Let us start here with our purpose of what we are trying to accomplish.
Firstly, we are dealing here with a 'metaphysical' (beyond physics), 'metaphorical' ('as if'), and/or 'mythological' (symbolic) model of a 'portion' of the human personality or 'psyche'. We can and will talk of an assortment of different 'ego-states' with different 'ego-functions', of which we will refer to 'The Central Ego' as being 'The King or Queen -- or Conductor -- of all Ego States and Ego Functions'. Like the planets revolve around the sun, all the other different ego-states and functions revolve around The Central Ego, and Central Ego Functioning. The Central Ego is the negotiator, arbitrator, and executor of all problems, conflicts, problem-solutions, and conflict-resolutions. The Central Ego is the direct precursor and initiator of all action.
Let me explain.
If you are studying to be a doctor, your education, in some fashion (I have never been to Medical School) is going to involve an intense education of physiology, biology, and chemistry, as well as some of the 'integrative elements' of scientific and medical study -- such as 'bio-chemistry'.
Dialectically speaking, bio-chemistry is of particular interest to us here, as is the category of 'bio-physics' because these categories represent 'dialectically integrative areas of life and the study of life' -- two 'distinguishable' structual categories in the body coming together to both function, and to be studied, dialectically as one.
In medicine, we can also differentiate between the study of 'life-structures' (such as 'the different parts, structures, and/or organs of the body) as contrasted with the study of 'life processes' (such as breathing or bleeding or eating or running or any of a thousand other such processes).
For 'structures' or 'categories' or things that seem to be moving significantly less quickly in the body than 'processes', in the English language, we tend to use 'nouns' as opposed to 'verbs' for processes.
Structures and categories are usually represented by nouns.
Processes and actions are usually represented by verbs.
However, this is not a foolproof 'classification or categorical system' in the study of the human body or anything else in life because life is always throwing 'gray areas' at us such as 'dialectical hybrids' and 'structural processes' or 'process-structures'.
For example, we can talk about the 'heart' as a 'body organ part' (which is very different than using 'heart' metaphorically such as in the expression 'Have a heart'), and in using 'heart' as meaning a 'body part organ', we are also using the word 'heart' as a 'noun' to describe it as a 'structure' rather than as a 'process' such as 'bleeding' which is a 'verb' describing a life and/or death 'process'.
However, in describing the heart as a 'structure' we need to fully understand that this structure has literally hundreds of smaller, minute life and death processes going on within it, that makes up the internal dynamics of 'the heart as a structure'. And we better hope that there are more 'living processes' going on in our heart than 'dying processes' because the minute the dying processes start to significantly exceed the living processes, unless things get turned around fast, we are probably looking at the prospect of 'exiting' to another better or worse world -- or no world at all, just a world of dirt or ashes -- and/or some other organism's food.
Now, throughout this whole medical study process, for the most part, we are talking about 'observable, empirical body structures and processes' -- either visible to the naked eye, or visible to the naked eye with the aid of a microscope, an X-ray machine, or a wide assortment of other types of 'diagnostic tools and processes' that doctors now have available to them.
Even so, this 'observable, empirical' part of medical study, scientific investigation, and diagnosis is far from perfect and many life and death processes still go on beneath the doctor's eye, and/or are not completely understood, or even understood at all, by the medical world.
But still in the world of science and medicine, everthing starts and ends with 'observable, empirical' processes and structures. You can see a 'beating heart' or a heart that has 'stopped beating'.
Argue with me if you think I am wrong, but almost all medical theories start with observable, empirical observations and work 'upward' beyond observations into the world of 'perceptual interpretations', 'inferences', 'interpretive evaluations', 'generalizations', 'associations', 'distinctions', 'abstractions', 'value judgments', 'diagnoses', 'potential courses of action', 'choices of course of action', 'execution of action', and hopefully at the end, a 'solution' to the 'medical problem'.
In DGBN terminology, these elements of 'thinking' listed above, are all properties of 'The Central Ego' and 'Central Ego functioning'.
Now there are a number of different potential places to go with this, only one of which is really relevant to the direction I want to go here. But I will list a couple of these different places for future discussion in future blogsites (or 'floors' of 'Hegel's Hotel').
Firstly, which came first: science and medicine, or philosophy and psychology? Which is built upon which? Does science and medicine provide the foundation for the study of philosophy and psychology? Or does philosophy and psychology provide the foundation for the study of science and medicine? Or is it a 'dialectical process' again where both the study of science and medicine affect the study of philosophy and psychology -- and visa versa.
I have five things to say in this regard:
1. DGBN Philosophy is a 'post-Hegelian, dialectic' philosophy that believes in the 'dialectic' -- meaning 'mutual-two-way' -- influence of all life and death, living and dying processes;
2. Philosophy precedes all other areas of human thinking, human behavior, human culture, human study, life and death study, living and dying study;
3. Philosophy creates the perspective by which all other branches of human knowledge (epistemology) and ethics are studied.
4. You can't study human psychology without having an underlying philosophy (editorial perspective) by which you study it;
5. You can't study science and medicine without having an underyling philosophy (editorial perspective) by which you study it.
For example:
Let us take 'The Hippocratic Oath' by which I believe all doctors are still sworn in as 'rookie doctors'.
'First, do the patient no harm.'
Sounds good. Sounds nice and ethical. Sounds like a nice 'philosophical foundation' for the study and practice of medicine.
However, I have come to view it as the 'Hypocritical Oath'.
In my opinion, no doctor in Western Medicine comes close to adhering to The Hippocratic Oath anymore.
Otherwise, there would be no use of radiation, no use of chemotherapy, no use of cortisteroids, and at least a much, much more careful screening, monitoring, and usage of all vaccines, anti-biotics, anti-viral medications.
Stated another way, today's practice of conventional, orthodox Western medicine -- both good and bad -- needs to be fully investigated philosophically in terms of the biasing effects of 'Modern, Narcissistic Capitalism' on the medical profession as a whole -- diagnostically, pharmaceutically, and surgically. You can call this influence if you will -- 'The Wall Street Effect'.
So at the very least we can say that the Hippocratic Oath -- to be ethically consistently with today's medical standards should read something like this:
'First do the patient less harm than good.'
We will take up this discussion on another day when we start to investigate the philosophy of science and medicine.
........................................................................
For our purpose here, if we are going to investigate the world of man's 'mind' or 'psyche' -- as opposed to his 'brain' -- then we have one major philosophical problem that we have to deal with -- specifically:
We can't really 'see' what we are talking about.
..............................................................................
'And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.'
-- Bob Dylan
Copyright ©1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music
....................................................................................
Thus, we are no longer talking about 'observable, empirically-based physical models'.
Rather, we are talking about 'metaphysical, metaphorical and/or mythological models' in all the different ways -- good and bad -- that I have talked about the use of metaphysical-metaphorical-mythological models in all my other essays on this subject matter and its relationship to human psychology.
Again, we are talking about metaphysical-metaphorical-even mythological ways of representing the human personality in a 'structural-process model' that may or may not better help us to understand what types of 'invisible and metaphysical structures and processes' really interact -- or not -- in the human personality.
If the model works for us, then let's use it until it stops working.
If the model doesn't work for us, then let's trash the model, and start again until we find a better model that does work.
Here, in DGBN Philosophy-Psychology, we will use an assortment of other psychological models -- Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls, Klein, Fairbairn, Kohut, Bernes, Fromm...that have already shown that they work to greater or lesser extents.
Like all motivated philosophers, psychologists, theorists, model-builders, I am just aiming to do what thousands, if not millions, have done before me -- build a bigger, better -- and more integrative -- model with more benefits and assets attached to it than costs and liabilities. That is what 'model-building' and 'theory-making' is all about. Pushing human evolution forward in the domains of my subject-matter -- philosophy, psychology, politics, science, medicine, spirituality, religion, and beyond...
The fact that this model -- or any of these 'classical psychology models' -- deals with an 'invisable subject matter' leaves the whole philosophical discussion about man's psychology just as open and ripe for dialectical debate as the connection and/or non-connection of the Hippocratic Oath with today's actual practice of Western Medicine.
But that doesn't mean that the answer to this philosophical and psychological conundrum is to try to take an 'invisible subject matter' (like 'thinking' and 'feeling') and manipulating, reducing, eliminating the subject matter until it becomes 'visible' ('observable behavior') which is definitely not the same thing as 'thinking' and/or 'feeling'. This is what Behaviorism has built their so-called 'science' on -- externally visible behavior; not the millions of thought-feeling-impulse-and/or-restraint processes that go on inside our 'minds' and 'propel' the behavior outside our minds (unless you buy into 'external conditioning' as opposed to 'internal associating'). Freedom vs. determinism. This argument will probably still go on for centuries. I argued the subject matter with one of my first blogsite readers here, and we went back and forth with our arguments for almost a year without really finding any 'dialectical meeting ground' for our respective foundational and starting philosophical premises. It was an exhausting exchange. Did it accomplish anything? I'm not sure. Maybe more of an understanding of how differently different people can think.
Anyway, the best way to protect ourselves from the 'abuse' of metaphysical- metaphorical-mythological ('Triple M') models' is to fully know and understand the potental dangers of the territory we are moving into.
1. We may be trying to describe something that doesn't exist.
2. We may be tryng to turn something that is not 'empirical and visible to the naked eye' into something that suggests that we are trying to do exactly this -- by saying that a Triple M Model an 'empirical, observable, scienftific model' -- when it is not.
3. Connected to the last danger, is the danger of 'over-objectifying' and 'robotizing' the model -- making it seem like we are 'human robots' when we are not. Regardless of how many 'compartments' we divide the human psyche into, we have to fully understand that these are only different ways of 'categorizing', 'classifying', and 'segmentizing' the different parts and functions of the human psyche; they are not designed to turn us into 'robots' that no longer have an 'I' or a 'self'. In DGBN Philosophy-Psychology, we will 'subjectify' and 'existentialize' our models; not turn humans into deterministic robots.
This was -- and still is -- one of the main criticisms of Freud and Psychoanalysis, where 'pseudo-scientific language' was -- and still is -- used in a very 'non-scientific study of the human mind'. All models, in terms of my way of looking at the human psyche should retain their 'subjective-existential' element and foundation.
Thus, if I want to use 'The Central Ego' as a part of my psychological model, then each and everyone of us who use this model have to be able to say:
I am my 'Central Ego',
And my Central Ego is me.
That is called proper 'subjective, existential ownership and accountability' for what we are talking about.
I take ownership and accountability for what happens in my Central Ego. I determine the contents and dynamics of my Central Ego. And it -- beware the 'objectification', 'externalization' and 'alienation' of this 'it' ('it' meaning my Central Ego) determines me. My 'self' and my 'Central Ego' are 'dialectically inseparable' -- unless we 'dissociate' ourselves from all personal responsibility.
This is one of the first steps into 'psychopathology'.
Don't go there.
And that is where I will leave you,
At noon on Boxing Day on my first take through this essay.
At 6:00pm on my second take through this essay.
Have a great dialectical-humanistic-existential evening.
-- dgbn, Dec. 26th, 2008.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are still in process...
