Freud's Hotel: DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis (A Multi-Integrative Re-Working of Psychoanalysis)

Passion, inspiration, engagement, and the creative, integrative, synergetic spirit is the vision of this philosophical-psychological forum in a network of evolving blog sites, each with its own subject domain and related essays. In this blog site, I re-work The Freudian Paradigm, keeping some of Freud's key ideas, deconstructing, modifying, re-constructing others, in a creative, integrative process that blends philosophical, psychoanalytic and neo-psychoanalytic ideas.. -- DGB, April 30th, 2013

Friday, January 30, 2009

DGB Philosophy-Psychology vs. Freud and Psychoanalysis: On Transference (Part 1, Revised Edition, Jan. 30th, 2009)

Freud's most brilliant discovery and conceptual creation -- was 'transference'.

It is in the sphere of the transference - and the realm of 'transference complexes' (a combination of Freudian and Jungian terminology)-- that we move into the deepest -- and darkest -- closets of the personality.

Interwoven into the sphere of the transference is a number of other Psychoanalytic and post-Psychoanalytic concepts such as:

1. Introjection : metaphorically 'swallowing whole' a thought, idea, belief, value...like a child often introjects the beliefs and values of his or her parents -- or at least some of them;

2. Identification: copying like a small child often watches and copies the behavior his mother and/or father;

3. Projection: 'seeing' the world as we consciously and/or subconsciously are ourself, like watching a movie of ourselves that we 'project' out into the outer world -- but most of the time, we don't even recognize that we are watching and projecting onto a friend or a lover or an enemy or an animal or an object or a creative story or essay a characteristic, a thought, a feeling, a flaw, an impulse, a strength...that fully or partly, distinctly or subtley, consciously or subconsciously belongs to us...we are alienated from our own projection(s) unless and/or until we fully recognize and accept the fact that it/they belong to us...;

4. Compensation: Adjusting and/or modifying our thoughts, feelings, impulses, and/or behavior to fit with new information and/or experiences that are constantly coming into our ego, thought, and feeling process. Call this also, 'mutation' and/or 'compensatory evolution'.

5. Displacement/Distortion: Most different types of transference have a greater or lesser amount of 'displacement' and 'distortion' in them. Displacement implies the element of 'cognitive-emotional-behavioral inappropriateness' based on the idea that the transference complex and/or element which originated in Situation A -- let us say usually up to or before the age of 7 or 8 years old in childhood -- is then functionally -- and/or dysfunctionally (usually dysfunctionally) 'transferred' to Situation B which may be 10, 20, or 30 years later in some similar - but significantly different -- adult encounter, and/or relationship. To the extent that this is true, we can say that the transference is displaced and/or distorted onto an inappropriate adult person and/or into an inappropriate social setting many, many years after the origin of the childhood transference complex.

6. Undisplaced/Undistorted Transference: However, in some and/or even many adult transference relationships, we will find that a person's particular 'transference projections and reactions' are quite relevant and appropriate to the present person and relationship at hand. Indeed, this is usually the most outstanding feature of the whole 'transference comlex' -- searching in the present for someone who reminds us of some element of our 'unfinished emotional and self-esteem business' of the past.

What has happened is that 'the transferring person or subject' has subconsciously sought out and found a person in his or her adult life ('the transference object') who appropriately and/or inappropriately reminds the transferring person of his or her original childhood transference figure/object. This starts to get complicated so let me try to utilize some metaphors and examples to illustrate what is going on here.

We move through life and we find a girlfriend or boyfriend, husband or wife -- or 'other friend and/or lover' - who reminds us of an important childhood transference figure in our 'template' of subconscious, unfinished, emotional complexes in our personaliy. Imagine a 'roulette wheel' in the subconscious memory- fantasy template of our personality. Every number on this 'psychological roulette wheel' represents an assortment of different possible 'memory-fantasy' transference complexes -- 'metaphorical planets or moons' if you will that are spinning around the main planet or sun of our 'Central Ego'. You can even look at them as being like 'astrological signs or planets' that create for us a myriad of potential 'biochemical-psychological-philosophical' relationship possibilities...spinning around in our head looking for a particular type of 'match' or 'fit' in the real world. This is the world of 'transference complexes'.

And then in the real world, we hit a 'fit'. Now I don't give complete credibility to 'astrological signs and readings and predictions...' But I don't completely discredit them either. I look at 'coincidences' and 'accidents' in life and I don't always completely discard them as coincidences and accidents. I look at potential 'emotional fits' between coincidences and accidents on the one hand -- and the internal workings of 'subconscious emotional transference complexes' on the other hand.

Here are some of the different types of 'mystical coincidences' (the head of The Toronto Gestalt Institute (George Rosner at the time I was learning there -- off and on between 1979 and 1991 -- used to call them 'wu wu connections') that I do not automatically dismiss and view as possible 'mystical transference fits': 1. My dad's birthday is April 2nd. So too is my girlfriend's birthday who I have been with for almost 10 years. My son's birthday is October 15th. That just happens to be Nietzsche's birthday. Freud and Jung met for the first time on March 3rd (1907). That's my birthday -- 48 years later. Alexander Bain is, I believe, usually viewed as being the 'first academic or technical psychologist' -- the first philosopher to specifically move from the study of philosophy into the more particular study of psychology. I did a bit of a 'geneology check' on my family's roots and couldn't find a connection with this man's lineage...and yet I look at this man's biography and his work -- in philosophy, psychology, English (spelling, grammar)....and I see his academic interests written all through my own personality...Also, Alexander Bain taught at The University of Aberdeen, Scotland, which is the city where my ancestors came from...I feel some serious 'Karma' with this man...even if there are no (at least known) genetic roots.

My work may or may not come anywhere close to Alexander Bain's level of academic significance but once again I fin it 'mystcally coincidental' that ...if I had one choice of what I would like to do with the rest of my life, I would like to create 'The DGB PEPP (Philosophy-English-Psychology-Politics)...Club' focusing on the study and dialectic evolution of Philosophy, English, Psychology ..the same three areas of study that Alexander Bain specialized in...

.......................................................................

Karma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Kamma (disambiguation).

Spirituality portal

Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म kárma (help·info), kárman- "act, action, performance"[1]; Pali: kamma) is the concept of "action" or "deed" in Indian religions understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies.

The philosophical explanation of karma can differ slightly between traditions, but the general concept is basically the same. Through the law of karma, the effects of all deeds actively create past, present, and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to him/her and others. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well.

..................................................................................

Alexander Bain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 11 June 1818(1818-06-11)

Caithness, Scotland
Died 18 September 1903 (aged 85)

Occupation philosopher and educationalist
This article is about the philosopher. For the inventor, see Alexander Bain (inventor).
Alexander Bain (11 June 1818 – 18 September 1903) was a Scottish philosopher and educationalist.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
2 See also
3 Works Online
4 References
5 External links
6 Further reading

[edit] Biography
He was born in Watten, and went to school there, but took up the profession of a weaver, hence the punning description of him as Weevir, rex philosophorum. In 1836 he entered Marischal College, and came under the influence of John Cruickshank, professor of mathematics, Thomas Clark, professor of chemistry, and William Knight, professor of natural philosophy. His college career was distinguished, especially in mental philosophy, mathematics and physics. Towards the end of his arts course he became a contributor to the Westminster Review (first article "Electrotype and Daguerreotype," September 1840).

This was the beginning of his connection with John Stuart Mill, which led to a lifelong friendship. In 1841, Bain substituted for Dr Glennie, the professor of moral philosophy, who, through ill-health, was unable to discharge his academic duties. He continued to do this three successive terms, during which he continued writing for the Westminster, and also helped Mill with the revision of the manuscript of his System of Logic (1842). In 1843 he contributed the first review of the book to the London and Westminster.

In 1845 he was appointed professor of mathematics and natural philosophy in the Andersonian University of Glasgow. A year later, preferring a wider field, he resigned the position and devoted himself to writing. In 1848 he moved to London to fill a post in the Board of Health, under some circumstances

, and became a prominent member of the brilliant circle which included George Grote and John Stuart Mill. In 1855 he published his first major work, The Senses and the Intellect, followed in 1859 by The Emotions and the Will. These treatises won him a position among independent thinkers. He was examiner in logical and moral philosophy (1857-1862 and 1864-1869) to the University of London, and in moral science in the Indian Civil Service examinations.

In 1860 he was appointed by the crown to the new chair of logic and English literature at the University of Aberdeen (created by the amalgamation of the two colleges, King's and Marischal, by the Scottish Universities Commission of 1858). Up to this date neither logic nor English had received adequate attention in Aberdeen, and Bain devoted himself to supplying these deficiencies. He succeeded not only in raising the standard of education generally in the north of Scotland, but also in forming a school of philosophy and in widely influencing the teaching of English grammar and composition. His efforts were first directed to the preparation of textbooks: Higher English Grammar[1] and An English Grammar[2] were both published in 1863, followed in 1866 by the Manual of Rhetoric, in 1872 by A First English Grammar, and in 1874 by the Companion to the Higher Grammar. These works were wide-ranging and their original views and methods met with wide acceptance.

His own philosophical writings already published, especially The Senses and the Intellect (to which was added, in 1861, The Study of Character, including an Estimate of Phrenology), were too large for effective use in the classroom. Accordingly in 1868, he published his Manual of Mental and Moral Science, mainly a condensed form of his treatises, with the doctrines re-stated, and in many instances freshly illustrated, and with many important additions. The year 1870 saw the publication of the Logic. This, too, was a work designed for the use of students; it was based on JS Mill, but differed from him in many particulars, and was distinctive for its treatment of the doctrine of the conservation of energy in connection with causation and the detailed application of the principles of logic to the various sciences. His services to education in Scotland were now recognized by the conferment of the honorary degree of doctor of laws by the university of Edinburgh in 1871. Next came two publications in the "International Scientific Series", namely, Mind and Body (1872), and Education as a Science (1879).

All these works, from the Higher English Grammar downwards, were written by Bain during his twenty years as a professor at Aberdeen. He also started the philosophical journal, Mind; the first number appeared in January 1876, under the editorship of a former pupil, George Croom Robertson, of University College, London. To this journal Bain contributed many important articles and discussions; and in fact he bore the whole expenses of it till Robertson, owing to ill-health, resigned the editorship in 1891.

He was succeeded by William Minto, one of his most brilliant pupils. Nevertheless his interest in thought, and his desire to complete the scheme of work mapped out in earlier years, remained as keen as ever. Accordingly, in 1882 appeared the Biography of James Mill, and accompanying it John Stuart Mill: a Criticism, with Personal Recollections. Next came (1884) a collection of articles and papers, most of which had appeared in magazines, under the title of Practical Essays. This was succeeded (1887, 1888) by a new edition of the Rhetoric, and along with it, a book On Teaching English, being an exhaustive application of the principles of rhetoric to the criticism of style, for the use of teachers; and in 1894 he published a revised edition of The Senses and the Intellect, which contain his last word on psychology. In 1894 also appeared his last contribution to Mind. His last years were spent in privacy at Aberdeen, where he died. He married twice but left no children.

Bain took a keen interest and frequently an active part in the political and social movements of the day; after his retirement from the chair of logic, he was twice elected lord rector of the university (1881, ?), each term of office extending over three years. He was a strenuous advocate of reform, especially in the teaching of sciences, and supported the claims of modern languages to a place in the curriculum. A marble bust of him stands in the public library and his portrait hangs in the Marischal College. Although his influence as a logician, a grammarian and a writer on rhetoric was considerable, his reputation rests on his psychology. At one with Johannes Müller in the conviction psychologus nemo nisi physiologus, he was the first in Great Britain during the 19th century to apply physiology in a thoroughgoing fashion to the elucidation of mental states. He was the originator of the theory of psycho-physical parallelism, which is used so widely as a working basis by modern psychologists. His idea of applying the natural history method of classification to psychical phenomena gave scientific character to his work, the value of which was enhanced by his methodical exposition and his command of illustration. In line with this, too, is his demand that psychology should be cleared of metaphysics; and to his lead is no doubt due in great measure the position that psychology has now acquired as a distinct positive science.

William James calls his work the "last word" of the earlier stage of psychology, but he was in reality the pioneer of the new. Subsequent psycho-physical investigations "have all been in" the spirit of his work; and although he consistently advocated the introspective method in psychological investigation, he was among the first to appreciate the help that may be given to it by animal and social and infant psychology. He may justly claim the merit of having guided the awakened psychological interest of British thinkers of the second half of the 19th century into fruitful channels. He emphasized the importance of our active experiences of movement and effort, and though his theory of a central innervation sense is no longer held as he propounded it, its value as a suggestion to later psychologists is great. His autobiography, published in 1904, contains a full list of his works, and also the history of the last thirteen years of his life by WL Davidson of Aberdeen University, who further contributed to Mind (April 1904) a review of Bain's services to philosophy.

Works (beside the above) Edition with notes of Paley's Moral Philosophy (1852); Education as a Science (1879); Dissertations on leading philosophical topics (1903, mainly reprints of papers in Mind); he collaborated with JS Mill and Grote in editing James Mill's Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind (1869), and assisted in editing Grote's Aristotle and Minor Works; he also wrote a memoir prefixed to G Croom Robertson's Philosophical Remains (1894).

Various schools in Mexico City as well as Irapuato, Guanajuato Mexico are named after him, which consist of kindergartens, primary schools, junior high and highschools.

[edit] See also
Association of Ideas

[edit] Works Online
"Early Life of James Mill", from Mind, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January 1876).
Review of Herbert Spencer's Principles of Sociology, from Mind, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January 1876).
"Mr. G. H. Lewes and the Postulates of Experience", from Mind, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January 1876).

[edit] References
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.
Bain, Alexander, English Composition and Rhetoric, 1871 (facsimile ed., 1996, Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, ISBN 9780820114972).
^ Higher English Grammar at Google Books
^ An English Grammar at Google Books

[edit] External links
William L. Davidson, Professor Bain, an obituary from Mind (Jan. 1904)
Moral Science: A Compendium of Ethics by Alexander Bain
Works by Alexander Bain at Project Gutenberg

[edit] Further reading
Hattiangadi, Jagdish N. (1970). "Bain, Alexander". Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 1. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 403-404. ISBN 0684101149.

.................................................................................

One way or the other -- whether I am 'reaching too far' on these 'coincidental connections' or not -- it is no accident that we all narcissistically and symbolically return to the scene of our 'childhood transference memories and figures' to 're-create' the 'old scene' again, to re-live it again -- and to try to narcissistically 'finish' or 'complete' that which was left 'unfinished' and/or 'unresolved' the first time. This phenomenon gave rise to Freud's concepts of the 'repetition compulsion' and the 'death instinct' which do not do sufficient justice to what is happening here. The essence of the childhood transference scene -- and the memory -- is that it is narcissisically unfinished, and incomplete because either there has been a 'life-changing, self-esteem injury' here, and/or the opposite -- a narcissistic triumph or pleasure -- and a 'fixation' with this triumph and/or pleasure. In the case, of a life-changing self-esteem tragedy, traumacy, and/or injury, the one thing that Freud could not get his head around -- and perhaps his main reason for abandoning his Childhood Traumacy/Seduction/Sexual Assault Theory -- is that Freud couldn't understand why a person, usually a 'hysterical' woman in his early clinical practise, but equally applicable to both sexes, would want to return, over and over again -- obsessive-compulsively -- metaphorically in clinical practise and in adult relationships to the scene of his or her greatest childhood and lifetime traumacies/tragedies. This clinical fact violated and flat-out contradicted his 'unpleasure theory' which stated that people would go out of their way to avoid pain -- and/or its re-creation. And yet, here in the 'deterministic' throes of an obsessive-compulsive-addictive transference complex' people were coming back over and over again metaphorically, symbolically to the childhood scenes of their greatest traumacies -- and self-esteem traumacies. Why in God's name, would they want to do this -- and often in the process, re-create, re-live the old childhood pain all over again, often to the tune of brand new -- but old self-destruction all over again -- unless they derived some sort of contorted, twisted, masochistic pleasure from this experience? Which seems to be more or less what Freud concluded -- and also that there was some sort of twisted narcissistic pleasure in the old traumatic childhood scene -- which led Freud up the road, up the path -- a partly wrong one, I believe -- to 'distorted, screen memories' and then to 'dreams' and 'unconscious childhood fantasies' and 'The Oedipal Complex' and later to 'the repetition compulsion' and the 'death instinct'.

DGB Philosophy-Psychology doesn't go to any of these later Freudian places in the exact same way that Freud did -- except from a different post-Freudian, integrative perspective -- specifically, a combined Psychoanalytic, Adlerian, Jungian, Transactional Analysis, and Gestalt perspective that focuses on the idea of of 'transference incompletion' and 'unfinished childhood business' -- the compensating wish and fantasy to complete or finish this unfinished childhood business, the childhood self-esteem traumacy -- in a more self-empowering fashion. This is how in Ronald Fairbairn's terminology and conceptuology -- our 'childhood rejecting transference object' becomes also at the same time our 'childhood exciting transference object' as we view this and only this person as holding the key to 're-completing the wholeness' of the 'void' or 'abyss' or 'tumor' in our own fractured self-esteem growth. This combination of rejecting and exciting transference object is then transferred into our adult transference complexes and relationships.

In other words, contrary to Freud's logical analysis of this situation, there is no violation of the 'pleasure' and/or 'unpleasure' principle here but rather the pleasure principle is still very much in tact and at work. Specifically, man's -- and woman's -- greatest narcissistic triumph involves his or her own transference complex(es) whereby our greatest childhood narcissistic/self-esteem failures, rejections, abandonments, and traumacies are 'magically undone' and/or 'reversed' if only for a short period of time through the supreme triumph of our adult transference successes and accomplishments that -- if only for a brief time -- make our self-esteem 'whole' again where in the original transference scene (and/or series of scenes/memories), there may have been the creation of a huge, gaping 'self-esteem void or hole' through tragedy, traumacy, rejection, assault, abuse, betrayal, and/or the like.

In the 1980s, I called this whole transference complex -- and its underlying goal of 'compensation superiority striving, success and triumph' (Adler) -- transference-reversal. It totally follows the dictates of the pleasure and unpleasure principle -- although in an often seemingly contorted and masochistic way, for if we are 'symbolically and existentially going to play with fire again', it is more or less inevitable that we are going to get 'burnt again', as we go down some of the old childhood paths again, leading back to a newer version of one of our most feared and revered old childhood protagonists/rejectors/excitors -- and a 'symbolic repetition' of the same or similar traumacy, tragedy, and self-destruction -- all over again, relived dramatically, in all of its old and new, most exciting and most painful passon and suffering combined together to the max. This is the essence of the transference complex and at its worst, one can easily see how Freud connected it to his idea of the repetition compulsion and death instinct.

That is a DGB short version of the whole idea of 'transference' -- built from the earliest and latest work of Freud, and many of the greatest psychologists -- pro, con, and modified, integrative Psychoanalysts -- who came after him.

7.Narcissism: Another one of Freud's most important conceptual and theoretical additions to Psychoanalysis was/is the concept and phenomenon of 'narcissism'. Narcissism is a very abstract term/concept with a broad range and focus of different nuances of meaning depending on the context it is being used in. It can be used to describe any of the following inter-related ideas, feelings, experiences: ego, pride, self-esteem, self-worth, self-absorption, self-arrogancy, selfishness, self-assertion, greed, self-pleasure, connected with traumacy and/or tragedy, we can talk about 'narcissistic traumacy', 'narcissistic anxiety', 'narcissistic excitement', 'narcissistic fixation', 'narcissistic compensation', 'narcissistic projection', 'narcissistic introjection and/or identification', 'narcissistic transference', 'narcissistic rage'...It was the psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut who was most influential in developing the last line of thought relative to transference...Freud thought that people who are extremely narcissistic cannot 'transfer' thoughts and/or feelings and/or impulses because they are too locked up, too self-absorbed, in themselves. However, Kohut correctly assessed (in my opinion) that it was/is this characteristic of 'self-absorption' in the context of a social relationship that is the essence of a 'narcissistic transference' -- i.e., the inability and/or unwillingness to see another except in the light of one's own thoughts, feelings, impulses, and projections...In other words, the extemely narcissistic person is unwilling and/or incapable of feeling empathy and/or social sensitivity towards another person. Thus, extreme narcissism is often connected to the ideas of 'psychopathic' and/or 'sociopathic', particularly when it is connected with such auxiliary thoughts, feeling, emotions -- and/or the lack of them -- as extreme possessiveness, jealousy, anger, rage, hate, violence...

Narcissism is both an normal and an abnormal, a healthy and an unhealthy process depending on its childhood course of development and evolution. And depending on the element of 'balance' vs. 'extremism' that is attached to this childhood and adult evolutionary delopmental process.

The opposite of narcissism is 'altruism' although both can and do have the same roots in caring and love -- and/or its absence.

Narcissism -- particularly pathological narcissism -- can and does have its roots in childhood neglect, abuse, betrayal, abandonment...Thus, we can speak of 'narcissistic traumacy' and/or 'narcissistic tragedy'...a traumatic/tragic loss of an important childhood figure (like mom and/or dad) and often combined with this a tragic/traumatic loss of self-esteem, self-worth, self-love...

However, narcissism can and is often connected with what would seem to be the opposite -- pampering, spoiling, treating a child as if he or she can do no wrong, as if there are no social laws, rules, regulations, and values to be learned in life -- especially the values of empathy, social sensitivity, ethics, fairness -- and reciprocity.

Thus, we can distinguish between the 'narcissism of neglect' -- i.e., 'compensatory narcissism' -- vs. the 'narcissism of being spoiled/pampered' (which involves the 'neglect of being taught and learning social reciprocity'. It is from these childhood lessons and learning processes -- and/or the lack of them -- that we, meaning DGBN Philosophy-Psychology arrive at the same concept Kohut did -- this being the concept of 'narcissistic transferences.
...........................................................................

Heinz Kohut
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series of articles on
Psychoanalysis

Concepts
Psychosexual development
Psychosocial development
Conscious • Preconscious • Unconscious
Psychic apparatus
Id, ego, and super-ego
Libido • Drive
Transference • Ego defenses • Resistance

Important figures
Alfred Adler • Nancy Chodorow • Erik Erikson
Ronald Fairbairn • Anna Freud • Sigmund Freud
Karen Horney • Ernest Jones
Carl Jung • Melanie Klein
Heinz Kohut • Jacques Lacan
Margaret Mahler • Otto Rank
Harry Stack Sullivan
Susan Sutherland Isaacs

Important works
The Interpretation of Dreams
Beyond the Pleasure Principle
Civilization and Its Discontents

Schools of thought
Self psychology • Lacanian
• Object relations
Interpersonal • Relational
Ego psychology

Psychology portal
This box: view • talk • edit
Heinz Kohut (3 May 1913 – 8 October 1981) is best known for his development of Self Psychology, a school of thought within psychodynamic/psychoanalytic theory, psychiatrist Heinz Kohut's contributions transformed the modern practice of analytic and dynamic treatment approaches.

Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 Development of Self Psychology
3 Historical Context
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Early life
Kohut was born on 3 May, 1913 to an assimilated Jewish family and received his MD in neurology at the University of Vienna. Like many Jews, including Freud, Kohut fled Nazi occupation of his native Vienna, Austria in 1939. Kohut settled in Chicago and became a prominent member of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis. Kohut was such a strong proponent of the traditional psychoanalytic perspective that was dominant in the U.S. that he jokingly called himself "Mr. Psychoanalysis."[1]

[edit] Development of Self Psychology
In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, Freudian analysis was too focused on individual guilt and failed to reflect the new zeitgeist (the emotional interests and needs of people struggling with issues of identity, meaning, ideals, and self-expression). [2] Though he initially tried to remain true to the traditional analytic viewpoint with which he had become associated and viewed the self as separate but coexistent to the ego, Kohut later rejected Freud's structural theory of the id, ego, and superego. He then developed his ideas around what he called the tripartite (three-part) self.[1]

According to Kohut, this three-part self can only develop when the needs of one's "self states," including one's sense of worth and well-being, are met in relationships with others. In contrast to traditional psychoanalysis, which focuses on drives (instinctual motivations of sex and aggression), internal conflicts, and fantasies, self psychology thus placed a great deal of emphasis on the vicissitudes of relationships.

Kohut demonstrated his interest in how we develop our "sense of self" using narcissism as a model. If a person is narcissistic, it will allow him to suppress feelings of low self-esteem. By talking highly of himself, the person can eliminate his sense of worthlessness.

[edit] Historical Context
Kohut expanded on his theory during the 1970s and 1980s, a time in which aggressive individuality, overindulgence, greed, and restlessness left many people feeling empty, fragile, and fragmented.[1]

Perhaps because of its positive, open, and empathic stance on human nature as a whole as well as the individual, self psychology is considered one of the "four psychologies" (the others being drive theory, ego psychology, and object relations); that is, one of the primary theories on which modern dynamic therapists and theorists rely. According to biographer Charles Strozier, "Kohut...may well have saved psychoanalysis from itself."[3] Without his focus on empathic relationships, dynamic theory might well have faded in comparison to one of the other major psychology orientations (which include humanism and cognitive behavioral therapy) that were being developed around the same time.

Also according to Strozier, Kohut's book The Analysis of the Self: A Systematic Analysis of the Treatment of the Narcissistic Personality Disorders [4] "had a significant impact on the field by extending Freud's theory of narcissism and introducing what Kohut called the 'self-object transferences' of mirroring and idealization." In other words, children need to idealize and emotionally "sink into" and identify with the idealized competence of admired figures. They also need to have their self-worth reflected back ("mirrored") by empathic and caregiving others. These experiences allow them to thereby learn the self-soothing and other skills that are necessary for the development of a healthy (cohesive, vigorous) sense of self. For example, therapists become the idealized parent and through transference the patient begins to get the things he has missed. The patient also has the opportunity to reflect on how early the troubling relationship led to personality problems. Narcissism arises from poor attachment at an early age. Freud also believed that narcissism hides low self esteem, and that therapy will reparent them through transference and they begin to get the things they missed. Later, Kohut added the third major self-object theme (and he dropped the hyphen in self-object) of alter-ego/twinship, the theme of being part of a larger human identification with others.

Though dynamic theory tends to place emphasis on childhood development, Kohut believed that the need for such self-object relationships does not end at childhood but continues throughout all stages of a person's life.[2]

In the final week of his life, knowing that his time was at an end, Kohut spent as much time as he could with his family and friends. He fell into a coma on the evening of October 7, 1981, and died of cancer on the morning of October 8.

Heinz Kohut : "Analysis of the Self: Systematic Approach to Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Disorders", Publisher: International Universities Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8236-8002-9

[edit] See also
Narcissism (psychology)
Narcissistic personality disorder
Narcissistic rage

[edit] References
^ a b Flanagan, L.M. (1996). The theory of self psychology. In (Eds.) Berzoff, J., Flanagan, L.M., & Hertz, P. Inside out and outside in, New Jersey:Jason Aronson Inc.)
^ Elson, Miriam. (1986). Self Psychology in Clinical Social Work

......................................................................

We will pick this line of thinking up in 'Transference' (Part 2)

-- DGBN Philosophy-Psychology, January 23rd, 2009

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Dialectic-Gap Bridging Negotiations...are still in process...

Monday, January 26, 2009

What are Gods? (Part 1)

Gods are metaphysical, mythological ideals, probably projected, or mainly projected, possibly not entirely, that are capable of being used for happy, healthy purposes, and/or abused for extremist, righteous, pathological purposes. Indeed, 'Gods' can be used for as many different abstract and/or concrete purposes as there are people out there who believe in them because every person is different, every person's abstract and concrete interpetation of 'God' is different, and every person's motivation, intent, and purpose is different, and can be woven around his or her ideal of God -- and/or visa versa -- to be used narcissistically and/or altruistically, constructively and/or destructively, healthily and/or pathologically, just as anything and everything else within man's field of awareness, epistemology, and ethics.

-- DGBN, Jan. 2nd, 2008.

-- David Gordon Bain

What are Gods? (Part 2): Where Do They Take Us?

Gods are reflections -- and projections -- of self and group (community)-ideals.

Have you ever heard of an 'imperfect' God? A 'weak' God? An 'insecure' or 'inferior' God? I have never heard of such a God. It is an exercise in self-contradiction. Gods are meant to be 'worshipped' and you don't worship something and/or someone that/who is imperfect, weak, insecure, inferior...

So why do we worship Gods? Is it our drive to be perfect? And/or our wish or need or drive to be 'vicariously perfect' by associating ourselves with -- and worshipping --someone or something who we perceive to being greater -- and more perfect (or 'perfectly perfect') -- than ourselves?

It is important that we clear up some points and make some distinctions before I delve seriously into this issue.

Firstly, we must distinguish between 'Gods' (who and/or what we are worshipping) and 'religion' (the individual and/or group symbolic, ritual process whereby we do our 'worshipping').

Secondly, you have to know who you are dealing with here: you are dealing with me, DGB -- a philosopher, a humanist, a strong supporter of The Enlightenment-Romantic Philosophical Period, and a supporter of Spinozian Pantheist-Deist Spiritual-Romantic Values.

What does this mean? It means that I would sooner 'worship the glory of God and Creation and Life' driving in the mountains of Alberta, or driving on the mountain shores of Cape Breton Island or Lake Superior, or walking in the fields and forests of Ontario, or feeding my birds in the back of my townhouse, or watching my amazing little Beta fish who I think has been with me for over a year now, or talking to my parents on their small farm in the middle of Prince Edward Island where I have never been, or spending a weekend in Niagara Falls with my girlfriend -- all of these, I would sooner do than I would celebrate 'the glory of God' in a ritualized Church.

This is not to say that I haven't heard some fantastic sermons in my life, by some very passionate preachers who have chosen to celebrate 'God' and Life along a totally different path than me. Different people have different ways of expressing their passion -- both good and bad -- for life (and sometimes, most unfortunately, through rage, hate, violence, destruction, and the worshipping of pain, revenge, and death).

People choose similar and different Gods to worship. And then sometimes, they can get very passionate in terms of righteously and narcissistically protecting the particular God they have chosen to both worship -- and follow. Different Gods can take us to different places -- some to 'Heaven on Earth'; others to 'Hell on Earth'.

Thus, we have to be very careful about who and what we are worshipping. To say it again, our Gods -- and/or our 'Idols' (human renditions of Gods or humans with perceived 'God-like' qualities) -- are reflections or projections of our own individual and/or group idealism. But if our own self-idealism and/or the idealism of the group that we belong to -- is 'pathological' -- then we may be chasing our 'idealistic dream' to all sorts of related 'dehumanized and dehumanizing' places -- domination and submission, sadism and masochism, pain, rage, hate, divisionism, destruction, self-destruction, and ultimately -- an untimely and/or miserable death.

'Human Gods', 'human idols', 'human leaders' -- to the extent that they are able to 'sell' or 'intimidate' mass followers and mass followings, disguising pain as pleasure, sophism as truth, poison as candy, in effect turning the world and the world's humanistic-ethical value systems upside down and being able to convince their followers that everything is still 'right side up' (or intimidate and coerce them into at least pretending to believe this to be true) -- can easily create mass havoc, pain, grief, sickness, death, and dying, in effect, and Hell on Earth.

We can talk about many of the most powerful dictators in the world, past and present, in this light -- Sadaam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Ghenghis Khan, Alexander The Great, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao tse Tung...some mixing elements of 'humanism' and 'cultural explosion' with their mass killings (Alexander The Great, Napoleon) and others just being bad, bad, bad on some greater or lesser political and/or religious dimension...Charles Manson...

Going back to ancient, mythological times, we have 'Gods of Love' -- both the altruistic, nurturing type (Jesus Christ) and Gods of Romantic Love (Aphrodite, Cupid, Eros...) We have Gods of Power, Fairness, Justice, Truth (Zeus, Apollo, God)... We have Gods of The Earth (Gaia), Gods of Marriage and Family (Hera)... Here, let me waste no more time citing Gods that could number in the hundreds if I went at the task with any precision...Here is a sample:

.............................................................................

List of Greek mythological figures
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Greek gods)
Jump to: navigation, search
Ancient Greek Religion

Main doctrines
Polytheism · Mythology · Hubris
Orthopraxy · Reciprocity · Virtue
Practices
Amphidromia · Iatromantis
Pharmakos · Temples
Votive Offerings · Animal sacrifice

Deities
Twelve Olympians:
Ares · Artemis · Aphrodite · Apollo
Athena · Demeter · Hera · Hestia
Hermes · Hephaestus · Poseidon · Zeus
---
Primordial deities:
Aether · Chaos · Chronos · Erebus
Gaia · Hemera · Nyx · Tartarus · Oranos
---
Lesser gods:
Dionysus · Eros · Hebe · Hecate · Helios
Herakles · Iris · Selene · Pan · Nike
Texts
Iliad · Odyssey
Theogony · Works and Days
See also:
Decline of Hellenistic polytheism
Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism
Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes
This box: view • talk • edit
A listing of Greek mythological figures. See also family tree of the Greek gods and the list of Greek mythological creatures. For a list of the deities of many cultures (including this one), see list of deities.

Contents [hide]
1 Immortals
1.1 Olympian deities
1.2 Primordial deities
1.3 Titans
1.4 The Hundred-Handed Ones (Hecatoncheires)
1.5 Cyclopes
1.6 River gods
1.7 Nymphs
1.8 Giants
1.9 Other deities
2 Mortals
2.1 A-B
2.2 C-G
2.3 H-L
2.4 M-P
2.5 R-Z

Immortals

Olympian deities
Greek name English name Description
Aφροδίτη (Aphroditē) Aphrodite Goddess of love, lust, beauty, wife of Hephaestus. Ares is her lover. Eros is her son. Known as the most beautiful of the Greek goddesses. Her symbols are the scepter, myrtle, and dove.
Aπόλλων (Apollōn) Apollo God of music, prophecies, poetry, and archery. Also said to be the god of light and truth. Is associated with the sun. Also referred to as the most beautiful of the gods. He is Artemis's twin brother, and son of Zeus. His symbols are the bow, lyre, and laurel.
Άρης (Arēs) Ares God of war, murder and bloodshed. Brother to Athena, and is the son of Zeus. Has an affair with Aphrodite. His symbols are vultures, dogs, boars, and a spear.
Άρτεμις (Artemis) Artemis Goddess of the hunt and wild things, and the moon. Protector of the dewy young. She became associated with the moon. Apollo is her twin brother. Artemis is a virgin goddess. Her symbols are the bow, dogs, and deer.
Αθηνά (Athēna) Athena Goddess of wisdom, warfare, handicrafts and reason. Sister of Ares, and is the daughter of Zeus. Sprung from Zeus's head in full body armor. She is the wisest of the gods. Her symbols are the aegis, owl, and olive tree.
Δήμητρα (Dēmētra) Demeter Goddess of fertility, grain and harvest. Demeter is a daughter of Cronus and Rhea and sister of Zeus. Her symbols are the scepter, torch, and corn.
Διόνυσος (Dionysus) Dionysus God of wine, parties/festivals, madness and merriment. He represents not only the intoxicating power of wine, but also its social and beneficial influences. His symbols are the grape vine, ivy, and thyrsus.
ᾍδης (Hades) Hades God of the underworld. Brother of Poseidon and Zeus, and consort to Persephone. His symbols are the bident, the Helm of Darkness, and the three-headed dog, Cerberus.
Ήφαιστος (Hēphaistos) Hephaestus God of fire and the forge (god of fire and smiths) with very weak legs. He was thrown off Mount Olympus as a baby by his mother and in some stories his father. He makes armor for the gods and other heroes like Achilles. Son of Hera and Zeus is his father in some accounts. Married to Aphrodite, but she does not love him because he is deformed and, as a result, is cheating on him with Ares. He had a daughter named Pandora. His symbols are an axe, a hammer and a flame.
Ήρα (Hēra) Hera Goddess of marriage, women, and childbirth. Zeus' wife. Appears with peacock feathers often. Her symbols are the scepter, diadem, and peacock.
Ερμής (Hērmēs) Hermes God of flight, thieves, commerce, and travelers. Messenger of the gods. He showed the way for the dead souls to Hades's realm. He shows up in more myths than any other god or goddess. Likes to trick people and is very inventive. Hermes invented the lyre using a turtle shell and sinew. His symbols are the caduceus and winged boots.
Ἑστία (Hestia) Hestia Goddess of the hearth and home, the focal point of every household. Daughter of Rhea and Cronus. Gave up her seat as one of the Twelve Olympians to tend to the sacred flame on Mount Olympus for Dionysus. Her symbol is the hearth.
Ποσειδῶν (Poseidon) Poseidon God of the sea. He created horses from sea foam. God of earthquakes as well. Also called 'Earth Shaker' and 'Storm Bringer'. His symbols are horses, sea foam, dolphins, and a trident.
Ζεύς (Zeus) Zeus The king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder. His symbols are the thunderbolt, eagle, bull, and oak.

Primordial deities
Greek name English name Description
Αιθήρ (Aithēr) Aether God of the upper air.
Χάος (Khaos) Chaos Non-gendered deity of the nothingness from which all else sprang.
Κρόνος or Kronos Kronos or Cronus Titan of eternal time and father of six of the Olympian gods. Cronus and Chronos (Kρόνος and Xρόνος) are two separate entities altogether. Chronos is The Keeper of time; Cronus or Kronos is the father of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. In addition, in the Greek language "χρονια" means "year" or "years" depending on accent.
Έρεβος (Erebos) Erebus God of darkness and shadow.
Γαία (Gaia) Gaia Goddess of the Earth (Mother Earth), mother of Kronos (Cronus).
Ημέρα (Émera) Hemera Goddess of daylight and the sun.
Ζέφυρος (Zephuros) Zephyrus God of the west wind.
Νύξ (Nux) Nyx Goddess of darkness/night. She is also the only being from which Zeus turned from when her son Hypnos, who had angered Zeus, hid behind her.
Τάρταρος (Tartaros) Tartarus Is the darkest, deepest part of the underworld controlled by Hades.
Ουρανός (Ouranos) Uranus God of the heavens (Father Sky) and father of the Titans; banished the Cyclopes to the underworld because they did not please him.

Titans
Themis
Cronus
Atlas
Oceanus
Tethys
Hyperion
Theia
Coeus
Phoebe
Rhea
Crius
Iapetus
Prometheus
Helios

The Hundred-Handed Ones (Hecatoncheires)
Briareus (or Aegaeon) (Βριάρεως)
Gyes
Cottusgeit

Cyclopes
Arges
Brontes
Steropes
Polyphemus (Πολύφημος)

River gods
Achelous (Αχέλους or Αχελώος in contemporary Greek)
Acheron (Αχέρων)
Acis
Alpheus (Αλφειός)
Asopus (Ασωπός)
Cladeus
Eurotas (Ευρώτας)
Peneus (Πηνειός)
Styx
Emanopsus

Nymphs
Adrasteia (Αδράστεια)
Clytie
Crataeis
Daphne (Δάφνη)
Dryads (Δρυάς-Δρυάδες in plural)
Hamadryads (Αμαδρυάς-Αμαδρυάδες in plural)
Metope (Μετώπη)
Naiads (Ναιάδες)
Cleochareia
Nereids (Νηρηίδες)
Amphitrite (Αμφιτρίτη)
Arethusa (Αρετούσα)
Oceanids (Ωκεανίδες)
Eidyia
Oreads
Echo (Ηχώ)

Giants
Agrius
Alcyoneus
Aloadae
Otus
Orion (Ωρίων)
Ephialtes (Εφιάλτης)
Antaeus (Ανταίος)
Argus (Άργος)
Enceladus (Εγκέλαδος)
Tityos

Other deities
Achilles Ascendant hero
Adephagia Goddess of gluttony
Aeolus (Aiolos) (Αίολος) God of the winds
Agdistis hermaphroditic demon
Alastor God/demon of family feuds
Alectrona Goddess of the morning or waking up
Alexiares and Anicetus Twin guardians of Mount Olympus
Amphitrite (Αμφιτρίτη) Goddess of the sea, wife of Poseidon
Anakes
Antheia Goddess of flowers and flowery wreaths
Aphaea Minor goddess of agriculture and fertility
Aristaeus A good hunter and inventor
Asclepius (Ασκληπιός) God of healing
Astraea (Αστραία) Virgin Goddess of Justice
Ate Goddess of foolish acts
Attis
Bia Goddess of violence
Boreas (Βορέας) God of the north wind and of winter
Brizo Goddess of sailors
Cabiri
Caerus God of luck and opportunity
Calypso (Καλυψώ)
Ceto Goddess of the dangers of the ocean and of sea monsters
Charon Hades’ ferryman
Circe (Κίρκη)
Cotys
Cragus
Cybele (Κυβέλη)
Dike Goddess of Justice
Dioscuri (Διόσκουροι)
Castor (Κάστορ)
Polydeuces (Πολυδεύκης)
Doris (Δωρίς) Goddess of the sea’s bounty
Efreisone (Ευφροσύνη) Personification of the olive branch
Eileithyia Goddess of childbirth
Elpis (Ελπίς) Goddess of hope or expectation
Enyalius Minor god of war
Enyo Goddess of destructive war
Eos (Ηώς) Goddess of the dawn
Eosphorus God of the morning star
The Erinyes, or "Furies"
Eris (Έρις) Goddess of strife and discord
Eros (Έρος) God of lust, love, and sex
Eurynome (Ευρυνόμη)
Eurus (Euros) God of the east wind
Glaucus Minor sea god
Gorgons (Γοργόνες)
Stheno
Euryale
Medusa (a mortal) (Μέδουσα)
Hêbê (Ήβη) Goddess of youth
Hecate (Εκάτη)
Hêlios (Ήλιος) Personification of the sun
Heracles (Ηρακλής) Ascended hero
Hespera
Horae (Ώρες) (the hours)
Thallo (Θαλλώ)
Auxo (Αυξώ)
Karpo (Καρπώ)
Eunomia (Ευνομία)
Dike (Δίκη)
Eirene (Ειρήνη)
Hybris (Ύβρις) God of hubris
Hygieia (Υγεία) Goddess of cleanliness
Hymen God of Marriage and Marriage Feasts
Hypnos (Ύπνος) God of sleep
Iris (Ίρις) Goddess of the rainbow and minor messenger
Moira (Μοίρα)
The three Moirae, or "Fates": (Μοίρες)
Clotho (Κλωθώ)
Lachesis (Λάχεσις)
Atropos (Άτροπος)
Mania (Μανία) Goddess of insanity
Metis (Μέτις) Goddess of wisdom and thought
Momus God of satire and criticism
Morpheus (Μορφέας) God of dreams
Muses (Μούσες)
Calliope (Καλλιόπη)
Clio (Κλειώ)
Erato (Ερατώ)
Euterpe (Ευτέρπη)
Melpomene (Μελπομένη)
Polyhymnia (Πολυμνία) - (Πολύμνια)
Terpsichore (Τερψιχόρη)
Thalia (Θάλεια)
Urania (Ουρανία)
Nemesis (Νέμεσις) Goddess of retribution
Nereus (Νηρέας)
Nike (Νίκη) Goddess of victory
Notus (Νότος) God of the south wind
Pan (Πάν) God of shepherds, pastures, and fertility
Phoebe Goddess of the moon: Bright
Perséphonê (Περσεφόνη) Goddess of the earth’s fertility
Peitho (Πειθώ) Goddess of persuasion and seduction
Pleiades (Πλειάδες)
Psyche Goddess of the Soul
Alcyone (Αλκυόνη)
Sterope (Στερόπη)
Celaeno (Κελαινώ)
Electra (Ηλέκτρα)
Maia (Μαία)
Merope (Μερόπη)
Taygete (Ταϋγέτη)
Phorcys (Φόρκυς)
Proteus (Πρωτεύς) Minor sea god
Priapus (Πρίαπος) God of male virility
Satyr (Σάτυροι)
Selene (Σελήνη) Goddess of the moon
Thanatos (Θάνατος) God/demon of death and mortality
Thetis (Θέτις)
Triton (Τρίτων) Poseidon’s messenger
Typhon (Τυφών)
Zephyrus (Ζέφυρος) God of the west wind

..........................................................................

And that is not even beginning to list the great number of 'mortal' Gods or ''Human Idols'...from ancient Greek mythology to present day 'pop-culture' mythology if you will...

Now you could say that we are through with all those Gods -- that we no longer worship them -- and that we have very much simplified the process today bringing everything down to the worshipping of 'one God' -- or 'monotheism'.

But does anyone really believe that we have stopped the process of 'God or Idol-Making' and the associated act of 'God or Idol-worshipping'?

So I ask the philosophical question again: What is this 'fixation' and/or 'obsessive-compulsion' with 'God and Idol-Making' and at the same time, the dialectic polarity of this act -- 'God and Idol Worshipping'?

In the next section, we will explore the relationship between Gods, Archetypes, Ego-States, Transference-Figures -- and Core Nuclear Personality Conflicts.

-- DGBN, Jan. 26th, 2009

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...are still in process....

Friday, January 23, 2009

DGB Psychology vs. Freud and Psychoanalysis: On Transference (Part 1)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Finding Truth

We will take Nietzsche as our starting point, and then see where we can evolve to from there -- in our goal of finding truth.

'All facts are interpretations.' -- Nietzsche

We have a world both outside of us and inside of us that is impossible to know fully and completely because our senses are imperfect, our logical faculties are imperfect -- and our 'will to truth' is imperfect. In fact, our will to truth is often the biggest problem of all. We simply don't want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson said in his famous speech (forgive me but I have forgotten the name of the movie with Tom Cruise, Demi Moore, and Jack Nicholson in it, just looked it up -- 'A Few Good Men') -- 'You can't handle the truth!'

When it comes to truth, personal and/or collective narcissism (greed, selfishness, egotism, ambition, anxiety, fear...) often rears its ugly head to hide, suppress, distort, embellish, and/or push people away from the truth.

So the first thing that is absolutely necessary in finding the truth -- is a 'will to truth'. I do not say this lightly. The truth is not always attractive to the squeemish or the faint-harded...indeed, the truth often requires courage and bravery to seriously look for it in the first place.

My definition of truth: 'A strong structural similarity between things and processes as we believe them to be, and things and processes as they really are -- or were.

Unfortunately, that raises the huge Kantian problem -- the 'subject-object split' and the fact that we can't step outside of our own skin, our own senses, our own logical faculties, and our own narcissistic biases -- to 'know for sure how things and processes really are'.

Thus, we are, and man is, stuck in a paradoxical, epistemological 'Catch 22' -- one that man has been 'epistemologically cursed' with since the beginning of man's existence -- and probably to the end.

There is no such thing as 'perfect truth' unless we are talking about 2 plus 2 equals 4, and/or maybe 'The sun rose up this morning' although that for me is an assumption because I never saw it rise this morning. And of course, the sun didn't really 'rise' -- that is all human relativity at work and play.

So we just have to keep pursuing the 'best approximations of truth' that we can possibly get to, on our own, and/or with the help of our fellow human beings who are similarly interested in 'pursuing truth'.

And of course, truth means nothing without 'context'. If we want to talk about truth -- at least in any practical, pragmatic, functional sense -- we have to talk about something happening in some place and time. And then describing the way it happened. How it happened. Why it happened becomes even more interpretive, more problematic, more complicated, and more controversial. What caused her death? What caused the accident? Who was responsible? Who was to blame? What was to blame?

The danger is -- or at least one of the main dangers -- is that we 'box the truth', call it 'the truth' and forget that we are only giving a 'theory of the truth' that may be right, may be wrong, may be partly right and partly wrong, or it may be the 'truth at first' but then 'life changes' and our 'box of truth' does not change with the evolution of a changing life process.

Five 'Truth Dangers' I call respectively:

1. Idols of Theoretical Boxes and Labels (that don't fit the real world and how it works);

2. Idols of Reification (hanging on to an idea or theory that becomes 'dead' as life changes);

3. Idols of Reductionism (Dividing life into 5, 10, or a hundred pieces -- and not putting it back together again);

4. Idols of Abstraction, Association, and Generalization (One or two instances of a life process do not necessarily imply an 'iron clad rule of nature that will never change'; likewise, just because something looks like a duck and swims like a duck does not necessarily mean that it is a duck -- it could be a swan.)

5. Idols of Narcissistic Bias (Too much unethical, narcissistic bias at work and play -- selfishness, jealousy, envy, greed, anxiety, egotism, pride, money... -- to truly want to know the truth, and/or want it to be known.

Four Rules of Thumb For Pursuing The Truth...

1. Observations first, inferences/interpretations second, value judgments third...Don't jump to premature and/or unwarrented conclusions because then the value judgments -- even before any discussion or debate of 'values and ethics' -- are going to be wrong.

2. Skepticism is a good thing -- people are often jumping to fast and wrong interpretations, assumptions, conclusions...Check you assumptions, check society's assumptions, observe, observe, observe, check different sources, check different biases, check, check, check...

3. Life changes -- make sure your 'conceptual representations of life' change too in order to keep up with all of life's changing processes...evolution, mutation, compensation, etc...

4. Make sure your information comes from credible, reliable sources, and know what their line of bias and potential 'conflict of interest' might be relative to 'steering you away from the truth'.

Avoid these epistemological traps and follow these epistemological rules and you will be putting yourself in a good position towards steering yourself towards the epistemological truth.

A strong 'will to truth' -- and the strength, courage, and perseverence to chase it down like a bull terrier, even a pit-bull -- remains your greatest asset.

-- dgbn, Jan. 21st, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...are still in process...

Regarding Those Bad -- 'Trojan Virus' -- Mortgage Contracts

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, wrote:

From: David Bain,

Capitalism still needs to be ethically regulated. Otherwise, you have people who have much more money and power exploiting and manipulating many people who don't have the same power and money. I will feed you back your own Adam Smith quote in an entirely different light.

'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

If the butcher can sell you 'dog liver' even though you think it is 'cow liver or 'cow steak' that you don't know is full of hormones and steroids, if the brewer can sell you 'domestic beer' that you think is 'premium beer', and if the baker can sell you 'fresh, baked' bread that is a day or more old, if corporate America can 'outsource' all its 'labor force' to places like China and Mexico and India for half the cost, if New Mexico farmers can get 'dirt cheap' labor by 'importing illegal Mexican immigrants', if companies can 'import' scientists from around the world on 'work visas' at half the cost while American scientists with Phds can't find jobs or half to accept jobs for half the amount of money that they should be getting because of 'foreign competition', when full-time workers become a thing of the past because you don't have to pay part-ime workers 'benefits', when employees stop getting raises -- or lose their jobs to other workers who will accept less -- while the!
ir bosses continue to rake in more and more, when Wall Street Bankers take their 'bailout money' from Washington -- and use it for personal executive dividends amongst those who bankrupted the company by exploiting middle class Americans with 'Trojan Virus' mortgages...

After all of this, what do you say about 'the self-interest' of Corporate America and whether it is good or bad for the rest of the American people?

Here is what I say: You still need benevolence, you still need ethics, you still need altruism and caring about other people. You still need regulations, you still need good Government, you still need law and order -- and not only to protect the rich from the poor, but also to protect the poor and the middle class from the rich.

In short, you need homeostatic, dialectic-democratic balance between the best principles of both Capitalism and Socialism, allowing people to work hard and to gain from this, while at the same time protecting people from their own greed and the greed of others.

Unethical self-interest -- that is the curse of America right now and the curse of unregulated Capitalism -- Capitalism with no reigns attached to it.

I like Adam Smith but even he didn't trust many of the business men he was dealing with and knew that they needed to be regulated. A totally 'free market' doesn't work or if you want to play the 'free market' to the max, to the extreme, then you don't bail out the 'robbers' on Wall Street. And you let the American Automobiles fend for themselves -- and go bankrupt if necessary. This is a totally 'free market' and it is so comically ironically when the ultimate Adam Smith Capitalists come crying to Washington for 'bailout money' when the 'free market' is no longer fun for them, no longer in their 'self-interest'.

This is the height of irony -- and the height of human hypocrisy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: B Smith
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:15:50 PM
Subject: Re: Message from David Bain at Helium.com

Wow! What a response. I want to thank you for setting the record for the longest and most intense response I have ever had to one of my articles. Obviously I hit a nerve.

I would like you to know that I will respond to most of your points. First though, I would like to ask you if you are aware that you had a sentence of 219 words. 219! That sets a record. To the best of my knowledge I have never read a 219 word sentence and for that, I would like to thank you.

Again, wow! You sound like you are a little upset. You made some points and accusations and I would like you to answer the following:

1. How do you define "good government"? And, who defines it?

2. Who are the "robbers" on Wall Street? Or are you just using a cliché?

3. What "protection" does the poor and middle class need from the rich? Who provides jobs for the poor and middle class?

I really am trying to figure out just what you are saying. Are you saying that socialism is better than capitalism? If so, I would ask you to provide an example of where socialism has ever provided better opportunities for its citizens than what we have here in America under what used to be capitalism.

Or, are you saying that capitalism works best when regulated by the government? If so, then I would counter that the very problems we have right now is that we have too much government interference. Specifically, government is too involved in taxes, regulations such as requiring lenders to loan to otherwise unqualified loan applicants so then can buy into the American dream of home ownership and so on. Things look bleaker as Obama is sworn in tomorrow.

And to answer your question of, "After all of this, what do you say about 'the self-interest' of Corporate America and whether it is good or bad for the rest of the American people?" My answer is that the self interest of corporate America is good for America. After all, if the corporations do not survive then where will we work? How will we earn a living?

Finally, I believe there should never have been a bailout. I also believe that it might just be good if one or two of the auto makers declared bankruptcy. One benefit of that would be that the union contracts would be null and void and they would have to start over. I believe that would be good.

Smith

.................................................................................

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Smith,

Sorry if both my previous responses to you have been a little long-winded (and expanded for public consumption).

Regarding one of your points, if you know for sure that the idea for all of those 'low interest on the front end; high (hidden, trojan virus) interest rates on the back end' mortgages' for people who couldn't afford the houses they were buying, especially when the interest rates went skyrocketing up -- if the idea for these toxic mortgages came from either the White House and/or the Senate -- then, yes, that would take a good piece, if not all, of the responsibility and accountability for this decision off of Wall Street, and put it right into the laps of an 'over-regulating' Government. A manipulation of the 'free market' if you will. But the question also has to be asked: 'Who put those trojan virus interest rates into those bad mortgage contracts?' This clearly, was not an act of 'altruism' or 'benevolence' -- of trying to get more 'riskier credit' people into a situation of being able to own their own homes to make their lives better -- but rather an act of unbridled narcissistic manipulation and malice in terms of 'interest gouging' these people after they had settled into their homes for a few years -- and making their lives 'sheer hell'.

.............................................................................

malice
One entry found.

Main Entry: mal·ice
Pronunciation: \ˈma-ləs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date: 14th century
1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

................................................................................

So the second part of the question here becomes:

Who was responsible and who is accountable for those 'gouging, hidden trojan virus, high interest mortgage contracts'? Did the idea of this type of toxic, gouging contract come from Washington? I highly doubt it. That smells of rotten Wall Street Bankers...

To sum up...

1. Government manipulation to get more 'higher risk' people into their own homes: Call this 'government over-regulation';

2. Wall Street Toxic, Low Front End, High Back End, Gouging Hidden Trojan Virus Mortgage Contracts: Call this 'government under-regulation' of Wall Street Bankers.

-- dgbn, Jan. 21st, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

DGB Reflections On the 100th Anniversary of Freud and Jung Meeting For The First Time on March 3rd, 1907 (written Mar. 3rd, 2007, updated Jan. 2009)

Sunday, March 3rd, 1907, Freud and Jung Meeting For The First Time -- And Talking For 13 Hours Straight!

Freud and Jung -- theirs was an all too short and tumultous seven year relationship (1907-1914), passionate and explosive, reverent from each side at the beginning, much more rebellious from Jung's side as things progressed, often compared to a common father/son type relationship with Freud maintaining his authoritative paternal boundaries and Jung challenging these same boundaries -- eventually to the point of separation, and the building of two separate schools of psychology with partly siimilar, partly different philosophies and conceptualizations concerning human psychology.

Freud and Jung both shared a partly Hegelian, partly Nietzschean philosophy. Freud was more a product of the Enlightenment, Jung a product of Romantic Philosophy. Jung seemed a little more willing to integrate the 'darker side' of human nature in a productive manner with the rest of man's personality, whereas Freud seemed more about 'rationally analyzing' this same dark side with the goal 'of bringing it under more rational, conscious, enlightened control -- but control none the less. Jung was willing to give up more of this control with a trust things would eventually integrate in a more healthy direction.

This was one of the main dialectical splits or differences in opinion between Enlightenment and Romantic Philosophy -- just how much reason was man willing to give up and trust that man would still land back on firm ground again -- after some kind of a 'romantic flight' to who knows where.

Jung was more the mythologist, mystic, astrology, occult and para-normal psychologist. Freud didn't seem too comfortable following Jung into these areas. It just happens to be my birthday today -- Jung might be more apt to make a psychological interpretation in this regard, as I try to mediate between Freud and Jung, although I am just speculating here. Besides, if he wouldn't I will.

March 3rd. My birthday. I am a pisces -- often equated with 'two fish swimming towards each other and away from each other at the same time'(or not knowing which way to swim while wanting to swim both ways at the same time). Towards intimacy and committment. And/or away from intimacy and committment and towards more 'individual freedom and self-expression'.

How appropriate that Freud and Jung should meet together for the first time on this 'dualistic-dialectic, thesis-anti-thesis' day. Two very strong-willed and creative men each doing their absolutely very best to 'will to power' their own separate vision and creation while admiring, respecting and learning from each other at the same time.

Or at least in the beginning. Until their respective creative visions came into conflict with each other -- and this conflict became stronger and stronger, reaching more and more of an impasse that just would not go away. And then the anger and resentment started to seriously set in and put a fast ending to what had started out as such a strong and passionate relationship with Freud wanting to pass the leadership of his 'Psychoanalytic Torch' onto to Jung, his heir-in-waiting.

But it was not to be. Psychoanalysis -- at least as Freud defined and described it --was just too tight a 'theoretical box' for Jung to accept and live with. Jung needed a significantly different theoretical box that he could create himself, accept because it was his Romantic-Mystical-Mythological Vision; not Freud's 'Pseudo-Scientific-Anal-Retentive-Enlightenment Vision'.

One of the 'dividing issues' between Freud and Jung was Freud's often stated 'pre-occupation' with sexuality (and certainly in the eyes of Jung).

Jung wanted to define 'libido' as 'life energy'; not just 'sexual energy'. Freud would have nothing to do with this. For Freud, 'life energy' at this point in his career and his theorizing was to be equated with 'sexual energy'; nothing more, nothing less. His message to Jung was basically this: If you don't want to follow the instructions of the Captain, then leave the ship. Jung left the ship -- like Adler before him. There would be a whole list of 'abandoners' by the time Freud was finished theorizing.

Personally, I would say there was a 'transference' issue here with Freud. Probably a part of his 'father-abandonment or rejection-complex'. I'm sure that has been written before, probably more than a few times. I know I could dig up at least one book in this regard. The irony here is that after Jung left -- perhaps mainly because of the 'libido' controversy -- Freud would create a 'life instinct' years later that included but did not only include man's 'sexual instinct'.

Loosely speaking, Freud between about 1915 and 1920 would retain his 'dualistic-dialectic' post-Hegelian style of thinking, But this time, Freud would pit man's 'life instinct' against his 'death instinct'. Similarily, he would even play with the idea of a 'mastery compulsion' which was getting very close to Adler's theorizing that Freud had rejected years earlier based on the twin concepts of 'inferiority complex' and 'superiority striving'. Freud was very keen on Adler's ideas of 'organ inferiority' and 'compensation' when Adler first disclosed these ideas in a meeting of The Vienna Circle. But that would change the further Adler 'flew from the coup'. Still, Freud was obviously paying attention to both Jung and Adler even as either he was abandoning them or they were abandoning him -- or both. In Adler's case, Freud finally turned away from the 'mastery compulsion' and instead created the 'repetition compulsion'. This was a mistake. Adler's theory of a 'superiority and compensation-(mastery) complex was superior to Freud's 'repetition compulsion and death instinct theory'. This we will deal with at another time.

Freud never created a theory in which he was not provocatively controversial in some way or another, and in this regard his later 1915-1920 Life vs. Death Instinct and 'Superego vs. Id with the Ego Mediating' Theory would be no different than any one of his earlier theories in earlier parts of his career.

Let's loosely organize Freud's different theories as follows with me looking up the more precise dates by tomorrow morning:

1. (late 1880s, early 1890s) The Beginning of Freud's Theory of The Unconscious and The Repressed based on his research into hypnosis;

2. Freud's Traumacy Theory; also, the beginning of Transference Theory (1895, 'Studies in Hysteria');

3. Freud's Seduction Theory (1896, The Aetiology of Hysteria, theorizing for the first time about the impact of 'adults seducing and sexually abusing children);

4. Freud's Screen Memory Theory (1899, 'Screen Memories', Freud speculated that 'conscious' memories can and/or do allude to deeper, darker, 'repressed, unconcious memories interwoven with symbolic wishful fantasies'. This theory paved the way for his classic 'Interpretation of Dreams');

5. Freud's Dream Interpretation Theory (1900, 'The Interpretation of Dreams');

6. Freud's Theories of 'Childhood Sexuality' and 'The Oedipal Complex' (1905, 'Three Essays on Sexuality');

7. Freud's Changing Ideas about Transference, 1912, 'The Dynamics of The Transference');

8. Freud's First Clearly Stated Theory about Narcissism (1914, On Narcissism);

9. Freud's 'Life and Death Instinct' Theory (1920, Beyond The Pleasure Principle)

10. Freud's famous 'Hegelian Triad' 'The Id, Superego, and Ego' -- Strachey's translations -- first discussed in 1920, Beyond The Pleasure Principle, later more specifically discussed, 1923, in 'The Ego and The Id').

DGB Philosophy-Psychology -- most importantly for our purposes here -- aims to be a philosphical and psychological dialectical bridge over the abyss between Freud and Jung. But there will be significant time for discussions in this area in the future.

DGB Philosophy vs. B. Smith, Ayn Rand, and The Fountainhead

(From the internet: From Helium: Where Knowledge Rules)
........................................................................

By B. Smith

Barack wants to what?

Capitalism or Socialism which do you prefer?

Please allow me to define the terms before we go any further. According to www.dictionary.com, capitalism and socialism are defined as follows:

Capitalism noun

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Now compare that to socialism:

Socialism noun

1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (In Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

4. An economic system based on state ownership of capital.

If someone were to come to you and ask you for 15% of your 401k or 15% of your pension fund, what would you say? If you are like me you would probably tell them to go take a long walk off of a short plank. If someone were to tell you that the government wants to take ALL of your retirement funds and convert them to social security so as to ensure your future retirement, what would you say? I would tell them that it is my money and that they need to keep their noses out of my business.

But what is happening?

1. We have democrats in the world of academia and in the halls of elected office calling for major changes in the 401k and pension retirement plans. The ideas range from the government taking a "one-time" (anyone believe it will be just once?) confiscation of 15% of your funds all the way to the entire take-over of your retirement plans. You know what these are, right? These are the plans where you invested your money into your future. It is the money that you earned and set aside for your future. It is the money for your kids and grandkids. It is YOUR money. The people that are coming to power want to take it. They have done nothing to earn it but they want to take it. Here is one article for your perusal:

http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl e?AID=/20081007/REG/810079894

2. Are you so naive that you think it won't happen? You honestly think that your retirement money is safe, right? Look at Argentina. It has just happened! According to Time Almanac, 2008, both America and Argentina have a Federal Republic with two legislative houses. Argentina is not, nor are we, a socialist country. But we are both headed that way. Look at definition number three for socialism. When over fifty percent of the electorate believes it is okay to plunder the so called rich to meet their own desires, we have major problems.

Look here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article /WRAPUP-2-Argentinas-pension-takeover-plan-scares- g-KNTA7?OpenDocument

3. We have a Presidential elect that has openly called for bankrupting the coal industry. The use of coal provides OVER 50% of our electricity. What would happen if it becomes bankrupt as Barack has suggested? Would this be good? I would suggest that if it goes bankrupt then the government would step in and take over. Compare this to the definition and one might easily see where the government might be "taking over" the coal industry and this can be viewed as socialism. Watch it for yourself at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

If their country is doing it then what is to say that ours won't be next. Their government has just taken everything that their citizens have been working for and confiscated it. Can it happen here? Sure it can! Look around you. We have citizens that believe it is okay to take from those who go out and work their rear ends off and give their earnings to people that don't.

Please consider the definition number four for socialism. Simply put, capital, in the business world, equals money. Are we not seeing this today? We have the government giving bailouts to the banking world. Now what? The auto industry wants one; the student loan organizations are pondering the question along with the credit card companies. Couple this with the ideas of the government taking over your retirement funds and bankrupting the coal industry, et al. it is clear that we have taken the beginning steps towards socialism.

Does anyone believe we can tax our way to prosperity? How is that possible? The government takes our monies and gives it to those who don't have and this is the road to prosperity? Has it ever worked anywhere? No, it has not and it never will.

Too often the argument comes down to wealth envy. Socialism is supposed to even the field while capitalism allows people to become rich, or so some may say. This may all be true. But when push comes to shove, who are you more concerned for: You and your family? Or your fellow citizen? Me? I guess I can be accused of being selfish because I will take care of "me and mine" first, then everyone else.

I finish with this quote by the great capitalist, Adam Smith, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

I prefer Capitalism! (From the internet: from Helium: Where Knowledge Rules)

.........................................................................

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:10 AM, wrote:

From: David Bain,

Capitalism still needs to be ethically regulated. Otherwise, you have people who have much more money and power exploiting and manipulating many people who don't have the same power and money. I will feed you back your own Adam Smith quote in an entirely different light.

'It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'

If the butcher can sell you 'dog liver' even though you think it is 'cow liver or 'cow steak' that you don't know is full of hormones and steroids, if the brewer can sell you 'domestic beer' that you think is 'premium beer', and if the baker can sell you 'fresh, baked' bread that is a day or more old, if corporate America can 'outsource' all its 'labor force' to places like China and Mexico and India for half the cost, if New Mexico farmers can get 'dirt cheap' labor by 'importing illegal Mexican immigrants', if companies can 'import' scientists from around the world on 'work visas' at half the cost while American scientists with Phds can't find jobs or half to accept jobs for half the amount of money that they should be getting because of 'foreign competition', when full-time workers become a thing of the past because you don't have to pay part-ime workers 'benefits', when employees stop getting raises -- or lose their jobs to other workers who will accept less -- while the!
ir bosses continue to rake in more and more, when Wall Street Bankers take their 'bailout money' from Washington -- and use it for personal executive dividends amongst those who bankrupted the company by exploiting middle class Americans with 'Trojan Virus' mortgages...

After all of this, what do you say about 'the self-interest' of Corporate America and whether it is good or bad for the rest of the American people?

Here is what I say: You still need benevolence, you still need ethics, you still need altruism and caring about other people. You still need regulations, you still need good Government, you still need law and order -- and not only to protect the rich from the poor, but also to protect the poor and the middle class from the rich.

In short, you need homeostatic, dialectic-democratic balance between the best principles of both Capitalism and Socialism, allowing people to work hard and to gain from this, while at the same time protecting people from their own greed and the greed of others.

Unethical self-interest -- that is the curse of America right now and the curse of unregulated Capitalism -- Capitalism with no reigns attached to it.

I like Adam Smith but even he didn't trust many of the business men he was dealing with and knew that they needed to be regulated. A totally 'free market' doesn't work or if you want to play the 'free market' to the max, to the extreme, then you don't bail out the 'robbers' on Wall Street. And you let the American Automobiles fend for themselves -- and go bankrupt if necessary. This is a totally 'free market' and it is so comically ironically when the ultimate Adam Smith Capitalists come crying to Washington for 'bailout money' when the 'free market' is no longer fun for them, no longer in their 'self-interest'.

This is the height of irony -- and the height of human hypocrisy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: B Smith
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 11:15:50 PM
Subject: Re: Message from David Bain at Helium.com

Wow! What a response. I want to thank you for setting the record for the longest and most intense response I have ever had to one of my articles. Obviously I hit a nerve.

I would like you to know that I will respond to most of your points. First though, I would like to ask you if you are aware that you had a sentence of 219 words. 219! That sets a record. To the best of my knowledge I have never read a 219 word sentence and for that, I would like to thank you.

Again, wow! You sound like you are a little upset. You made some points and accusations and I would like you to answer the following:

1. How do you define "good government"? And, who defines it?

2. Who are the "robbers" on Wall Street? Or are you just using a cliché?

3. What "protection" does the poor and middle class need from the rich? Who provides jobs for the poor and middle class?

I really am trying to figure out just what you are saying. Are you saying that socialism is better than capitalism? If so, I would ask you to provide an example of where socialism has ever provided better opportunities for its citizens than what we have here in America under what used to be capitalism.

Or, are you saying that capitalism works best when regulated by the government? If so, then I would counter that the very problems we have right now is that we have too much government interference. Specifically, government is too involved in taxes, regulations such as requiring lenders to loan to otherwise unqualified loan applicants so then can buy into the American dream of home ownership and so on. Things look bleaker as Obama is sworn in tomorrow.

And to answer your question of, "After all of this, what do you say about 'the self-interest' of Corporate America and whether it is good or bad for the rest of the American people?" My answer is that the self interest of corporate America is good for America. After all, if the corporations do not survive then where will we work? How will we earn a living?

Finally, I believe there should never have been a bailout. I also believe that it might just be good if one or two of the auto makers declared bankruptcy. One benefit of that would be that the union contracts would be null and void and they would have to start over. I believe that would be good.

Smith

.................................................................................

Well, Mr. or Ms. B. Smith....

You are officially invited to offer your many intelligent ideas to 'Hegel's Hotel': DGBN Philosophy: Dialectic Debates on American Politics/Economics.

It has been a pleasure to hear what you have had to say so far.

Firstly, I would like to get your first name so I can stop calling you B. Smith. And so that I can know whether I am dealing with a man or a woman -- not that that matters relative to your ideas which speak for themselves...My assumption -- maybe a presumptuous sexist assumption -- is that you are a man.

Secondly, I like the way you write and present your ideas. Just as I think you are aiming for full clarity and exposition in what you believe, as well as searching out for the same in my writing, again unless I am being presumptuous on your side, I wish the same. Then we can decide how much we agree and/or disagree with each other.

For me, this is a full-time hobby and project -- at least as 'full-time' as can be conducted outside of a 52 hour work week that doesn't involve writing.

I invite you to check out my interconnected network of blogsites called: 'Hegel's Hotel: DGBN Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...

Thirdly, I strongly hope that you will give me your full permission to not only use your essay in my particular blogsite called: Dialectic Debates in American Politics/Economics...but also to contribute further essays if you so desire...There is no money involved in this enterprise now-- just the potential meeting of intelligent, passionate writers and philosophers on a common blogsite writing about the same or similar issues.

My assumption here is that two or more intelligent, passionate writers can accomplish more in conjunction with each other than one writer working alone. I just finished watching 'The Fountainhead' this morning -- which I read about 30 to 35 years ago and this is where I want to build 'Hegel's Hotel' -- metaphorically speaking of course -- higher than 'The Wyland Building' in 'The Fountainhead'. I am equally willing to take on Adam Smith, Ayn Rand -- and you -- in the philosophical and pragmatic areas where I think you are respectively wrong. Which is not to say that we don't have -- or can't easily or with more rhetorical struggle -- find a common ground where we 'essentially' believe in the same or similar thing(s).

'The greater the contrast, the greater the energy.' -- Carl Jung

'The contrasts of form are too great.' -- one of the actors in The Fountainhead.

They don't have to be.

Ayn Rand argued that society -- and its greatest creations -- was/were/is/are built on the integrity of the individual self.

I counter-argue that the greatest creations of society and culture are often if not usually the product of 'the dialectic engagement different individuals in society with similar and different ideas and philosophical perspectives sharing some common dream, some common vision, or eventually arriving at one, and bringing their differences together in differential unity.

Ayn Rand's self-contradiction, Howard Rourke's self-contradiction, and Capitalism's self-contradiction is that the self -- and the individual -- cannot live in a void. People need each other. The society needs the individual and the individual needs society. The individual is dialectically engaged with the evolution of both him or herself -- and the evolution of society. And visa versa. Society without the individual -- and the individual self -- is devoid of life, passion, and creativity. But the individual needs some viable combination of family, friends, a lover, community, society, and nature in which to function and to flourish without 'individualism' and 'self-interest' being the sole ethical principle on which these combination of relationships exist. Even the Enlightenment principle of 'conquering nature' was turned into the Romantic principle of 'living in harmony with nature'.

This is where eventually -- if not already -- Hegel's Hotel will rise higher than The Wyland Building in The Fountainhead.

As for 'socialism' -- Ayn Rand and Karl Marx had a much greater similarity in ethical principles regarding 'the nature and essence of work and the self' than either of them or many other Capitalist and/or Socialist partisans would ever care to admit.

'The contrasts of form are too great.'

Maybe in The Fountainhead -- between the self and the 'self-sacrifices' in society.

But not even in The Fountainhead where 'great contrasts in form' produced great architecture, great buildings.

And a great love affair. Where Mrs. Wyland finally became Mrs. Rourke at the end of the movie.

And the contrast of the narcissistic, mercenary, power-motivated, opinion-poll motivated Mr. Wyland actually found his 'principles' and his 'self-integrity' -- if only briefly -- and hooked up with Howard Rourke on 'the building of the greatest building -- The Wyland Building'. (That was before he shot himself for living the life of a 'fraud', a 'mercenary' -- and in so doing, 'freed' Mrs. Wyland to become Mrs. Rourke.)

What is overstated in The Fountainhead -- and in Ayn Rand's individualistic, Capitalist philosophy -- is the trumpeting of 'individual unilateralism' -- with no 'dialectic engagement and dialogue.'

What is missing in The Fountainhead -- is the dialectic engagement of 'self-interest' and 'self-sacrifice', self and society, I and Thou, not in a way that makes both the individual and society worse off, not in a way that makes you and I worse off, but rather in a way where each of us 'gains from this dialectic engagement and dialogue'. Where Ayn Rand trumpets the 'integrity of the self and the individual', I do this and more. I trumpet the Heraclitus, Spinoza, Hegel, Buber and Gestalt Godliness of...'I and Thou, Here and Now'....Individuals -- similar and different from each other -- working together the pursue a common cause, a common vision, a common dream, a Multi-Dialectical Harmony and Holiness...

My dad was/is a great Capitalist. My dad is my Capitalist Torch. My dad is my own Ayn Rand and Howard Rourke personified and idolized by me for his great vision and his great willingness to take risks.

But I have seen the dangers and the tragedies of 'Capitalist and Republican Uunilateralism'.

With Bush, America was about 'unilaterally shoving' America onto the rest of the world -- even if it was said to be in the interest of 'democracy'. You cannot force or coerce democracy. Otherwise, it a fraud, a token democracy, a puppet democracy.

Who can forget Bush's 'coalition of the willing' -- as he in effect raised his middle finger at The United Nations -- and the rest of the world?

Bush was about 'dividing and conquering' -- even if it was deemed to be in the interest of both democracy and American self-defense.

Bush divided the world but he did not conquer it. Bush divided Afghanastan and Iraq into two separate war fronts and in doing so he divided the world, divided America, and brought America economically down to its knees. America's enemies have found America's greatest weakness. It can't economically handle a sustained war -- with fading world and ally support -- on different warfronts. Bin Laden said it himself -- if that last tape can be trusted to be his voice still alive and coming from a mind-brain obviously cognitively functioning very well. Just keep dividing the Middle East War up into different warfronts and be patient as, over time, America is economically brought down to its knees.

Bush's vision of Imperialist Capitalism -- the person and the party who helped orchestrate the 'exportation of much of America's manufacturing jobs'; the person and the party who turned a blind eye to illegal Mexican immigrants coming over the American border because large American farmers wanted 'cheaper farm labor'; the person and the party who 'supported the import of scientists from different countries on work visas' so that large corporations in America didn't/doesn't have to pay 'American prices and wages' for American scientists -- is one of 'divide and conquer'.

But in the end Bush's vision of America divided -- and self-destructed.

And Obama is left 'holding the bag'. Trying to pick up all the broken pieces.

Trying to rescuscitate the idea of 'dialectic-democracy'. And 'multi-dialectic democracy'.

Dialectic-Democratic Creative Engagement, Negotiation, and Integration.

Differential unity.

That is how my vision of Hegel's Hotel is bigger and better than Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead' -- or 'The Wyland Building'.

The Wyland Building was built by one very talented, creative, passionate man -- Howard Rourke.

The Fountainhead was created by one very talented, creative passionate woman -- Ayn Rand.

Hegel's Hotel is being created and built by me...but at the same time by more than me...

Hegel's Hotel is being built multi-dialectically by all the philosophers, psychologists, friends and family...

Who have influenced me.

In Hegel's Hotel, there are no contrasts in form too great to integrate.

In Hegel's Hotel, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, and Erich Fromm can all come together on the same page -- and speak to each other.

In Hegel's Hotel, I wish to hear from Capitalists and Socialists alike, Republicans and Democrats alike.

In Hegel's Hotel, I not only trumpet the creative genius of philosophers like Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand...

But also the creative dialectic or multi-dialectic working genius built around the similarities and contrasts between Hegel and Marx, Hegel and Nietzsche, Hegel and Engels, Lennon and McCartney, Dylan, Bloomfield, and Kooper, or the loving contrasts between Romeo and Juliet...

In Hegel's Hotel, there are no 'contrasts in form that are too great to integrate'.

Not Hegel and Nietzsche. Not Freud and Jung. Not Freud and Adler. Not Freud and Perls.

Not Capitalism and Socialism.

Not employers and employees.

Not corporate ownership and union.

Not 'fair trade' and 'free trade'. (Where 'free trade' has become a means of exploiting American workers by sending manufacturing companies to foreign -- 'cheaper' -- countries.

Not 'full-time' and 'part-time' workers. (Where 'part-time' workers have become a cheaper work force who don't have to be paid full-time benefits, and thus, are likely to remain 'part-time' practically forever.)

Not The American People and The American Government.

Not self and society.

Not self and self-sacrifice.

Not self and self-alienation.

Not self and self-actualization.

-- dgbn, January 20th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain,

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...are still in process...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------