Hegel's Hotel is a metaphor that can either be 'externally projected' and/or -- with some modifications -- 'introjected' into a model of the personality.
In the essay previous to this one, I discussed a 'smaller model' of the personality that incorporated 'Greek mythological Gods' as names for a list of 20 'ego-states' in the personality that also incorporated elements of Psychoanalysis, Jungian Psychology, Adlerian Psychology, Object Relations (particularly Fairbairn and Guntrip), Self Psychology (Kohut), Transactional Analysis (Berne), Arthur Janov ('The Primal Scream'), and Gestalt Therapy ('top dog' and 'underdog' ego states).
This 'DGB smaller model of the personality' hasn't been totally fleshed out and discussed with applications and examples yet but we will get there shortly.
To make sure that we are on the same wavelength which is a little different than all of the other schools of psychology that are out there, let me be clear that when I talk about an 'ego-state' I am talking about any conscious, subconscious, or unconscious element of the personality that can be 'reduced' and 'particularized' in terms of its own independent 'functions' -- much like the different 'organs' in the body.
In this regard, I actually labeled off 19 different 'ego-states' so far -- 7 'topdog' ego-states, 7 'underdog' ego-states, 1 'central mediating and executive ego-state', and 4 subconscious-unconscious 'ego states' (16. 'The Dream and Fantasy Catcher/Creator'; 17. 'The Experiential-Memory Transference Template'; 18. 'The Mythological-Archetype-Symbolic-Metaphorical Transference Template'; and 19. 'The Genetic, Potential Self'.
Then, the last 'ego' I listed was 'the ego-as-a-whole' which includes all of the other ego-states and which I labelled as the 'Psyche' (with a Greek or Roman myth attached to the God 'Psyche' involving 'Cupid').
This is where we stand now.
The 'topdog' ego-states are mainly 'parental' and/or 'leadership' functions.
The 'underdog ego-states are mainly 'child' or 'non-leadership' functions.
And the 'third set of ego-functions' which we haven't talked about yet -- except for 'The Central Mediating-Executive (Hegelian) Ego' -- are all what might be called in Transactional Analysis terminology 'Adult' ego-functions.
In Transactional Analysis -- as here -- the 'Adult' ego-states/functions will be depicted between the Topdog Ego-States and the Underdog Ego-States.
And then the fourth set of ego-states and functions are the subconscious-unconscious ones listed above (The Dream Creator, The Experiential-Memory Transference Templates, The Mythological-Archetypes Transference Templates, and The Genetic, Potential Self.
So now, what remains to be extrapolated on are 'The Philosophers' Rooms and/or Ego-States' which I will now proceed to list off the dominant ones that are in my head right now. The intent here, is basically captured a key part of the 'essence' of 2600 years of Western Philosophy in the matter of a few minutes and a handful of names that I don't know how many they are going to 'total' yet. What I do know is that Hegel becomes the 'Center Point' for 'The Adult Ego-States' with the philosophers coming after Hegel chronologically being depicted on the right side of 'Hegel's Central Mediating Ego' and the philosophers coming chronologically before Hegel being depicted on the left side of 'The Hegelian Central Mediating and Executive Ego'.
Starting then, from the beginning of Western History and advancing forward in history to Hegel, 'The Adult Philosophers Ego-States' can be listed more or less chronologically as follows (There is another 'mythology' essay in here that I will push to the side til next essay):
21. Anaxamander's Room/Ego-State: Anaxamander's philosophy emphasized the 'ebb and flow of dialectic power in life' knowing that whoever or whatever is 'ruling today' will eventually be 'overturned and overruled' by someone or some group of people, or something (animal, nature, etc.) coming from out of 'The Darkness and/or The Shadows' -- the 'Hegelian Anti-thesis' of the person or group of people in power -- to wrestle this power away from the reigning dominant force.
22. Heraclitus' Room/Ego-State: Heraclitus' philosophy emphasized the 'constancy and consistency of change' -- 'You cannot step into the same river twice because other waters are ever flowing onto you.' 'All is flux; nothing stays still.' 'Nothing endures but change.'
Also pertaining to the idea of 'opposites attracting and needing each other'...'The road up and the road down is one and the same.' 'If it were not for injustice, men would not know justice.'
Heraclitus also believed that the most basic element in life was 'fire' as opposed to Thales who believed the most basic element in life was 'water' and Anaxamenes who believed that the most basic element in life is 'air'. Similar thoughts were being registered in China around this time where it was either Lao Tse and/or The Han Philosophers who talked about the five most basic elements of life: water, earth, metal, wood, and fire (no air in China). This similarity in ancient Western and Eastern philosophy we will address in the next essay.
23. Parmenides Room/Ego-State: Parmenides emphasized the idea of everything/everyone essentially staying the same while only perimeter 'unessential' factors changed.
24. The Sophists Room/Ego-State: The Sophists exchanged their 'superb rhetorical skills for a fee' -- regardless of who they were defending or attacking. (Sounds like a modern day lawyer).
25. Socrates Room/Ego-State: Socrates was more interested in educating young people, chasing the truth, showing people what they didn't know (but thought they did), and claiming that 'the wise person was the person who knew how much he (or she) didn't know.' Socrates also devised a style of rhetorically questioning people that became known as the 'Socratic Dialectic'.
26. Plato's Room/Ego-State: Plato was the ultimate idealist, the ideological foundation of most Western (and some Middle Eastern) religions today, and the philosopher who is most often pictured with this head held high to the sky. Plato, for the most part, philosophized towards -- or in -- the sky.
27. Aristotle's Room/Ego-State: Aristotle was the ultimate 'grounded empirical observer' (in contrast with Plato who had his head in the sky) -- a Darwin scientific and classifying mentality before Darwin -- the first real systematic biologist with a head for reasoning into the 'causes' of what he observed as well, but again in contrast to Plato, observation first, reasoning into 'causes' second.
28. Sir Francis Bacon's Room/Ego-State: 'Don't chase or follow false idols.' Sir Francis Bacon was one of the ultimate 'rational-empiricists' (along with Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Locke, Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, Korzybski, S.I. Hayakawa, Ayn Rand...and a number of others...)
29. Descartes' Room/Ego-State: Descartes was the ultimate 'subjective-rationalist-mathematician. 'I think therefore I am.' was the starting-point of his very 'introverted' philosophy.
30. Spinoza's Room/Ego-State: One of my favorite philosophers, not for his 'subjective rationalism' in the Descartes mold but rather for his 'wholistic pantheism and spiritualism' in which 'God is in everything (not just ruling over us in the sky).'
31. Locke's Room/Ego-State: Locke used a combination of 'rational empiricism' and 'liberal tolerance' -- particularly religious -- to light a fire under the beginning of 'The Enlightement' and the chase for more 'secular empiricism', equal rights, and political freedom.
32. Hume's Room/Ego-State: Hume was one of Western philosophy's greatest 'skeptics' and 'deconstructionists' along with philosophers like Socrates, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and Derrida.
33. Adam Smith's Room/Ego-State: Smith was best known for his classic economic treatise (the first of its type) on 'laissez-faire' Capitalism, 'the free market', and 'the invisible hand' of 'market homeostatic and dialectic balance'.
34. The Enlightenment Philosophers' Room/Ego-State (Montesque, Diderot, Voltaire, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson...)
35. Rousseau's Room/Ego-State: The first full-blooded 'Romantic Philosopher' who argued that 'reason' wasn't everything in the human condition: Sometimes -- many times -- passion and 'irrational, romantic unpredictability -- ruled.
36. Kant's Room/Ego-State: Kant clearly delineated areas of metaphysics that we 'cant' (Kant) know -- i.e., things that we can't see with our senses -- and in the end, even argued that we can't know for sure anything outside of the realm of our senses -- meaning the entire world that we see around us every day. We can only see 'replicas' (our 'phenomenal' or 'subjective' world) of this 'noumenal ('objective') world' around us from which we basically create an 'assumptive world' that we live our life by. Kant also opened the door to Schelling and Hegel advancing Kant's idea of 'the dialectic' (which I need to research more how exactly Kant opened this door). One can say that Kant created the paradox of the dialectic distinction between our 'subjective/phenomenal' world inside our minds and our 'objective/noumenal' world outside and inside our body that we make 'conceptual representations' of. This dialectic distinction between objective and subjective world Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and even Schopenhauer spent a lot of time and energy arguing against as they opted for a 'one world concept' instead of a 'two world concept' that led to the idea of 'collectivism' and 'nationalism' with Fichte and Hegel, dialectically united and wholistic romanticism with Schelling (I need to do more research here) and an 'Irrational, Deterministic Cosmos' (a 'Cosmic Id') with Schopenhauer (that had a strong influence on Freud along with Hegel's 'dialectic splits' that became internalized in the psyche with Nietzsche (The Birth of Tragedy, Apollo vs. Dionysus) and Freud (Superego vs. Id) and Jung ('The Persona' vs. 'The Shadow') and Berne (The Nurturing Parent vs. The Critical Parent; The Critical Parent vs. The Rebellious Child) and Perls (Topdog vs. Underdog).
Kant also introduced us to the 'Categorical Imperative' - a secular version of 'The Golden Rule': 'Don't do to others what we would not want done to ourselves' or worded otherwise: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."[1] (Wikipedia, the internet).
37. Fichte's Room/Ego-State: Fichte, to my knowledge created the concept of 'Ego' in German.
38. Schelling's Room/Ego-State: A dialectic-romantic-pantheist philosopher very much in the mold of Spinoza but with a 'dialectic twist' to Spinoza's brand of romantic-spiritual-pantheism.
39. Hegel's Room/Ego-State: It all comes down to this: 1. Thesis; 2. Anti-thesis; 3. Synthesis -- and start all over again with the 'synthesis' of the last old dialectic becoming the 'thesis' in the 'new, current dialectic' -- and repeat. This is the 'dialectic cycle'.
Have we reached 64 yet?
I will simplify things once I get to my desired target here.
The point I am making is that there is something 'essential' to be learned from most of the main Western philosophers I am listing here that if we can remember their essential message is worthy of carrying around with us in our heads that we can access and utilize at any time. So let us finish this mini-project here, and then I will offer a simplified version of it.
40. Schopenhauer's Room/Ego-State: Schopenhauer created two philosophies: a 'realistic' one (in his mind) which was very 'pessimistic' and emphasized the 'brutal' and the 'irrational' in man's behavior; and an 'idealistic' one (which is probably pretty 'unrealistic') in that -- like Buddhism -- it denounces all 'human desires' and asks us to 'escape' them (suppress/repress them? -- it didn't work for any of Freud's clients) and/or to indulge in the 'arts', particularly live theater where we can watch our human foibles and soap operas and drama on stage and let down our outer emotional defenses and indulge in 'emotional catharsis' to let out all of our 'emotional troubles and conflicts' that we can 'identify' with as they are played out on the theatrical stage.
Call Schopenhauer's Room/Ego-State an earlier rendition of what was to become Nietzsche's 'Dionysian Ego' (I added the word 'Ego') and Freud's 'Id'. Thus, call Schopenhauer's Room/Ego-State a room of extreme skepticism, pessimism, cynicism, and narcissism towards mankind as well as all 'biological and impulsive/instinctual behavior' including all sensuality and sexuality, the pleasure instinct acted out to the max, and also including all brutally manipulative and/or violent behavior towards someone or someones in our outer social environment. To repeat, Freud coined this part of our human nature and behavior 'The Id' although he didn't give it the status of an 'Ego-State' as I am doing here.
41. Darwin's Room/Ego-State: Closely aligned with Schopenhauer's Room/Ego-State is Darwin's Room/Ego-State. 'Survival of the fittest'. Again, 'instinctual behavior'. And/or 'survival behavior' -- what we are most likely to do in the event of a crisis, an emergency, a situation where it is to a greater or lesser extent 'do or die'. This might be a case of an 'urgent need for food or shelter or medical treatment'. Or it might mean I've lost my job, there are bills that need to be paid at home, and I need to find a job -- fast. What 'survival skills' can I implement -- again, fast? How do I solve a monetary crisis -- fast? This is Darwin's Room/Ego-State -- a central component and adviser to 'The Ego's Emergency Control Tower' in times of severe, acute, immediate stress.
42. Marx's Room/Ego-State: Marx's philosophy is a call to 'altruism', 'humanism', and 'socialism'. Like most forms of 'uncorrupted' religion, Marx's philosophy was meant as a counter-force and 'anti-thesis' to 'unbridled human greed and narcissism'. Now along the way, various Eastern unscrupulous leaders like Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin grabbed a hold of Marx's philosophy and turned it into something much more barbaric than was originally intended by Marx. I don't think Marx would have been happy if he had been able to see what was happening in Lenin's or Mao Tse Tung's or Stalin's version of 'Communism'. Massive political killings, torturing, and/or imprisoning of all political dissenters. Perhaps Marx bears some accountability for these later happenings as he advocated 'armed rebellion of the peasants against their leadership oppressors. But the 'liberal tolerant' John Locke I believe stated something similar 'when push comes to shove' and the leader or party in power is oppressive against the people and not advocating any kind of 'democratic forum or election'.
Just look at what is happening in Iran right now. If the people believe that their supposed 'democratic process' is a 'political sham and scam', then what do they have to do but to protest loudly and rebelliously in a manner that is often going to end in some sort of violent confrontation. Look at The American Revolution. Same thing -- when the British were not 'listening' relative to 'over-taxation' and non-sufficient government representation, their American 'subjects' declared their own 'independence'. Same with The French Revolution. When the French Aristocracy and Church weren't 'listening', the growing French 'Free Capitalist-Enlightenment Sector' along with, I believe, any and/or all remaining 'serfs', 'peasants' and/or 'farmers' who were all being oppressed by the French Aristocracy, Monarchy, and/or Church -- the result was 'armed rebellion'.
Before 1789, France combined an absolute monarchy with feudalism. As Tocqueville first suggested, the aristocracy was exempted from taxation in return for not interfering with the king's policy. The latter was, however, fundamentally limited by the former even under Louis XIV (reigned 1643-1714), the most absolute of French kings. Because the wealthy paid no taxes, there was a permanent fiscal crisis, and the effects were only avoided by taxing the rest heavily, and by selling offices and letters of nobility. Because of its fiscal privilege, the aristocracy felt no need for a parliamentary system such as developed in England. (See French Revolution, internet). Similar revolutions, mainly happening during the Western Europeon evolutionary changeover from a period of 'pre-industrialism' to 'industrialism' and 'Capitalism' occurred in Ireland (the Catholics rebelling against Protestant leadership) and in Spain (before and during Napoleon's rule).
Marx's philosophy and idea of 'armed rebellion' was largely built on the model of The French Enlightenment. Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin all took Marx's Socialist-Communist Philosophy to an even more violent and supposedly 'Anti-Capitalist' extreme although when all the wealth was piling up in these supposedly Socialist-Communist Governments while their people were all either starving, being killed, tortured, or detained indefinitely in prisons -- again, I would hardly say that this was what Marx had in mind by 'Socialist-Communism'.
Marx was essentially an 'Enlightenment-Humanist' philosopher although in his later years he became more extremist. The political activities of Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, and Stalin could hardly be described or defined as 'Enlightenment-Humanist'. Indeed, they were so far towards the opposite extreme that they can only be classified as 'Narcissistic-Barbaric'. This is not what Marx had in mind by 'Socialism-Communism'.
Instead, view Marx's philosophy as a call to help your family, your friends, your neighbor, your community, and the world as a whole particularly in times of dire need, necessity, and crisis. Marx's philosophy is a call to 'altruism', 'giving', 'humanism', and 'Enlightenment values' -- a counter-force against the unbridled greed of Narcissistic Capitalism.
Regarding, 'massive rebellion' and particularly 'armed rebellion', I have never known this to happen except in extremely oppressive Government situations where the 'civilized people' have no democratic options and finally become 'uncivilized' to compensate for, and meet the force of an 'uncivilized, undemocratic Government'.
In cases where the 'massive rebellion' which might even start out as a 'civilized unarmed, protest' meets with an uncivilized and much more powerful -- fully armed -- government, the results can be disastrous. Witness the Darfur civil war/genocide, the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the present-day Iran protests.
..............................................................................
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article contains Chinese text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Chinese characters.
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
Tank Man — This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener, depicts an unknown man halting the PLA's advancing tanks near Tiananmen Square.
Chinese: 六四事件
Literal meaning: June Fourth Incident
[show]Transliterations
Mandarin
- Hanyu Pinyin: Liù-Sì Shìjiàn
alternative Chinese name
Traditional Chinese: 天安門事件
Simplified Chinese: 天安门事件
Literal meaning: Tiananmen Incident
[show]Transliterations
Mandarin
- Hanyu Pinyin: Tiān'ānmén Shìjiàn
The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre (referred to in China as the June Fourth Incident, ostensibly to avoid confusion with two prior Tiananmen Square protests) were a series of demonstrations in and near Tiananmen Square in Beijing in the People's Republic of China (PRC) beginning on 14 April. Led mainly by students and intellectuals, the protests occurred in a year that saw the collapse of a number of communist governments around the world.
The protests were sparked by the death of a pro-market, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, whom protesters wanted to mourn. By the eve of Hu's funeral, 1,000,000 people had gathered on the Tiananmen square. The protests lacked a unified cause or leadership; participants included disillusioned Communist Party members and Trotskyists as well as free market reformers, who were generally against the government's authoritarianism and voiced calls for economic change[1][2] and democratic reform[2] within the structure of the government. The demonstrations centered on Tiananmen Square, in Beijing, but large-scale protests also occurred in cities throughout China, including Shanghai, which remained peaceful throughout the protests.
The movement lasted seven weeks, from Hu's death on 15 April until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on 4 June. In Beijing, the resulting military response to the protesters by the PRC government left many civilians dead or severely injured. The number of deaths is not known and many different estimates exist.[3][4] There were reports that 2,500 people were dead and 7,000 - 10,000 people were wounded according to the Red Cross.[3][4]
Following the violence, the government conducted widespread arrests to suppress protesters and their supporters, cracked down on other protests around China, banned the foreign press from the country and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the PRC press. Members of the Party who had publicly sympathized with the protesters were purged, with several high-ranking members placed under house arrest, such as General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. The violent suppression of the Tiananmen Square protest caused widespread international condemnation of the PRC government.[2]
.............................................................................
War in Darfur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Darfur conflict)
War in Darfur
Darfur refugee camp in Chad
Location Darfur, Sudan
Status Ongoing:
* humanitarian catastrophe.
* start of the Civil war in Chad (2005–present) and the Central African Republic Bush War
Belligerents
JEM factions
Flag of Sudan NRF alliance
Allegedly supported by:
Chad
Eritrea[1][2][3][4]
China Janjaweed
Sudan
SLM (Minnawi faction)
Commanders
Ibrahim Khalil
Flag of Sudan Ahmed Diraige Flag of Sudan Omar al-Bashir
Flag of Sudan Minni Minnawi
Strength
NRF/JEM: N/A
UNAMID: 9,065 N/A
Casualties and losses
400,000+ killed (UN Estimate)[5]
9,000 killed (Sudanese Estimate)[6]
2,000,000 Displaced (UN Estimate)
450,000 Displaced (Sudanese Estimate)
The War in Darfur refers to the civil war taking place in Darfur, Sudan. Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War, this is believed to be an ethnic, rather than a religious war.[7]
The conflict began on 2 February 2003. There are various estimates on the number of human casualties. One side of the armed conflicts is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a Sudanese militia group recruited mostly from the Afro-Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat region in Sudan. These tribes are mainly camel-herding nomads. The other side is composed of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army and the Justice and Equality Movement, recruited primarily from the non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit ethnic groups. The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, is accused of providing financial assistance to the militia, and of participating in joint attacks targeting civilians.[8][9]
The Sudanese government has been accused of tampering with evidence, such as attempting to cover up mass graves.[10][11][12] The Sudanese government has also arrested and harassed journalists, thus limiting the extent of press coverage of the situation in Darfur.[13][14][15][16]
While the United States government has described the conflict as genocide,[17] the UN has not recognized the conflict as such.[18] (see List of declarations of genocide in Darfur). On 31 January 2005, the UN released a 176-page report saying that while there were mass murders and rapes of Darfurian civilians, they could not label the atrocities as "genocide" because "genocidal intent appears to be missing".[19][20] Many activists, however, refer to the crisis in Darfur as genocide, including the Save Darfur Coalition and the Genocide Intervention Network. These organizations point to statements by former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, referring to the conflict as genocide. Other activist organizations, such as Amnesty International, while calling for international intervention, avoid the use of the term genocide.
In May 2006 the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, led by Minni Minnawi, signed a peace agreement with the Sudanese government. The other faction of the SLM, led by Abdul Wahid al Nur, the founding leader of SLM, refrained from signing the agreement.
On 31 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council approved Resolution 1706 which called for a new 26,000-troop UN peacekeeping force called UNAMID to supplant or supplement a poorly funded and ill-equipped 7,000-troop African Union Mission in Sudan peacekeeping force. Sudan strongly objected to the resolution and said that it would see the UN forces in the region as foreign invaders. The following day, the Sudanese military launched a major offensive in the region.
In March 2007 the UN mission accused Sudan's government of orchestrating and taking part in "gross violations" in Darfur and called for urgent international action to protect civilians there.
On 14 July 2008, prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed ten charges of war crimes against Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, charges that included three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity, and two of murder. The ICC's prosecutors have claimed that al-Bashir "masterminded and implemented a plan to destroy in substantial part" three tribal groups in Darfur because of their ethnicity. On 4 March, 2009 the ICC issued an arrest warrant for president al-Bashir, without the genocide charges.[21]
In February 2009, Darfur's UNAMID tried to persuade the rebel group Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudanese government to sign a peace agreement.[22]
War in Darfur
Timeline
International response
AMIS
Combatants
SLM
JEM
Janjaweed
Other articles
History of Darfur
...................................................................................
43. Kierkegaard's Room/Ego-State: In contrast to Hegel's 'vast abstractionism', Kierkegaard sought to emphasize the 'concreteness and priority of the immediate moment. In this regard, Kierkegaard provided the bridge between Hegel and the birth of Existentialism to be followed shortly by Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Camus, Kafka, and others...The essential message here is the 'brevity of life and the essential importance of the immediacy of the moment' -- so often lost in work and 'paying the bill' routines, or simply not valuing enough the importance of every day, every moment, we are alive...because oftentimes, we never know which day, which moment, may be our last one...
44. Nietzsche's Room/Ego-State: What started out as an important addition to Hegelian Philosophy ('The Birth of Tragedy', 'Apollonianism', reason and ethics, vs. 'Dionysianism', passion, sensuality, sexuality, and gleeful celebration) -- providing more dialectic immediacy and drama to Hegel's vast abstractionism -- ended in 'Dionysian Extremism' where Nietzsche essentially left Apollo, ethics, and reason behind...and told man to 'go for the gusto'...'become a 'Dionysian Superman'...and 'celebrate life in all its glory, with all your passion, and drive to be the best you can be at whatever you want to be. Part of that message is good -- in balance with Apollonianism -- but I know plenty of 'Dionysian Supermen or Superwomen' who are already dead or dying well before their time. They took or are still taking the 'exuberant celebration of life' too much too heart -- in effect, become too mesmerized, too obsessed, too addicted to 'Dionysus' seductive Godly powers. I used to meet them in the bars every afternoon. I was one of them. The even more strongly seduced and obsessed enter into a world of drugs that I never entered.
One of my ex's sisters -- dead at 39 years old from cocaine (crack) abuse. Social alcoholics, home alcoholics...as you age, you either stop, slow down, or die...depending on your particular situation. I did the bar scene through most of the 1980s and 90s, left it for a while in the early 2000s, re-entered it again a couple of years ago, then was told by my doctor to either stop or die. I stopped. I feel fine and would be happy to feel the way I do now for the next 4 or 5 years at least but I'm working on about half to 3/4 of a liver right now. The liver, I was told by someone who seemed to be knowledgeable in what he himself had heard, has somewhere around 600 bodily functions to carry out. You can function, so I am told on half a liver. The left part of my liver has even grown somewhat bigger to compensate for some of the functions that the right side of my liver is not carrying out properly any more.
But cirrhosis -- if it keeps destroying more and more of your liver -- is not a pretty disease in its latter stages. So I cannot afford to lose anymore of my liver. But meanwhile, as I write, my best friend's brother is drinking himself to death -- alone in his townhouse. Bright, intelligent, with enough money to retire on for the rest of his life and already retired in his early 50s, some private demon -- call him 'Dionysus' -- keeps driving him to drink himself into an early grave. Life is not all about 'Dionysus'.
We need the homeostatic balance provided by the influence of 'Apollo' and some other Gods, philosophers, and psychologists -- Aphrodite/Cupid, Rousseau (romance), Kierkegaard (enjoying the immediacy of the moment), Nietzsche ('going for the gusto' but not entirely 'Dionysus' gusto), Sartre ('living in good faith with ourselves') to help give ourselves and our lives a more balanced and sustained sense of meaning and importance. Without this sense of meaning and importance, something to make us passionate about 'embracing each and every new day', Dionysus -- or Faust -- is all too ready to step us in and seduce us entirely and -- if we let him -- take us to an early grave...
That is enough for today.
-- dgb, July 22nd, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
