Still under construction....Things are churning and turning in Hegel's Hotel, and it may still be a day or two before I can go back to this essay, pick up the pieces, and probably take it in a new direction...dgb, March 30th, 2009.
.................................................................................
I want to go back and re-visit our definition of 'dialectic' as well as distinguish between some of the different types of dialectics that we will be investigating in many of the next series of essays that deal particularly with 'DGB Personality Theory'.
'Dialectic Theory' -- at least as it is currently being defined here in Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy-Psychology -- explores, investigates, interprets and evaluates 'the particular chemistry, back and forth influence and bi-causality, associated with any encounter, relationship, and/or life or death process where the sum total is more than the sum of the individual parts working towards the completion of the particular process being investigated'.
When the particular situation or process that is being interpreted and evaluated involves more than two factors, more than two individual entities pushing against each other or relating with each other, then we can start talking about the ideas of 'multiple-dialectic theory', 'multiple-inluence', and/or 'multiple causality'.
The reason for this type of emphasis, is that too often in Western Society, we tend to emphasize a type of 'either/or' philosophy that lends itself to the ideas of 'one-sided causality', 'one dimensional thinking', 'one-sided responsibility and/or blame', and 'over-compensatory thinking and action' triggered by this process of one-sided thinking.
The results for trying to 'solve a particular problem' or 'resolve a particular conflict' using this one-sided and/or overcompensatory approach to problem-solving and conflict-resolving can be catastrophic -- sometimes, or even oftentimes, the 'supposed solution' to the problem turning out to be significantly worse -- or at least just as bad -- as the original problem or conflict itself.
In any society, any democracy, there is always going to be a 'clash between different individuals rights and freedoms, wishes, goals, and philosophies'.
Similarily, there are also going to be clashes between individual liberties and wishes on the one hand vs. ethical-moral, and/or legal responsibilities and restraints relative to the country, state, province, and/or town/township/city that we live in.
Thus, we can distinguish between an 'individual rights vs. individual rights dialectic' and an 'individual rights vs. state, government, and/or society legal responsibility dialectic'.
Similarily, we can distinguish between 'friendly' vs. 'hostile' dialectics, 'competitive' vs. 'co-operative' dialectics, 'will to power' vs. 'will to negotiate' dialectics, and 'authoritarian-dictatorial' vs. 'equal rights-democratic' dialectics.
In Hegel's Hotel -- i.e., in the smaller Personality Theory model -- we can talk about numerous different types of dialectics such as between: 'The Potential Self' and 'Mythological Archetype Figures'; or between 'The Potential Self' and 'Transference Dynamics and Complexes', or between 'The Potential Self' and 'The Central Ego', or between the 'Nurturing Topdog' and 'The Critical Topdog', or between 'The Critical Topdog' and 'The Approval-Seeking Underdog' or between 'The Critical Topdog' and 'The Rebellious Underdog'.
So you can see where I get the idea of 'multiple dialectics' from. And this is just using my own DGB Philosophy-Psychology terminology. You change the particular model that we are working with and this is going to have an impact on the way we talk about the particular 'dialectic-dynamics' associated with the language and the conceptuology of the new model we are talking about. For example in Freudian language, we could talk about 'ego' vs. 'id' dialectics or 'superego' vs. 'id' dialectics whereas we could change to a Jungian model and then talk about the dialectics between 'personna' and 'shadow'.
All of these are conceptual distinctions are meant to give us a 'parameter or container' by which to talk about the distinctions in life that these concepts are meant to refer to -- i.e., their 'real life ('phenomenal, phenomenological, and/or existential) referents'.
The 'distinction between two different and opposed ideas' is to allow us the freedom to talk about these 'real life' differences that can be categorized using the terminology and conceptuology that we have chosen to use.
'I think, therefore I am.' (Descartes said that).
'I am, therefore I think.' (I -- and DGB Philosophy -- just said that, although 'Existence before essence' by Jean-Paul Sartre comes pretty close to the same idea, and more importantly, it was primarily Hegel who introduced the idea of 'dialectic influence' or 'dialectic causality' meaning 'two-way -- not one way -- influence'.)
DGB Philosophy-Psychology explores the integrative dimensions and dialectics, meaning the two way dimensions and characteristics between both Self and Other(s), as well as between the Self and other parts and/or dimensions of the Self.
Two other conceptual distinctions that may be functionally useful relative to our Hegel's Hotel Personality Theory model -- is the distinction between 'vertical dialectics' and 'horizontal dialectics'.
Vertical dialectics refers to different levels of 'unconsciousness' (for example, the deep level of mythology, symbolism, and archetype figures) mixing together with 'individual transference complexes' (based on individual memories, old and new) being interwoven together by our Central Ego (partly asleep, partly awake while we are asleep in bed) in a state of 'preconsciousness' -- 'three different levels or floors of functioning in the Hegel's Hotel personality model' -- all coming together in the form of one 'confluent creative product or outcome' -- such as a dream, which we may or may not remember when we wake up.
Here is where 'DGB Transference Theory' starts to come together with 'DGB Personality Theory'.
In DGB Transference Theory, a distinction can be made between a 'Relationship Transference' on the one hand(such as a 'Father Complex' and/or a 'Mother Complex'), and between an 'Encounter or Specific Memory Transference'. Now DGB Transference and Personality Theory does not believe in -- and look to uncover -- an 'unconscious memory' like a Freudian Psychoanalyst would, or does (looking for an 'Oedipal Memory/Fantasy') through a process of 'free association, memory uncovering, and/or memory reconstruction; and/or like a 'Seduction/Sexual Assault/Traumacy' Psychotherapist might go looking for an 'unconcious traumacy, childhood seduction, and/or sexual assault' memory in a client through some similar and/or different process of 'memory uncovering' or 'memory reconstruction'.
No, in this domain, I subscribe at least partly to Jeffrey Masson's line of thinking that argues -- that if a 'bad -- i.e., traumatic (sexual seduction and/or assault) memory' happened, then it will likely be 'remembered'. However, unlike Masson, I still believe that there could be, indeed likely is to be, some element of 'significant subjective, narcissistic distortion and individual bias' at work in the 'recalling' of this memory.
This brings into question the relative 'objectivity and truth value' of these types of memories vs. the possible and/or actual 'distortion and subjective-narcissistic bias' that may be found in these types of memories. Should a therapist unquestioningly look at these types of memories in terms of their 'truth value'? This was the rather painful philosophical and psychological question that I believe Freud was wrestling with back around 1896-1899 that is just as philosophically as hard to answer today as it was back then. The truth probably lies in the fact that every case situation -- and every psychotherapeutic client -- is different, and each offers a unique blend of 'objective truth value' and/or 'subjective narcissistic distortion' in their recall of their individual memories.
Now it may be fine for a therapist -- at least at the beginning of a therapeutic relationship -- to work with the 'subjectively perceived truth value' of a client's particular recall of his or her childhood memories. I do not subscribe to any therapeutic technique of 'leading the witness', 'leading the client' in the direction of some pre-held, stereotyped psychological theory' -- regardless of whether that be towards a Classic Freudian 'Oedipal-Childhood Sexuality-Distorted Memory to Fantasy' theory; or towards a pre-Classic 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory-Memory-as-Truth' theory brought back to life and practised by some modern-day Traumacy-Seduction Psychotherapists today.
Both 'thesis' and 'anti-thesis' psychological theories and psychotherapies can suffer equally from narcissistic bias and distortion -- and each can be equally dangerous in a court of law. Beware the judge and/or jury who has to deal with either or both types of therapists in a court of law. Without further 'empirical evidence' and/or 'credible witnesses', I personally believe that all 'unsubstantiated memories' should be thrown out of a court of law. Our courts of law -- and here we are talking about both family and criminal law, indeed, all law --need to hold strongly to the principles of 'supporting empirical evidence' and/or 'strong, credible witnesses' to substantiate any type of 'memory' that may or may not have 'significant truth value'. We must hold firmly to the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' -- and to me -- an unsubstantiated memory (childhood or adulthood) needs to be strongly substantiated before a person is convicted of being guilty of some crime that he or she may not have comitted. The same goes with all so-called 'expert testimony'. The potential result of not adhering to this principle of 'strong empiricial evidence' and/or 'supporting evidence' and/or 'credible testimony' -- is the very real danger of turning our present day Family, Domestic, and/or Criminal Courts into a 'deeply biased' modern-day 'Salem Witchunt'.
In this modern day at least partial version of 'The Salem Witchhunts' and/or 'the era of McCarthy looking for Communists', it is modern day 'men' and fathers' who have become most susceptible to these 'witchunts' -- to the legal accusation, prosectution, persecution, and conviction of men as 'victimizers' if not as 'witches'.
Make accountable and prosecute the men who are guilty of the crimes they have been accused of -- whether it be sexual assault, domestic assault, and/or childhood assault.
But let us not indulge as a society in 'Sexual Profiling' here -- of either sex (the mainly previous edition of 'Patriarchal Narcissistic Bias and Law' was and/or is no better or no worse than the presently evolving version of 'Feminist Narcissitic Bias and Law').
Here at Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy we don't want to indulge in 'Sexual Profiling of either sex' any more than we want to indulge in 'Racial Profiling' of any race.
With all due respect, we need to 'undo' some of the societal damage already created by the presence of literally hundreds of egalatarian and/or narcissistic feminist lobbyist groups constantly bombarding both Washington and Ottawa 'for a continual enhancement or embellishment of female civil rights' into present day law. These feminist lobbyists groups have very real political and legal power -- and/or are strongly capable of influencing the continual evolution of new civil laws without the presence of an equally strong presence of 'masculine rights group' to counter-act the strong lobbying force of feminine rights groups which continues to 'chip away at' -- either directly or indirectly, purposely or non-purposely -- the masculine rights and freedoms of 'men' and 'fathers' in Western society that men used to previously take for granted.
You see it is not only 'corporate lobbyist groups' who we have to worry about in Washington and Ottawa -- but all 'special interest lobbyist groups' that are very capable of 'upsetting the very precarious homeostatic-dialecitic-democractic legal balance of society' in narcisstic favor of and bias towards the particular special interest lobbyist group that keeps pounding away at North American politicans and lawmakers looking for more and more laws in their favor.
This problem of special interest lobbyst groups is not only causing great problems in the financial and economic sector of 'Main Street' Americans and Canadians but also in another sector of society entirely -- in the political, legal, and economic battle of the sexes -- narcissistically biased feminist lobbyst groups are causing an oppositely biased legal division between the sexes that is causing as many if not more civil rights problems than these 'new domestic and sexual laws supporting the protection of women and children' are supposed to be solving.
Let us make this totally clear. I support 'Egalitarian Feminist Rights' (the pursuit of equal sexual rights in society). I do not support 'Narcissistic Feminist Rights' (the pursuit of every possible sexual legal advantage of women over men). The first group of 'egalitarian feminists' support the concept of 'democracy' and 'equal rights' -- for both sexes, every race, every culture... The second group of 'narcissitic feminists' are simply 'biased, narcissistic patriarchs and male chauvanists' -- disguised in women's clothing wanting all the 'narcissistic legal advantages that men used to have in a patriarchal dominated society'.
I have steered away from the Freudian problem of 'The Seduction Theory' and the modern-day version of The Seduction Theory Problem in the form of 'violence in the family', 'domestic violence', 'sexual violence', 'violence between the sexes', and Family/Domestic/Sexual Court Law -- in general I have steered away from this 'Huge Can of Philosophical, Political, and Legal Worms' -- for the past year or two because I wanted to establish a solid philosophical base for Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy before I started to rhetorically attack or 'deconstruct' our modern day 'family' and 'sexual' laws. I wanted something more solid to stand on other than the full extent of my own righteous anger, indeed at some points, rage.
As already stated before, numerous, numerous times -- I absolutely believe in, and support, the principles of Democracy and Equal Rights between men and women -- and a strong civil, political, legal, and economic adherence to these democratic and equal rights principles.
However, today 'Feminist Narcissism' that is in no way egalitarian to both sexes but rather gives women a decided political and legal edge in Family and Sexual Criminal Law is just as rampant, just as out of control, and just as destructive to present day society as the fading Patriarchal Narcissistic Political and Legal Bias that it is fast replacing -- indeed, has already dominantly replaced.
Let us step away for a minute from the whole emotional mess of 'men' vs. 'women' in domestic and family courts today and back up a few steps. Did I mention the dialectic between 'men' and 'women' as being a dialectic that is also extemely important to fully talk about in any philosophical and/or psychological enterprise worthy of this name?
I just picked up a book about half an hour ago that I hadn't read in about 30 years.
I was led back to the book -- I just located the book in my library earlier this morning -- by a 'memory'. The memory came back to me in the form of one word -- 'Antigone'. The book was called, 'The Forgotten Language', written by Erich Fromm, one of my favorite 'philosopoher-psychologists', published in 1951. I first read it somewhere between 1974 and 1976, I do believe.
In 'The Forgotten Language', Fromm gave an alternative humanistic-existential perspective and approach to 'dream interpretation' to that postulated by Freud relative to his sexual wish fulfillment theory in the latter's classic book, 'The Interpretation of Dreams', 1900.
You see, in order to understand why Freud abandoned -- or at least partly abandoned -- his Traumacy-Seduction Theory back between 1896 and 1899, you have to also at least partly understand the theory that Freud was in the process of replacing The Traumacy-Seduction Theory with -- and that was, a combination of three theories: 1. Memory Distortion, Screen Memories, and Memories Containing Wish-Fulfillment Fantasies' within them; 2. Infantile and Childhood Sexuality; and 3. The Oedipal Complex (based on The Oedipal Myth where Oedipus unknowingly fufilled a prophecy that he was trying desparately for most of his childhood, teenage, and early adult life to avoid -- specifically, that he would kill his father and marry his mother).
Freud argued in 'The Interpretation of Dreams' that all men -- as children -- have an 'incestual wish to have sex with their mother, and to kill their father so that they can 'possess' the mother. Incestual sex with the mother by the male child is a dominant male child wish, according to Freud, and the underlying mythological base of 'The Oedipal Myth' and the classic Freudian 'Oedipal Complex'.
Fromm argues, alternatively, that the Sophocles myth of Oedipus is actually a trilogy, and when all three myths are interpreted together, it can be seen that the dominant theme in this trilogy is not 'incestuous sex between son and mother' but rather the 'Patriarchal Authoritarian Rebellion' of the son against the father.
Fromm's interpretation has flooded me with some new philosophical interpretations of my own. Indeed, I think this represents another important turning point in the evolution of Hegel's Hotel.
We will now start to look at some of the implications of the dialectic divergence and convergence of 'patriarchal myths, laws, and societies' vs. 'matriarchal myths, laws, and societies' in the history of Western -- and Eastern -- and Middle Eastern -- Culture have on the evolution of Hegel's Hotel.
That will have to wait for another day.
-- dgb, March 30th, 2009.
