeed, I am soon going to write an essay on:
Negative Labels, Scapegoatism, and Witchhunts: Some Similarities Between The Salem Witchhunts, Nazism, McCarthyism -- And Any Type of Nationalism and/or 'Us Against Them' Mentality Out of Control
However, enough is enough. Before the George Bush-led Republicans are legally and officially pushed out of office, we could be in the middle of an even bigger Middle East disaster, if not World War 111.
Has anyone read what is happening in Pakistan right now? I included two articles on American forces invading Pakistan looking for Al Queda both above and below this essay. I shudder and shake my head. This is unbelievable.
Can you imagine what would happen if another country invaded America looking to kill terrorists? Where innocent Americans were killed in the 'crossfire' and/or 'coalateral damage'?
Where are the brains of the people working at the whitehouse? Who gave American soldiers the right to invade Pakistan? Again -- unilaterally! No consent from Pakistan? Of course not -- what leadership of what country would give America permission to kill their innocent civilians? Terrorists or no terrorists within the country. Again, no permission from the United Nations. No word from NATO. Just America going it alone -- regardless of what country and what people they blow up in the process!
With all due respect to 'America As A Whole' -- which is a critical distintion that needs to be made and which is where both the Reverend and Mrs. Obama got into serious trouble for not making this distinction: specifically, differentiating between 'the goodwill of the American people as a whole' who I want nothing but the best for as if I was an American myself, and this 'type of pathological Bush-led Republican leadership' that seems intent on starting up another war before they leave office. What greater disaster can they add to their legacy?
You don't think that telling the world that America wanted to plant missiles in Eastern Europe was just about as stupid as stupid can be! How do you think Russia and all those Eastern Europeon and Asian countries would feel about this? How would America like it if Russia told the world that they were going to plant some missiles in Cuba? Or in The Arctic above Canada which they were to claim was 'international territory'. How do you think Canadians would feel about this let alone Americans?
Did everyone one of The Republicans currently in the Whitehouse executive decision-making circles -- fail 'international relations and diplomacy'?
Does the George Bush-led Republicans believe that is absolutely immune to any and all forms of international law and justice?
This present Republican Party must have watched 'Dr. Strangelove' -- and taken it seriously; not as a satire on what could/can happen if the wrong person and/or group of people is in power.
Again, I shake my head in total disbelief!
Afghanastan was one thing -- America had the support of the world on this one as they pushed into Afghanastan looking for Al Queda -- and even the Taliban.
Iraq was a whole different matter. Sadaam Hussein was obviously a sociopathic leader -- but there are lots of those in the world, and nobody to my knowledge, every connected Sadaam Hussein to 9/11. Nor any 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadaam was intent on letting off at a moment's notice. Sure, he might have done it if he had the capability -- but false 'war propoganda' as it would seem now was being used to connect Sadaam to capabilities that he did not have.
And besides, the hunt was supposed to be for Bin Laden. Again, the world was all in support of America hunting down Bin Laden. Surround him, contain him, prevent he and his men from escaping into Pakistan -- this would have to be lesson 101 in any military and/or SWAT training manuel.
And yet, Bin Laden and his men escaped into Pakistan! What kind of military stupidity was this?
Not only that -- but even worse -- America split its military into two fronts! Now they were invading Iraq! Bin Laden was all but forgotten. American troops were barely even chasing him anymore! Their main focus became Iraq and Sadaam Hussein! How in the heck do you explain this? To the American people, let alone the world?
Here's what you do: you feed them false 'war propoganda' exaggerating both Sadaam's connection with Al Queda, and his capability in Iraq for 'creating mass destruction' in enemy countries -- mainly America -- where he didn't even have the missile capability of flying and closing the distance that separated Iraq -- and a lot of ocean -- from America.
But the CIA had 'pictures'. Remember that! Fear-mongering -- that's what this was. If you want to start a war, just convince the people of your nation that you are about to be attacked! Then it becomes: 'Pro-active, pre-emptive, self-defense'! How many judges and juries have heard that line a million times? I killed the man, Your Honor, because I thought he was going to kill me. So I killed him first! 'Pro-active, pre-emptive self-defense'! Never mind that the man I killed didn't have a weapon to kill me. He just looked like he wanted to kill me. It's my thoughts that count, even if they turn out to be totally empirically unsupported, and most of you might therefore believe them to be untrue. But I knew -- and still know -- better. I was totally justified in what I did. We live in a dangerous world, you know. It's 'Lord of The Flies'. It's 'Darwinian Survival of The Fittest'. It's 'kill or be killed'.
How many judges and juries would believe that line of reasoning.
Let's put it this way -- very succinctly: The American People and The World as A Whole were 'bamboozled' by a bunch of Republican 'sophists' who couldn't have done a better job if they were 'stereotyped used car salesman'.
It destroyed Tony Blair's political career and left him with a legacy that will be almost as bad as Bush's for the one blunderous move that they both made at the same time, hand in hand: invading Iraq -- particularly without the consent of The United Nations and an 'epistemological justification' that would turn out to be totally false, if not fabricated.
And in doing so -- again, hand in hand while they thumbed up their respective noses at The United Nations and The World as A Whole -- it destroyed both of the respective economies of the countries they were supposed to be leading: America's and Great Britain's. Not to mention destroying the international relations reputation that both countries held in the world before this collosal foreign relations and economic blunder.
The soon-to-be, McCain-led Republican Party doesn't get it either. They keep differentiating themselves from Bush. Tell the American people how they are going to ride in on their 'dual white horses' -- the totally legitimate and respected war hero on the one horse who still doesn't seem to understand that 'for every enemy you kill, 'crossfire and colateral damage' is likely to create ten more; and the barracuda or pitbull with lipstick on calls herself a 'pro-lifer', seems to enjoy and support recreational hunting -- even aerial hunting -- has no problem 'not blinking' as she sends -- what is it? -- one or two sons off to war, side by side with the war hero, not a whisper or a word of protest from either of their respective mouths as now Pakistan is being invaded for a job George Bush didn't do right in the first place: specifically, find and either bring in or kill Bin Laden -- and we are suppose to believe that both the 'old and the 'new' Republican are 'pro-lifers'.
That would be hysterically funny -- if it was not so sickening.
How many more countries does America need to invade in the name of 'pro-active, pre-emptive, justice, freedom, democracy, God, and country -- before we all take one gigantic step back and say to ourselves,
'Maybe Madonna -- and the Nazi imagery that she showed at her concert -- wasn't so stupid and grossly out in left field after all.'
Isn't it time that somebody got their head back on straight? And if the Republican Party can't do it -- which it certainly looks that way to me -- then, how many people have to die, how many new war fronts have to be opened up -- Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, North Korea? -- before the American people get it right and get Obama and The Democrats back in power.
Does America want an America that the rest of the world hates? Or does America -- the civilian America I am talking about now -- want a party that is looking to try to restore peace and decent good will and harmony in the world rather than going into countries, 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry' style -- 'with all guns ablazin'. 'Shoot first, and ask questions later? Oops, we got it wrong. We killed 20 of your civilians? Sorry. 200 of your civilians? Oops. Sorry again. 2000 of your civilians? Sorry, again. It's in the name of international peace and justice. We need to get to any Al Queda and Taliban that we let flee into Pakistan. We don't trust you, my Pakistanian allies. Stand by and let the American army come in and finish the job. 2,000,000 of your civilians? Well, it was justified in the name of democracy, God -- an the evil of world terrorism.
Let's get this one point fully established right now. 'Ethically' and 'morally' there is a place for religion to state its beliefs and causes to both civilian audiences and governments and/or political parties alike. They are a part of any democracy too.
However, number 1; there is no place for 'lobbying' votes for the 'hypocrisy of a pro-life political stance' when now another country has been 'invaded' without anyone even 'declaring war' on that country -- with no United Nations involved and no 'NATO' involved -- just American, no correction, read, Republican arrogance and unilateralism and their belief in the immunity of the American leaders to any form of international court of law or justice -- and once again, innocent people are dead, with no one, I repeat, absolutely no one, claiming accountability and responsibility for this new invasion into a new country, with these new innocent people dying, not to mention that we could have another full-blown war on our hands before we -- correction again, you my American friends -- finally send these war-mongering, Bush-led Republicans packing.
And number 2; there is absolutely NO place in any democratic government for any 'epistemological claims' involving God, nor any 'war-supporting' claims involving God. This is all political sophistry designed to deceive the unsure, the unconvinced, and/or the unwilling.
With all due respect, there is no place in the White House decision-making process for God. Just as Muslim extremists are killing in the name of God, so too are Republican extremists.
Case closed.
Personally, I will take my chances with Obama.
He is the only leader in this election campaigning in the name of 'differential unity' and 'integrationism'. With The Republians its all about 'divisionism'. It's all about 'either/or'. It's all about Nationalism. It's all about Patriotism. It's all about 'not blinking'. (As she sat there blinking about 50 times a minute.) Send your child to war -- and don't blink. Be a 'real' man or a 'real' woman. Shoot up testosterone. Be a Republican. Be a pitbull or a barracuda with lipstick on.
I could keep going. I could say more.
But I think I've said much, much more than enough for one night.
I couldn't help myself. Quite frankly, in the name of democracy, I am disgusted with the present Republican American leadership. And 'the wanna-be-next' Republican American leadership. You can 'wrap up an old fish in new paper. But it's still going to stink. Right now, I would say that both these Republican leaderships -- 'stink'. (I won't use the other Obama analogy just in case it is misinterpreted -- and I am called 'sexist'.)
The direction out of a bankrupt economy is the same direction as the direction out of Iraq. And out of Pakistan. Out of war.
There is only one party in America that seems seriously interested in doing that.
And I don't think I have to tell you any more which party that is.
Goodnight.
-- dgb, Sept. 16th, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 3:09 PM 0 comments
Negative Labels, Scapegoatism, and Witchhunts: Some Similarities Between The Salem Witchhunts, Nazism, McCarthyism -- And Any Type of Nationalism and/or 'Us Against Them' Mentality Out of Control
However, enough is enough. Before the George Bush-led Republicans are legally and officially pushed out of office, we could be in the middle of an even bigger Middle East disaster, if not World War 111.
Has anyone read what is happening in Pakistan right now? I included two articles on American forces invading Pakistan looking for Al Queda both above and below this essay. I shudder and shake my head. This is unbelievable.
Can you imagine what would happen if another country invaded America looking to kill terrorists? Where innocent Americans were killed in the 'crossfire' and/or 'coalateral damage'?
Where are the brains of the people working at the whitehouse? Who gave American soldiers the right to invade Pakistan? Again -- unilaterally! No consent from Pakistan? Of course not -- what leadership of what country would give America permission to kill their innocent civilians? Terrorists or no terrorists within the country. Again, no permission from the United Nations. No word from NATO. Just America going it alone -- regardless of what country and what people they blow up in the process!
With all due respect to 'America As A Whole' -- which is a critical distintion that needs to be made and which is where both the Reverend and Mrs. Obama got into serious trouble for not making this distinction: specifically, differentiating between 'the goodwill of the American people as a whole' who I want nothing but the best for as if I was an American myself, and this 'type of pathological Bush-led Republican leadership' that seems intent on starting up another war before they leave office. What greater disaster can they add to their legacy?
You don't think that telling the world that America wanted to plant missiles in Eastern Europe was just about as stupid as stupid can be! How do you think Russia and all those Eastern Europeon and Asian countries would feel about this? How would America like it if Russia told the world that they were going to plant some missiles in Cuba? Or in The Arctic above Canada which they were to claim was 'international territory'. How do you think Canadians would feel about this let alone Americans?
Did everyone one of The Republicans currently in the Whitehouse executive decision-making circles -- fail 'international relations and diplomacy'?
Does the George Bush-led Republicans believe that is absolutely immune to any and all forms of international law and justice?
This present Republican Party must have watched 'Dr. Strangelove' -- and taken it seriously; not as a satire on what could/can happen if the wrong person and/or group of people is in power.
Again, I shake my head in total disbelief!
Afghanastan was one thing -- America had the support of the world on this one as they pushed into Afghanastan looking for Al Queda -- and even the Taliban.
Iraq was a whole different matter. Sadaam Hussein was obviously a sociopathic leader -- but there are lots of those in the world, and nobody to my knowledge, every connected Sadaam Hussein to 9/11. Nor any 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadaam was intent on letting off at a moment's notice. Sure, he might have done it if he had the capability -- but false 'war propoganda' as it would seem now was being used to connect Sadaam to capabilities that he did not have.
And besides, the hunt was supposed to be for Bin Laden. Again, the world was all in support of America hunting down Bin Laden. Surround him, contain him, prevent he and his men from escaping into Pakistan -- this would have to be lesson 101 in any military and/or SWAT training manuel.
And yet, Bin Laden and his men escaped into Pakistan! What kind of military stupidity was this?
Not only that -- but even worse -- America split its military into two fronts! Now they were invading Iraq! Bin Laden was all but forgotten. American troops were barely even chasing him anymore! Their main focus became Iraq and Sadaam Hussein! How in the heck do you explain this? To the American people, let alone the world?
Here's what you do: you feed them false 'war propoganda' exaggerating both Sadaam's connection with Al Queda, and his capability in Iraq for 'creating mass destruction' in enemy countries -- mainly America -- where he didn't even have the missile capability of flying and closing the distance that separated Iraq -- and a lot of ocean -- from America.
But the CIA had 'pictures'. Remember that! Fear-mongering -- that's what this was. If you want to start a war, just convince the people of your nation that you are about to be attacked! Then it becomes: 'Pro-active, pre-emptive, self-defense'! How many judges and juries have heard that line a million times? I killed the man, Your Honor, because I thought he was going to kill me. So I killed him first! 'Pro-active, pre-emptive self-defense'! Never mind that the man I killed didn't have a weapon to kill me. He just looked like he wanted to kill me. It's my thoughts that count, even if they turn out to be totally empirically unsupported, and most of you might therefore believe them to be untrue. But I knew -- and still know -- better. I was totally justified in what I did. We live in a dangerous world, you know. It's 'Lord of The Flies'. It's 'Darwinian Survival of The Fittest'. It's 'kill or be killed'.
How many judges and juries would believe that line of reasoning.
Let's put it this way -- very succinctly: The American People and The World as A Whole were 'bamboozled' by a bunch of Republican 'sophists' who couldn't have done a better job if they were 'stereotyped used car salesman'.
It destroyed Tony Blair's political career and left him with a legacy that will be almost as bad as Bush's for the one blunderous move that they both made at the same time, hand in hand: invading Iraq -- particularly without the consent of The United Nations and an 'epistemological justification' that would turn out to be totally false, if not fabricated.
And in doing so -- again, hand in hand while they thumbed up their respective noses at The United Nations and The World as A Whole -- it destroyed both of the respective economies of the countries they were supposed to be leading: America's and Great Britain's. Not to mention destroying the international relations reputation that both countries held in the world before this collosal foreign relations and economic blunder.
The soon-to-be, McCain-led Republican Party doesn't get it either. They keep differentiating themselves from Bush. Tell the American people how they are going to ride in on their 'dual white horses' -- the totally legitimate and respected war hero on the one horse who still doesn't seem to understand that 'for every enemy you kill, 'crossfire and colateral damage' is likely to create ten more; and the barracuda or pitbull with lipstick on calls herself a 'pro-lifer', seems to enjoy and support recreational hunting -- even aerial hunting -- has no problem 'not blinking' as she sends -- what is it? -- one or two sons off to war, side by side with the war hero, not a whisper or a word of protest from either of their respective mouths as now Pakistan is being invaded for a job George Bush didn't do right in the first place: specifically, find and either bring in or kill Bin Laden -- and we are suppose to believe that both the 'old and the 'new' Republican are 'pro-lifers'.
That would be hysterically funny -- if it was not so sickening.
How many more countries does America need to invade in the name of 'pro-active, pre-emptive, justice, freedom, democracy, God, and country -- before we all take one gigantic step back and say to ourselves,
'Maybe Madonna -- and the Nazi imagery that she showed at her concert -- wasn't so stupid and grossly out in left field after all.'
Isn't it time that somebody got their head back on straight? And if the Republican Party can't do it -- which it certainly looks that way to me -- then, how many people have to die, how many new war fronts have to be opened up -- Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, North Korea? -- before the American people get it right and get Obama and The Democrats back in power.
Does America want an America that the rest of the world hates? Or does America -- the civilian America I am talking about now -- want a party that is looking to try to restore peace and decent good will and harmony in the world rather than going into countries, 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry' style -- 'with all guns ablazin'. 'Shoot first, and ask questions later? Oops, we got it wrong. We killed 20 of your civilians? Sorry. 200 of your civilians? Oops. Sorry again. 2000 of your civilians? Sorry, again. It's in the name of international peace and justice. We need to get to any Al Queda and Taliban that we let flee into Pakistan. We don't trust you, my Pakistanian allies. Stand by and let the American army come in and finish the job. 2,000,000 of your civilians? Well, it was justified in the name of democracy, God -- an the evil of world terrorism.
Let's get this one point fully established right now. 'Ethically' and 'morally' there is a place for religion to state its beliefs and causes to both civilian audiences and governments and/or political parties alike. They are a part of any democracy too.
However, number 1; there is no place for 'lobbying' votes for the 'hypocrisy of a pro-life political stance' when now another country has been 'invaded' without anyone even 'declaring war' on that country -- with no United Nations involved and no 'NATO' involved -- just American, no correction, read, Republican arrogance and unilateralism and their belief in the immunity of the American leaders to any form of international court of law or justice -- and once again, innocent people are dead, with no one, I repeat, absolutely no one, claiming accountability and responsibility for this new invasion into a new country, with these new innocent people dying, not to mention that we could have another full-blown war on our hands before we -- correction again, you my American friends -- finally send these war-mongering, Bush-led Republicans packing.
And number 2; there is absolutely NO place in any democratic government for any 'epistemological claims' involving God, nor any 'war-supporting' claims involving God. This is all political sophistry designed to deceive the unsure, the unconvinced, and/or the unwilling.
With all due respect, there is no place in the White House decision-making process for God. Just as Muslim extremists are killing in the name of God, so too are Republican extremists.
Case closed.
Personally, I will take my chances with Obama.
He is the only leader in this election campaigning in the name of 'differential unity' and 'integrationism'. With The Republians its all about 'divisionism'. It's all about 'either/or'. It's all about Nationalism. It's all about Patriotism. It's all about 'not blinking'. (As she sat there blinking about 50 times a minute.) Send your child to war -- and don't blink. Be a 'real' man or a 'real' woman. Shoot up testosterone. Be a Republican. Be a pitbull or a barracuda with lipstick on.
I could keep going. I could say more.
But I think I've said much, much more than enough for one night.
I couldn't help myself. Quite frankly, in the name of democracy, I am disgusted with the present Republican American leadership. And 'the wanna-be-next' Republican American leadership. You can 'wrap up an old fish in new paper. But it's still going to stink. Right now, I would say that both these Republican leaderships -- 'stink'. (I won't use the other Obama analogy just in case it is misinterpreted -- and I am called 'sexist'.)
The direction out of a bankrupt economy is the same direction as the direction out of Iraq. And out of Pakistan. Out of war.
There is only one party in America that seems seriously interested in doing that.
And I don't think I have to tell you any more which party that is.
Goodnight.
-- dgb, Sept. 16th, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 3:09 PM 0 comments
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
The impetus for this paper -- and what will likely become a series of papers -- came out of my Sept. 6th, 2008 preface to my 1979 Honors Thesis in psychology called -- 'Evaluation and Health'.
Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:
..............................................
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).
The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.
............................................................................
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.
We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though The Republican Party too is divided).
Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...
Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.
In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.
It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.
And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'
It is a 'Clint Eastwood (the 'stereotyped tough guy' actor although even he had compassion)/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'
This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...
If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...
Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...
Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...
Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...
Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...(wasn't Jesus Christ 'only' a 'community worker'), how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...
Sarah Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani, whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.
And again, before we leave you, Mr. Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there is at least one major difference between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- that is not about 'sharp, macho barbs and testosterone'.
Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immune from criticism yourself, Mr. Giuliani, while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':
Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?
When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.
When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.
Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama-led Democrat party, right now.
My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party.
'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on -- to use Bush's words -- 'the angry left'.
Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and call it 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.
Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.
It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?
I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.
I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy has some courage to go against the Washinton grain if he is serious about what he is saying. Which it sounds like he is. There is a 'new type of political idealism' in the way that Obama is talking. And I like it.
I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington. Political candidates don't usually talk about 'the philosophy of Corporate-Capitalist Lobbyism (as well as Religious Lobbyism and Feminist Lobbyism, and every other type of 'Special Interest' Lobbyism and how it can and/or does drastically interfere with 'Main Street American Democracy'.
So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.
But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.
So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...
They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?
And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?
Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?
Well, Governor (Ms., Mrs.) Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. 'All's fair in love and war -- and political campaigns -- especially when one side starts into serious 'trash-talking' and 'spreading the mud around' of the other Party's real and/or imagined and/or embelleshed weaknesses.' Under the circumstances of what you said at this convention, 'Ms. Palin, you have just set yourself up with a great big Alaskan bullseye on your head and heart.'
I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.
I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Nellie McClung in particular.
'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung
I can certainly see some of the 'rhetoric' and 'style of delivery' of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'. But what about the underlying 'value-substance' of what you are committed to, and/or professing to be committed to? Personally, I don't see any Nellie McClung in your heart -- just your rhetoric. And for that matter, can you even handle yourself in a debate? Let's see you in a debate with Joe Biden -- without the 'winks'. He will eat you alive if he doen't 'bite his tongue' in the name of 'mercy', 'political correctness' and not 'beating up the fairer sex'. (Couldn't help adding this on April 16th, 2009.)
Let's see how you handle yourself in an interview with a 'real political reporter'. (Added April 16th, 2009).
Let's see 'how deep your well of knowledge is' of American history and politics and serious political philosophy. Does it extend past how good you look and read on the front page of some Alaskan newspaper? (added April 16th, 2009)
DGB Philosophy believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...
But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this (especially equal rights activists who lobby for 'special rights' and also any politician who hangs on to the concept of 'political correctness' for dear life like it is his or her life preserver which it well might be) -- with equal rights, comes equal responsibility and accountability.
My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent'.
Can you say the same? Your time will come. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009)
It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.
DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.
Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like, to 'change your horse in mid-stream', unless I guess, the stakes are high, you are in danger of losing an election, and well, you 'change the rules', not to mention the direction of your party campaign ideals. Let's ride the 'Obama' horse and say it's a 'purebreed' American, Alaskan -- and Republican. Let's re-make the Republican Party with two months left to go in the election -- and say 'It's been us all along!'
That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?
or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'
Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..
Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:
Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?
On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.
Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?
And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.
Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'
'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!
America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!
Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!
I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.
But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question. His answer -- and I don't remember it word for word except in the main gist of what I think he was trying to say. Obama's answer was 'dialectically based', which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican type of answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. It wasn't as simple as McCain's: 'We will defeat all evil!'
Paraphrasing, I believe Obama was saying something like this: 'We all need to look in the mirror. It usually takes two to tango -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war. DGB extrapolating: We all need to look in the mirror when it comes to domestic violence. And we all need to collectively look in the mirror when it comes to American Foreign Relations.
There is usually a four step 'war dance' unfolding and not all the steps may of this 'war dance' may be visible to the American media and/or the public eye:
1. Provocation and/or Intimidation (including foreign 'pampering' and 'neglecting', 'propping' some countries up, while surrounding (marginalized and/or negatively stereotyped countries are looking on with increasing resentment, anger, rage, hate...no different than pampering one child while neglecting another...) -- added April 16th, 2009.
2. Retaliation
3. Escalation
4. Full-Blooded War
Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'.
Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.
We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' that disappears into quicksand. (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') What is this, if it is not evil?
What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed the same type of sin him or herself.'
What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport? Don't you support 'aerial hunting' for wolves and polar bears? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We went racing up to see the groundhog. We never went hunting again.
If you are hunting to eat or to support yourself and/or your family, that is one thing. But I don't support 'killing for fun'. And I certainly would not call myself a 'pro-lifer' if I did. Nor as a 'pro-lifer' would I be 'proud of my son going off to war'. I would be terrified and almost too distraught to think.
I hate those in ivory towers who try to turn war into some sort of 'Olympic competition'. (Reminds me of the Dylan song: 'Masters of War') They cheer for our boys going off to war, then suppress the cameras when these same boys come back in a coffin or with body parts missing. War is not about 'winning and losing'. In war, everyone loses.
So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, your son? Do you still feel the same?
I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You were at your best. You said you were going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration --and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...
But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'.
But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did. You may have just been nominated to become the intregal, central player in the biggest, sneakiest strategy flip-flop in Republican history. Standing up there at the Republican Convention, with America hearing you and seeing you full-blast for the first time, in all your Alaskan glory, with all the brazen 'womanly-manly confidence-cockiness', charisma, beauty, and Republican 'macho talk' all packaged in one....An Alaskan Amazon woman!!
We could see you at your best, doing your thing, strutting your stuff, The Alaskan pitbull-barracuda in action, with lipstick on and a metaphorical 'rocket-launcher' in your arms ready to lead our troops, more troops, deeper and deeper into Iraq. You could cheer them on from The White House -- the first combination of 'Vice President' and 'Soldier Pin-up Politician'.
The Republican Savior -- Sarah Palin -- the Amazon Woman -- The Republican Gamble -- Is Palin strong enough for a fading, aging McCain to ride on her back to victory?
Governor Sarah Palin-turned Vice President candidate -- the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda-pitbull with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'.
Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'void'. No voice for 'the middle class of America'. Now, here you were, doing your best Obama impression -- with a Republican difference (more Alaskan jawbite), trying to 'rah, rah, rah, the middle class'. And pull in the votes of women -- the votes left behind by a strong but vanquished Hillary Clinton.
We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. The Greek War Gods'. Sarah Palin -- The Republican Spartan.
Governor Palin, we just finished seeing you doing your 'gymnastic back flips' on stage for the Republican Party at The Republican Convention. Let's see if you're still doing these same back flips in a couple of months -- after the microscopic inspection of the American media gets to you in close quarters.
Try this: Flip now. Flop later. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009.)
Try this, Senator McCain: Let her speak now at the Convention-- with no reporters there that can grab a hold of her -- then send her back to the deepest depths of Alaska, where she can't be found by the American media (maybe in a two month long Alaskan hunting trip) -- until after the election. (dgb, I cheated. Added April 16th, 2009.)
Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there. (This was in the original essay. --dgb)
Time will tell.
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008, 5:48pm.
This essay took a little longer than 'til lunch' to finish. It also took a lot out of me. Time to get some dinner and a drink.
Modified and updated, April 16th, 2009
...............................................................................
Here is an old Bob Dylan tune that reminds me of Sarah Palin, The Republican GOB (Good Old Boys), a 'macho-Dirty Harry mentality' (which does not do Dirty Harry justice because at least Dirty Harry got the right man) and 'winning' the war in Iraq. Didn't Bin Laden escape into Afghanastan and Pakistan. To be sure, 'national security' is important but not national security based on 'false' and/or 'embellished' war propaganda. -- dgb, added April 16th, 2009.
The Ballad Of John Brown -- By Bob Dylan
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.
"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."
As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.
"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.
"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."
"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.
-- Bob Dylan
........................................................................
And for those who have not seriously looked at the lyrics of 'Masters of War'...here is another early 60s protest song by Bob Dylan -- 'Masters of War'.
........................................................................
Masters Of War -- By Bob Dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
............................................................................
Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:
..............................................
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).
The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.
............................................................................
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.
We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though The Republican Party too is divided).
Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...
Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.
In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.
It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.
And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'
It is a 'Clint Eastwood (the 'stereotyped tough guy' actor although even he had compassion)/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'
This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...
If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...
Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...
Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...
Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...
Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...(wasn't Jesus Christ 'only' a 'community worker'), how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...
Sarah Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani, whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.
And again, before we leave you, Mr. Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there is at least one major difference between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- that is not about 'sharp, macho barbs and testosterone'.
Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immune from criticism yourself, Mr. Giuliani, while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':
Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?
When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.
When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.
Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama-led Democrat party, right now.
My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party.
'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on -- to use Bush's words -- 'the angry left'.
Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and call it 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.
Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.
It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?
I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.
I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy has some courage to go against the Washinton grain if he is serious about what he is saying. Which it sounds like he is. There is a 'new type of political idealism' in the way that Obama is talking. And I like it.
I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington. Political candidates don't usually talk about 'the philosophy of Corporate-Capitalist Lobbyism (as well as Religious Lobbyism and Feminist Lobbyism, and every other type of 'Special Interest' Lobbyism and how it can and/or does drastically interfere with 'Main Street American Democracy'.
So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.
But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.
So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...
They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?
And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?
Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?
Well, Governor (Ms., Mrs.) Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. 'All's fair in love and war -- and political campaigns -- especially when one side starts into serious 'trash-talking' and 'spreading the mud around' of the other Party's real and/or imagined and/or embelleshed weaknesses.' Under the circumstances of what you said at this convention, 'Ms. Palin, you have just set yourself up with a great big Alaskan bullseye on your head and heart.'
I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.
I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Nellie McClung in particular.
'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung
I can certainly see some of the 'rhetoric' and 'style of delivery' of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'. But what about the underlying 'value-substance' of what you are committed to, and/or professing to be committed to? Personally, I don't see any Nellie McClung in your heart -- just your rhetoric. And for that matter, can you even handle yourself in a debate? Let's see you in a debate with Joe Biden -- without the 'winks'. He will eat you alive if he doen't 'bite his tongue' in the name of 'mercy', 'political correctness' and not 'beating up the fairer sex'. (Couldn't help adding this on April 16th, 2009.)
Let's see how you handle yourself in an interview with a 'real political reporter'. (Added April 16th, 2009).
Let's see 'how deep your well of knowledge is' of American history and politics and serious political philosophy. Does it extend past how good you look and read on the front page of some Alaskan newspaper? (added April 16th, 2009)
DGB Philosophy believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...
But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this (especially equal rights activists who lobby for 'special rights' and also any politician who hangs on to the concept of 'political correctness' for dear life like it is his or her life preserver which it well might be) -- with equal rights, comes equal responsibility and accountability.
My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent'.
Can you say the same? Your time will come. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009)
It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.
DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.
Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like, to 'change your horse in mid-stream', unless I guess, the stakes are high, you are in danger of losing an election, and well, you 'change the rules', not to mention the direction of your party campaign ideals. Let's ride the 'Obama' horse and say it's a 'purebreed' American, Alaskan -- and Republican. Let's re-make the Republican Party with two months left to go in the election -- and say 'It's been us all along!'
That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?
or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'
Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..
Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:
Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?
On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.
Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?
And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.
Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'
'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!
America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!
Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!
I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.
But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question. His answer -- and I don't remember it word for word except in the main gist of what I think he was trying to say. Obama's answer was 'dialectically based', which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican type of answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. It wasn't as simple as McCain's: 'We will defeat all evil!'
Paraphrasing, I believe Obama was saying something like this: 'We all need to look in the mirror. It usually takes two to tango -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war. DGB extrapolating: We all need to look in the mirror when it comes to domestic violence. And we all need to collectively look in the mirror when it comes to American Foreign Relations.
There is usually a four step 'war dance' unfolding and not all the steps may of this 'war dance' may be visible to the American media and/or the public eye:
1. Provocation and/or Intimidation (including foreign 'pampering' and 'neglecting', 'propping' some countries up, while surrounding (marginalized and/or negatively stereotyped countries are looking on with increasing resentment, anger, rage, hate...no different than pampering one child while neglecting another...) -- added April 16th, 2009.
2. Retaliation
3. Escalation
4. Full-Blooded War
Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'.
Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.
We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' that disappears into quicksand. (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') What is this, if it is not evil?
What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed the same type of sin him or herself.'
What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport? Don't you support 'aerial hunting' for wolves and polar bears? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We went racing up to see the groundhog. We never went hunting again.
If you are hunting to eat or to support yourself and/or your family, that is one thing. But I don't support 'killing for fun'. And I certainly would not call myself a 'pro-lifer' if I did. Nor as a 'pro-lifer' would I be 'proud of my son going off to war'. I would be terrified and almost too distraught to think.
I hate those in ivory towers who try to turn war into some sort of 'Olympic competition'. (Reminds me of the Dylan song: 'Masters of War') They cheer for our boys going off to war, then suppress the cameras when these same boys come back in a coffin or with body parts missing. War is not about 'winning and losing'. In war, everyone loses.
So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, your son? Do you still feel the same?
I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You were at your best. You said you were going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration --and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...
But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'.
But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did. You may have just been nominated to become the intregal, central player in the biggest, sneakiest strategy flip-flop in Republican history. Standing up there at the Republican Convention, with America hearing you and seeing you full-blast for the first time, in all your Alaskan glory, with all the brazen 'womanly-manly confidence-cockiness', charisma, beauty, and Republican 'macho talk' all packaged in one....An Alaskan Amazon woman!!
We could see you at your best, doing your thing, strutting your stuff, The Alaskan pitbull-barracuda in action, with lipstick on and a metaphorical 'rocket-launcher' in your arms ready to lead our troops, more troops, deeper and deeper into Iraq. You could cheer them on from The White House -- the first combination of 'Vice President' and 'Soldier Pin-up Politician'.
The Republican Savior -- Sarah Palin -- the Amazon Woman -- The Republican Gamble -- Is Palin strong enough for a fading, aging McCain to ride on her back to victory?
Governor Sarah Palin-turned Vice President candidate -- the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda-pitbull with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'.
Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'void'. No voice for 'the middle class of America'. Now, here you were, doing your best Obama impression -- with a Republican difference (more Alaskan jawbite), trying to 'rah, rah, rah, the middle class'. And pull in the votes of women -- the votes left behind by a strong but vanquished Hillary Clinton.
We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. The Greek War Gods'. Sarah Palin -- The Republican Spartan.
Governor Palin, we just finished seeing you doing your 'gymnastic back flips' on stage for the Republican Party at The Republican Convention. Let's see if you're still doing these same back flips in a couple of months -- after the microscopic inspection of the American media gets to you in close quarters.
Try this: Flip now. Flop later. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009.)
Try this, Senator McCain: Let her speak now at the Convention-- with no reporters there that can grab a hold of her -- then send her back to the deepest depths of Alaska, where she can't be found by the American media (maybe in a two month long Alaskan hunting trip) -- until after the election. (dgb, I cheated. Added April 16th, 2009.)
Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there. (This was in the original essay. --dgb)
Time will tell.
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008, 5:48pm.
This essay took a little longer than 'til lunch' to finish. It also took a lot out of me. Time to get some dinner and a drink.
Modified and updated, April 16th, 2009
...............................................................................
Here is an old Bob Dylan tune that reminds me of Sarah Palin, The Republican GOB (Good Old Boys), a 'macho-Dirty Harry mentality' (which does not do Dirty Harry justice because at least Dirty Harry got the right man) and 'winning' the war in Iraq. Didn't Bin Laden escape into Afghanastan and Pakistan. To be sure, 'national security' is important but not national security based on 'false' and/or 'embellished' war propaganda. -- dgb, added April 16th, 2009.
The Ballad Of John Brown -- By Bob Dylan
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.
"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."
As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.
"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.
"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."
"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.
-- Bob Dylan
........................................................................
And for those who have not seriously looked at the lyrics of 'Masters of War'...here is another early 60s protest song by Bob Dylan -- 'Masters of War'.
........................................................................
Masters Of War -- By Bob Dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
............................................................................
The Orchestra Played a Love Song
When I was young, I dreamed my dream,
As I turned a handle that made the cream,
While feeding cows, and cackling hens,
Grunting pigs in smelly pens.
I dreamed of you, imagined your face,
The way you would walk with queenly grace.
While in the fields, wheat sheaves to stack.
Long flowing gowns, men dressed in black,
Of concert halls, with kings and queens,
Were all a part of my childhood dreams.
I grew. One unsuspecting day, I saw you,
Walking tall, elegant, and in my heart, I knew.
On my arm, you danced; softly, as a feather falls.
To my mind came visions of concert halls.
Cymbals crashed, the drum roll grew,
The percussionist stood, and it was you.
The maestro turned, baton in hand,
As though the score had all been planned,
The spotlight paused, then moved along,
The orchestra played a love song.
We walk now, where once we ran,
A pause to celebrate where it all began,
A pride in our children; their children too,
Lives we have shared while each of us grew.
The places we've been, the people we've known,
Our love for each other, and what it has grown.
We celebrate the past, but reach out to the new.
Listen my darling, can you hear it too?
The orchestra is playing
a love song for you.
-- gordon william bain, Sept 4th, 2008.
.................................
As I turned a handle that made the cream,
While feeding cows, and cackling hens,
Grunting pigs in smelly pens.
I dreamed of you, imagined your face,
The way you would walk with queenly grace.
While in the fields, wheat sheaves to stack.
Long flowing gowns, men dressed in black,
Of concert halls, with kings and queens,
Were all a part of my childhood dreams.
I grew. One unsuspecting day, I saw you,
Walking tall, elegant, and in my heart, I knew.
On my arm, you danced; softly, as a feather falls.
To my mind came visions of concert halls.
Cymbals crashed, the drum roll grew,
The percussionist stood, and it was you.
The maestro turned, baton in hand,
As though the score had all been planned,
The spotlight paused, then moved along,
The orchestra played a love song.
We walk now, where once we ran,
A pause to celebrate where it all began,
A pride in our children; their children too,
Lives we have shared while each of us grew.
The places we've been, the people we've known,
Our love for each other, and what it has grown.
We celebrate the past, but reach out to the new.
Listen my darling, can you hear it too?
The orchestra is playing
a love song for you.
-- gordon william bain, Sept 4th, 2008.
.................................
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Re-visiting My Honours Thesis in Psychology: Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
Preface (Sept. 6th, 2008): On The Evolving Roots and Principles of DGB Philosophy From My Honors Thesis, 'Evaluation and Health' (1979)
Below this preface is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Below this preface is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)