Freud did some good work on 'character types' or 'personality types' which he linked to his theory of 'psycho-sexual development'. The beginning of this type of work probably starts with the publication of his 'Three Essays on Sexuality' (1905). At some point -- I am not sure whether it was here or later -- Freud started to differentiate between the 'oral' and 'anal' character with different sub-distinctions postulated for each of these two basic character types.
In this regard -- and don't ask me at this point where I am getting this from -- mainly from a combination of memory and probably extrapolation and embellishment of this memory -- further distinctions can be made relative to the 'oral character' such as 'oral-nurturing', 'oral-receptive', 'oral-sucking', 'oral-biting', 'orally fixated' ('orally obsessive'), 'oral-giving', 'oral-getting', 'oral hedonistic'...
Similarly, relative to the 'anal character', we might make such distinctions as: 'anal-retentive', 'anal-expulsive', 'anal-righteous', 'anal-sadistic', 'anal-rejecting', 'anal-abandoning', 'anal schizoid', 'anal-accepting', 'anally fixated', 'anal-obsessive', 'anal-hedonistic'...
Now having studied many different schools and sub-schools of psychology, it is very easy for me to integrate a more 'Instinctual, Psycho-Sexual Development' model of Psychoanalysis with a more 'Object Relations and Transactional Analysis' model of Psychoanalysis and Post-Psychoanalysis.
The integration works something like this:
Freud once advanced the idea -- probably with the influence of his best friend Fliess -- that the human personality is inherently 'bi-sexual'. As provocative and controversial as this idea may sound at first blush, there is some good, strong clinical evidence to support this idea, this theory -- and it can also be added that the body is inherently bi-sexual as well.
In Chinese medicine, the terms 'yin' (feminine energy) and 'yang' (masculine energy) are still very much in use. Biochemically, we know that both men and women have different combinations or proportions of both 'testosterone' and 'estrogen' in their bodies which are typically viewed as the predominantly 'male and female hormones' respectively.
Psychologically, psycho-socially, and psycho-sexually children are ideally brought up by two parents, a mother and a father, and both parents will have their share of influence on the 'evolving character makeup' of this child. Stereotypically, particularly in the youngest years, the mother is looked upon as the 'primary nurturer' (what we typically view as 'maternal qualities') although at some points she will need to impart 'discipline and order' as well. Stereotypically, discipline and order are often viewed as more 'paternalistic qualities' but any child has a need for paternalistic nurturing and encouragement as well.
So 'stereotypically male and female characteristics and qualities' are in a 'normal, healthy' family passed on to a male or female child through the 'bi-polar and bi-sexual' influence of both mother and father, although within this generic stereotype of 'normal, healthy parental influence and childhood development' there are practically an infinite number of more 'individually customized' permutations and combinations on this very broad, generic theme -- some obviously more 'healthy' than others. Lack of maternal and/or paternal nurturing and/or lack of maternal and/or paternal discipline can either or both cause significant later development (teenage and adult) psychological, psych-social, and psycho-sexual problems...
........................................................
Now Freud has been criticized heavily for his 'pan-sexuality' -- and taking sexuality literally in places where he perhaps shouldn't have and was perhaps getting a little carried away (such as a baby sucking at a mother's breast).
But that was Freud -- his focus was on human sexuality -- traumatic, hedonistic, and narcissistic -- and everything else branched off from there.
Few would deny that sexuality does not play a dominating role in human nature and human behavior.
How many times during the course of a normal day do we not think of sexuality? Maybe this applies more to men than women -- but then again, maybe not.
There are times in our lives when sexuality may take a back seat to other more pressing problems -- work, money, family issues, etc.
But still -- sexuality is almost always present and plays a central part in character-formation, character structure, transference complexes, scripts, and games, and the dynamic process of everyday-living.
Freud's 'psycho-sexual theory of human development' is important to get a handle on even if we do not want to take this theory totally 'by the Orthodox Psychoanalytic book' in every different corner of it.
There are also important interactions going on in the human personality between sexuality, egotism, self-esteem hedonism, narcissism, authoritarianism, and power that we also need to get a power on.
This is where Alfred Adler made one of his greatest contributions to Psychoanalysis -- and to his own brand of Adlerian Psychology -- before and after he left Freud's company.
Adler made a number of extremely valuable contributions to the evolution of clinical psychology and psychotherapy, one of the main ones of which I will discuss briefly here.
Adler's concept of 'compensation' is absolutely essential to understanding human behavior as with all form of life on earth. Compensation is one of the main forms of both human and non-human evolution and 'mutation'. For example, even viruses and bacteria have an 'evolutionary intelligence' that we do not always give them credit for. More and more, we are learning about the ability of both viruses and bacteria to become 'drug-resistant'. This is evolutionary intelligence at work in the form of compensation and mutation. Even viruses and bacteria are not 'stupid'. They have been around this world for a very long time -- much longer than man by my understanding -- and this evolutionary ability to 'survive and propagate the species' does not come by accident. Viruses and bacteria 'learn' as well as humans do. And when humans compensate with new vaccines and/or medicines to battle off particular strands of viruses and bacteria -- viruses and bacteria eventually learn about the new 'man-made compensations', and they adjust and compensate as well. That is how they 'learn' to stay alive and to continue to do what they do.
The left lobe of my liver has reportedly grown bigger to 'compensate' for some of the neglected bodily functions that have been compromised and/or destroyed by the cirrhosis in the right side of my liver.
Similarly, a cousin of mine had his spleen taken out because of a genetic blood problem called 'hereditary spherocytosis' in the family (which I have too, and has been one of the problems that has put additional stress on my liver). A surgeon took my cousin's spleen out -- to avoid the type of blood and liver complications that I have had to deal with my whole life -- meaning that our 'spherical-shaped' blood cells get broken down by the spleen much faster than normal shaped blood cells do -- and he grew a new spleen back! A rarity in human biological functioning and medical history, I do believe!
As I reported in an earlier essay, I was told by a seemingly knowledgeable source that the liver has something like 600 bodily function to carry out. In this regard, some have called the liver 'The Chief Executive Officer' of the body -- where I will be a little more specific and call it 'The Chief Medical Detoxification Officer' of the body.
Obviously, the functions -- and pathologies -- of the liver are of utmost personal interest to me, but in addition to this, my purpose here is to make an 'associative connection' between the physical functions of the body and the psychic functions of the personality.
Specifically, the heart can be equated more with the 'Oral-Nurturing Part of The Personality' -- in that the purpose of the heart is to pump nutrients -- food and oxygen -- to all the different parts of the personality in the same way that the purpose of 'The Oral-Nurturing (Maternal) Topdog's purpose and function is to 'pump encouragement, confidence, and self-esteem -- psychic nourishment' -- into the various parts of the personality.
In a similar fashion, the liver can be viewed as carrying out a very similar purpose and function as 'The Anal-Righteous (Paternal) Topdog' -- and that is essentially 'detoxification' -- physical vs. psychological.
The liver's job is primarily 'detoxification' -- screening out poisons and toxins that would enter the bloodstream and the body's organs if the liver was not there. In this sense, the liver is like one of those 'Reverse Osmosis Water Filters' that you can hook up to your tap and it 'cleans the water' of all major impurities, toxins, chemicals, etc.
This is essentially the same job of 'The Ethically-Righteous Topdog' in the overall functioning of the 'Ego' -- or 'Psyche'. Detoxification of the personality -- and one's environment -- of all impurities, toxins, corruptions, greed, and philo-psycho-socio-pathologies.
Now like the liver -- and the immune system -- you can have what are called 'auto-immune diseases' where the detoxification process gets out of control and starts to destroy healthy cells in the body and/or confusing 'healthy cells' with 'incoming invaders'; and likewise in the personality, if 'The Ethically-Righteous Topdog' is pathologically constructed and/or gets out of control, we can get 'auto-immune psychological pathologies' in the personality where The Ethically-Righteous Topdog is essentially attacking 'healthy elements' in the personality and self-esteem.
Now obviously in the personality, you can't see an 'ethically anal-righteous (paternal) topdog' nor an 'oral-nurturing (maternal) topdog' so these remain 'assumptive constructs and concepts' to explain the way the personality acts very much in accordance with the same way that the body functions -- and generally if not always towards some sort of 'subjectively construed' homeostatic balance.
Some people may have a perceived need for more 'individual security and stability' than others, while other people may have a greater perceived need for more 'excitement and risk-taking' in the personality. Thus, to a certain extent, everyone's homeostatic-dialectic balance is going to be a little -- or a lot -- different.
However, as in different medical conditions, at some point someone(s) has to draw the line as to what is and isn't considered within the 'normal range of human behavior' -- which becomes increasingly difficult in the realm of human behavior because you also have the possibility of a 'pathology of normalcy' within the society or culture or sub-culture as a whole that can completely 'skew' what should and shouldn't be considered to be 'normal' vs. 'abnormal'.
We have talked about psychology, the beginning of object relations, and similar 'homeostatic' and 'compensatory' principles at work in medicine, biology, and bio-chemistry as well.
Now let us step outside of both psychology and medicine for a few minutes and talk about the principle of 'homeostatic dialectic-democratic balance' in ethics, politics, national, and international law.
For example, if you have a type of leadership and law in Afghanistan that says 'it is essentially okay for a husband to rape his wife', then this is perhaps the type of law that needs to be a looked at and ethically criticized and challenged from a more 'global-egalitarian-democratic' set of beliefs, values, and laws than a culture that is still deeply entrenched in a form of 'patriarchal-male biased preferentialism, discrimination, and narcissism' (like Afghanistan).
Now as I started to argue elsewhere (and stopped for the time being because I backed away from highly provocative, controversial, politically volatile material that needs to be democratically addressed, and I will open this subject matter up again right here), it is equally incumbent for any society with a 'global-egalitarian-democratic set of beliefs, values, and laws to be equally critical of any type of cultural-society based homeostatic balance that is skewed to either the left or the right, up or down -- skewed towards either white or colored people, skewed towards either men or women -- because 'reverse-discrimination' and 'reverse-preferentialism' is just as much 'discrimination' as the more 'commonly discussed and watched for' brands of discrimination and preferentialism.
It is a very common phenomenon in human history that first the 'pendulum of social, political, and legal justice and injustice swings way too far one way' and then in an effort to correct this problem, to compensate for it, overcompensating measures are put in place that distort the balance of justice in the opposite direction.
The pendulum of justice first swings too far one way (thesis: preferentialism to 'white males', and discrimination against non-whites and/or against women); then swings back too far the other way (anti-thesis: eg. 'affirmative action projects', preferentialism to non-whites and/or women, and discrimination against 'white males').
There is all sorts of different types of discrimination in any type of society -- from the family on upwards to government -- some more openly blatant, dominant, and publicized; other types more covert, hidden, and sneaky, coming from unexpected places -- like the government that is supposed to lead the way in acts of 'egalitarianism' and 'equal rights/responsibility democracy' committing acts and laws of 'reverse-discrimination' against 'whites', 'males', and/or 'English-speaking Canadian citizens'. Some of this was addressed during the Preston Manning era, and/or once Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. Most blatant 'affirmative action' programs have been eliminated in Canada -- as they should be and have been -- because they are blatantly 'reverse-discriminatory'. I remember a few articles on reverse-discrimination finally hitting the Toronto Sun. At the time, back around 1995, I remember seeing all these job postings on government and semi-government walls that basically read: (White Males Need Not Apply): 'Preference Will Be Given to Ethnic Minorities and/or Women'. If the postings had stated the reverse -- Ethnic Minorities and Women Need Not Apply: 'Preference Will Be Given To White Males -- the country -- particularly ethnic minorities and women -- would have gone rhetorically ballistic. But white males didn't seem to know how to handle the situation -- (and they still don't) -- this was the first time they had ever been discriminated against -- suppressed, repressed, and oppressed -- under a 'veil of political correctness'. At this time there was a massive subtraction of federal funding to the provincial Mike Harris-Conservative Government and, at the same time, I believe, additional expenses were being downloaded from the federal government to the provincial government. This was very sneaky, dirty, and underhanded on the part of the Federal Liberals -- they looked like the 'good guys' in the process of eliminating massive amounts of federal debt while downloading federal expenses onto the provinces, subtracting federal revenues to the provinces -- leaving the provinces to feel the full extent of a huge budget crunch and crisis, particularly Mike Harris' Ontario Conservative Party, and thus, the necessity of cutting thousands of Canadian Government -- and Semi-Government (Contracted) jobs, as well as closing major hospitals and under-funding all educational institutes. I'm all for eliminating needless expenses and cutting government when it gets too 'fat, lethargic, and bureaucratic' but this action on the part of The Liberal Party was politically dirty as it allowed them to 'take responsibility -- and the accolades -- for a massive reduction of federal debt on the backs of the provinces -- particularly the Mike Harris Ontario Conservative Premier -- who looked terrible with all the loss in jobs, hospital closings, and underfunding of educational institutes in Ontario. Chretien, in effect, 'played' Harris to be the 'unjustified-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey bad guy'.
I was getting sick of my job by this time, 12 years on the job, making a very comfortable salary, but wanting something different, I wanted out, and took a severance package as well as my pension plan to leave. However, at the same time, I was partly being pushed out by a management team that was given three mandates which they mixed together into one 'kill two birds with one stone' massive downsizing project: 1. cut expenses; 2. cut employees; 3. hire and/or keep more minorities and/or women (a part of the preceding NDP 'left-central', Bob Rae led Provincial Government and his (and/or Chretien's) 'affirmative action' (reverse-discrimination) program.
I lost my job to a young, smart colored woman with a bright future but who didn't have a tenth of the 'job knowledge' that I had. (Obviously, this is a partly or fully biased opinion on my part but I had been doing my 'scheduling' job for 12 years, and this woman didn't have any job experience or knowledge at all relative to 'knowing where customers and streets were'.) No matter -- computer dispatching was coming in (also designed to cut jobs and costs) and a substantial 'savings' was made on my replacement: she was hired 'part-time' at a substantially lesser salary with no benefits. A substantial savings to the company and also a 'fulfillment of their affirmative action mandate'.
My point here is simply this: discrimination and preferentialism can work both ways, and reverse-discrimination can actually be 'mandated' by the government in the name of 'affirmative action' and/or some other means of 'overprotecting' minorities and/or women -- even the name 'minority' is becoming more and more of a 'misnomer' as population numbers of many so-called minority groups keep rising and rising. I have no problem with this -- just stop calling them 'minorities' if or when numbers don't indicate this to be true anymore.
Again, my purpose here is not to 'heat up any type of racial and/or sexual war' because I view myself as an egalitarian philosopher but sometimes as an egalitarian philosopher you have to come out and say what other people, and even other philosophers, won't say. I certainly think I know how Freud felt when he was vilified in 1896 amongst his medical peers and superiors for 'stirring up the issue of child abuse'. It wasn't 'politically correct' to talk about it then in a dominant, narcissistic, patriarchal society.
Now we have a reverse situation where any talk or any call to debate the problem of 'some minority groups' or 'some women and/or women's groups' being narcissistically discriminative in themselves, and/or demanding 'preferential treatment' in the name of equality -- particularly when this potential discussion is opened up by a white male -- is likely going to be met with 'rhetorical derision' and 'screams of 'discrimination', 'racism', and/or 'sexism'.
The whole issue of 'racial profiling' -- or not -- was opened up by President Obama the other day in the case of the black Harvard professor being arrested by the white police sergeant for breaking into what turned out to be his own home. The story -- as with many stories of this nature whether dealing with alleged 'racist' or 'sexist' behavior, or domestic assaults, or sexual assaults -- was not/is not 'black and white'. That is why we all need to be more skeptical and patient when either the 'race card' or the 'sex card' is played until all the evidence on both sides of the story is communicated as best as possible.
.........................................................................
From the internet....Obama Attacks Cambridge Police Department
Harvard Professor's Arrest a Tale of Race, Crime, and Politics
During his press conference, President Obama weighed in on an incident involving the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department and an African American Harvard Professor named Henry Louis Gates.
Professor Gates was seen by a neighbor forcing open the door to his own home. Apparently not recognizing Professor Gates, the neighbor reported that a burglary was in progress to the Cambridge Police Department. The
Obama Attacks Cambridge Police Department
police arrived and found Henry Louis Gates inside his own home. From there the accounts get a little murky.
Gates claims that he showed his ID to the police, proving that he was breaking into his own home, having forgotten his keys. The police, according to the arrest report, tell a different story. The arrest report suggests that Henry Louis Gates refused to provide identification and verbally abused the officers on the scene, calling them "racists", before being taken into custody for disorderly conduct. The charge was later dropped.
President Obama, who is a personal friend of Henry Louis Gates, suggested that the Cambridge Police Department "behaved stupidly." Perhaps so. Indeed, it's a standard joke around many police departments that "disorderly conduct" often translates to "annoying the police officer." Being yelled at and called a "racist" is certainly annoying.
Seargent James Crowley, the arresting officer, doubtlessly acted as he would have with any other suspect, of whatever race. Unfortunately, because of the high profile nature of both the case and the arrestee, James Crowley now has to defend himself against charges of racism. Everyone who knows Seargent Crowley has labeled the charge absurd
At the same time, President Obama's good friend could also said to have acted stupidly if he did not quietly hand over his ID and explain why he had to force his way into his own home. One ought not to yell and abuse people with badges and guns, even if one feels entitled to play the race card at such moments.
....................................................................................
DGB
I believe that the current domestic and family court laws in Canada as well as all 'sexual assault' laws and applications of these laws need to be reviewed. I am all for protecting women from domestic and sexual assaults but not to the point where women are always stereotyped as 'victims' and men are always stereotyped as 'victimizers'. Again, this is 'reverse-discrimination' -- and 'sexual profiling', no different than 'racial profiling'.
'Two wrongs do not make a right.' Not in my books anyway. Equal civil rights means 'no skewing of justice to either the left or the right in society, no skewing of justice towards blacks, browns, or whites, males or females, rich or poor...
As soon as we start moving towards any form of 'selective affirmative action' and/ or 'pre-planned profiling' program, regardless of which way we skew any of these programs, we are basically advocating a social, political, and legal acceptance of 'racial and/or sexual preferentialism and (reverse)-discrimination'.
No one likes to be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, sex, money, race... -- black, brown, or white, male or female, rich or poor -- all is equally socially, politically, philosophically, and psychologically unacceptable.
'Trying to make up for past racial and/or sexual injustices is a very dangerous social path to go down. You are just going to create more social injustices -- in the opposite direction.
As one civil rights activist once said or wrote -- I believe it might have been Bob Marley, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, and in no way do I have the original exact quote, I am both paraphrasing and extrapolating -- a person's sexual, ethnic, racial, and/or monetary status -- when it comes to equal civil rights -- shouldn't make any more difference than the color of his or her eyes.
The one exception -- if you have any kind of a liberal, altruistic philosophy and caring in your heart - might be enough 'social, medical, and educational assistance' to help those at the very bottom of the socio-economic totem pole to survive from day to day, without having to live on the street and/or without heat or food or medical attention, or education. Here, hopefully, we can find some way towards helping these people -- indeed, all people -- move towards a better life. Particularly, those who are motivated to help themselves.
Now 'how much social assistance should be given' and 'under what particular circumstances' is a debate that I have no intention of getting into now or at any time in the near future. I will leave that for the 'democratic process'.
When money and jobs are short, and/or the money in government is seen by the 'general people' to be moving in the wrong direction, we can expect that most people are going to feel 'less generous' as they seek to stabilize their own lives, and the lives of their families, first.
This may be part of the problem President Obama seems to be facing now in terms of his 'medical agenda'. There are still 'mixed feelings' on the last couple of 'stimulus packages', where they are going, who is getting the money, how is it being used, is it being used for what it was purported to be used for, are there actual new jobs being created, new bank loans going out to businesses and the general people -- or all these intended purposes all a 'sham', and lining more of the wrong people's pockets and bank accounts while the public debt soars into the greater trillions of dollars.
The American debt has become an American issue -- amongst Republicans and Democrats alike.
I think we have exhausted our discussion for today.
The discussion of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balances and imbalances' are relevant to all philosophical, psychological, medical, social, political, economic, racial, sexual, and legal subject matters.
In my opinion -- and this defies Hegelian tradition and history -- it is impossible to be a full-fledged Hegelian or post-Hegelian philosopher without being a 'Centralist' philosopher because a Hegelian/Post-Hegelian philosopher should always be looking for that 'point of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance' in the middle between two extreme, often conflicting, polarities.
Every situation where such a conflict arises, a particular case example where there is the possibility of 'lack of communication', 'lack of transparency', lack of the full context of the situation', a 'dispute of beliefs and/or values', a 'disagreement over what is right or wrong', 'what is racist and what is not', 'what is sexist and what is not',
A full disclosure of all the particular details of the situation, from both points of view,
In the right 'open-minded-egalitarian-oriented-democratic environment',
To quote President Obama the other day,
Provides the possibility for a 'teachable(-learnable) moment',
Not all of the time,
But definitely more of the time.
When people can 'objectively look at the situation',
And put their 'narcissistic special interests aside'.
This requires a different type of training,
Than the training we have become used to,
Special interests here, special interests there,
Who's getting the money? Who's not getting the money?
Who's being discriminated against? Who's being treated preferentially?
In the end it comes down to this:
Do we believe in 'narcissistic, special-interest, preferential rights'?
Or do we believe in 'full-blooded, egalitarian equal rights and responsibilities'?
I believe in the latter.
Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy supports the latter, not the former.
And I will take whatever 'heat' comes my way for believing this.
-- dgb, July 27th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,
-- Are still in process...
...........................................................................
