This essay was written the other day for another blogsite -- WordPress.
Modified and updated Jan. 26th, 2011.
For those of you who are new to Hegel's Hotel, here is my latest introduction to Hegel's Hotel...
Good day!
My name is David Gordon Bain and I hope to provide you with an ongoing, evolving series of essays on The History, Evolution, and Potential Integration of Western Philosophy and Clinical Psychology. I already have over 1000 essays under my belt at my ‘Hegel’s Hotel’ blogsite at Blogger.com — and who knows — maybe over the next 4 years I can deliver another 1000 essays right here.
I knew from the first time I read ‘Psycho-Cybernetics’ (the bestseller by Maxwell Maltz in the 60s) and ‘Language in Thought and Action’ (by S.I. Hayakawa, the premiere General Semanticist of the 1960s, and an American Senator from 1977 to 1983), that I wanted to study psychology — and I have spent an adult lifetime doing so, in conjunction with my more recent education, through books and on the internet, in the history and evolution of Western Philosophy.
I was listening a few days ago in the middle of the night to the Piers Morgan interview of Oprah Winfrey on CNN, and I heard Oprah say that her ‘brand was love’. Morgan tried to say that Oprah was ‘America’s therapist’ which she didn’t feel entirely comfortable with, preferring to stick to ‘her brand’ that she was comfortable with — love. Now it could be easily argued that what Oprah does on television, and what a therapist does in his or her office, are essentially the same: both, ideally, help to free up a person from his or her personal internal conflicts and traumacies, through greater social acceptance (the therapist, Oprah) and help in this regard towards greater self-acceptance in order that the person feels ‘freer’ to express his or her love, both inside (in terms of laying off the self-persecution in favor of better self-nurturing) and outside in the person’s immediate and larger social envirionment.
Now my ‘brand’ – or the brand/purpose of ‘Hegel’s Hotel’ — is not too different. Philosophically, I have a significant Spinozian influence within me, which means that I believe that ’everything is ultimately connected’. (One just has to find the connection.)
My ‘brand’ if you will is ‘integration’ or ‘dialectic integration’ or ‘multi-dialectic integration’ — three terms and concepts that I use over and over again in my philosophical work.
Stated another way, I aim to ‘metaphorically build bridges’ where before there were ‘walls’, ‘impasses’, ‘chasms’, ‘abysses’, ‘gaps’…
In this regard, I also call my integrative philosophy-psychology: ‘Hegel’s Hotel: Gap-DGB Philosophy-Psychology’, where ‘gap’ stands for the many different types of ‘gaps’ or ‘holes’ or ‘impasses’ or ‘avoidances’ in our lives, and DGB (a double or triple acronym) for the initials of my name, and also for the words ‘Dialectic-Gap-Bridging’ which you will see at the bottom of most of my essays. You can add an ‘n’ in there and get ‘Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Negotiations’, or an ‘i’ and get ‘Dialectic-Gap-Bridging-Integrations’, or I also use the ‘DGBN’ acronym sometimes to stand for ‘Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism’.
What this latter idea means is that: Democracy and Capitalism are only ‘ethically well connected’ and ‘mutually compatible’ as long as both indvidual people and all groups and organizations of people of all different sizes and philosophies can ‘see beyond both individual and group narcissism (i.e., their own self and/or special interests) and into the eyes and heart of another (or groups of others) who may not share this same self and/or special interest. Democracy requires a balanced interplay between self-assertiveness and social sensitivity (empathy, caring, compassion, love… a wish for self-growth and well-being in others as well as oneself).
Unfortunately, ‘Capitalism’ — or what I call the ‘pathological version of Capitalism’ — i.e., ‘Narcissistic Capitalism’ — teaches individuals and groups of individuals (organizations, institutions, corporations, governments, so-called ‘charities’ that mask underlying narcissistic motivations…) to think and feel and talk and act with $ signs in their eyes that have not interest in ‘win-win ethically fair relationships’ whatsoever. And/or even if they do, an employer’s idea of ‘ethical fairness’ might be/likely will be quite different than an employee’s idea of ‘ethical fairness’ when focused on the same issue (such as salary, beneits, expense accounts, etc.) Which opens up the very tough question of ‘How do we define ‘ethical fairness’ in a Capitalist environment?’ Supply and demand? Market value? Or do we, in some cases, require ‘salary caps’ such as in the case of athletes and bankers and CEOs and even some/many government officials who will take their salaries to the moon (or their expense accounts) if they are uncontrolled, unchecked, and worst of all sometimes, non-transparent — ‘narcissistically hidden’ from prying public eyes (such as in the case of those government officials who don’t want their expense accounts — or the detailed contents of them — made public).
Within the field of philosophy, I will take you back to our second oldest known Greek/Western Philosopher — Anaximander (610-546BC) — and show you how his ancient, seemingly primitive philosophy can be viewed as the backbone of all Western Dialectic Philosophy.
In case you don’t know what ‘Dialectic Philosophy’ means, let me briefly define it within my own paradigm of Hegel’s Hotel. Perhaps some/many of you will be familiar with G.W. Hegel’s famous rendition and clarification of ‘dialectic logic and dialectic philosophy’ that subscribed to the basic formula of: 1. ‘thesis’; 2. ‘anti-or-counter-thesis’; and 3. ’synthesis’ or ‘integration’. This was described by Hegel as being the best type of model/formula for describing how people, cultures, history, philosophy, politics, art…and everything else within man’s reach evolve over time in cyclical fashion –meaning the dialectic model/formula repeats itself over and over again, ad inifinitum at higher and higher stages of evolution….
‘Dialectic logic’ is contrasted against ‘Aristolean logic’ where Aristotle distinguished between ‘A’ and ‘B’ — each with mutually exclusive properties that prevented ‘A’ from ever being ‘B’ and ‘B’ from every being ‘A’. For example, a ‘wolf’ can never be a ‘coyote’ and a ‘coyote’ can never be a ‘wolf’. Well, both Hegelian dialectic logic and observable evolutionary theory defy what Aristotle was trying to teach us (i.e., the ‘law of identity and non-identity’). A ‘wolf’ has a particular ‘identity’, a ‘coyote’ has a particular ‘identity’ and never the two shall meet — Nature has distinguished the two from each other such that the ‘two categories’ or ‘species’ of animals will always be ‘non-identical’ and ‘mutally exclusive’ from each other.
Well, Aristotle didn’t take into account the ‘dialectically integrative nature of evolution’. All you need is a ‘wolf’ breeding with a ‘coyote’ and you might as well throw Aristotle’s ‘A’ and ‘B’ categories out the window. Because you now have a ‘new, dialectically integrative species’ that can be labelled as ‘AB’ — or a ‘colf’ Southern Ontario — from what I understand is happening down Kingston way — is full of them: this ‘new’ breed of animal, a cross between a coyote and a wolf, is bigger and stronger than a coyote and yet is less afraid of people and more apt to raid farms for chickens and other livestock, unlike most wolves that prefer to stay in the deeper wild.
Even ‘Aristolean logic’ can be combined or dialectically integrated with ‘Hegelian or post-Hegelian dialectic logic’ in which case a person looking at a ‘colf’ and using both models or systems of logic at the same time, can both appreciate the different properties that may or may not have been geneologically inherited by a colf that can be attributed to either of its coyote or wolf parent (which mayl become harder and harder over succeeding generations), and also at the same time, examine the ‘new, dialectically integrative properties of the animal’ that make it a ‘new breed of animal’ with ’different’ physical and/or psychological properties from either of its preceding parents.
Thus, paradoxically, but in tune with the adaptive necessities of life, from an evolutionary perspective, every species of animal, including man – indeed, most importantly man — becomes both a ‘closed (Aristolean) system’ and an ‘open, dialectically integrative (Hegelian) system, at the same time. Life is full of such dichotomies, seemingly paradocially and contradictory, but not so, when you understand the full dynamics of Hegelian dialectic and multi-dialectic logic. Binary opposite extremes along any polar spectrum can either repel each other, collide with each other, attract each other, or even ‘mate’ with each other in order to form dialectically integrative, new, evolutionary systems.
This makes seemingly 'different structures' -- 'A' vs. 'B' -- often less different, the more and more they interact. Or alternatively, the differences continue to be polarized -- perhaps even exaggerated such as in political forums where differences (such as between 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' or between 'Republicans' and 'Democrats') are exaggerated for dramatic effect.
Regardless, here is the difference between Aristotlean 'Either/Or' Logic and Hegelian Dialectic (Interactive) Logic.
Aristotlean Logic emphasizes 'structural and/or generalized, characteristic differences' between 'A' and 'B' -- say between 'the heart' and 'the liver' -- whereas Hegelian dialectic logic looks at the engagement and interaction between 'A' and 'B', and how both 'A' influences -- and changes the process dynamics, even the structural characterists of 'B' while at the same time, or alternatively, 'B' influences -- and changes -- the process dynamics, even the structural characteristics of 'A'.
Thus, upon the engagement and interaction between 'A' and 'B', everything structurally and dynamically changes in 'A' and 'B'. This is the essence of Hegelian dialectic -- and dynamic -- logic, as opposed to the more structurally unchanging nature of Aristotlean logic.
The same idea of ‘dialectic evolution’ can easily explain the existence and evolution of all these ‘super new viruses and bacteria’ that have mutated with other viruses and/or bacteria, and have learned to ‘compensate’ and ‘defend themselves’ against the attack of ‘anti-biotics’ that are often less effective than they used to be against older strains of bacteria. Any 'vaccine' has the capture the changing nature of the virus it is designed to help the body defend against -- if it doesn't, then it is quite likely to be useless, caught in the stagnant logic and 'box' of Aristotlean logic that suggests, for example, that we do not need to heed the differences between a 2010 'flu strain' and a 2011 flu strain of 'supposedly the same virus' that may have sufficiently different structural and dynamic properties as to make the year old vaccine obsolete.
So in a nutshell, what I wish to extrapolate on here, and to teach within the sphere of ‘Hegel’s Hotel’, the benefits, the potential dangers, the idealism, and the realism of attracting, repelling, clashing, and ‘mating’ dialectic systems containing ‘bi-polar opposite extreme characteristics’ that can either love each other, hate each other — and/or both.
Sound like the typical marriage?
Of course it does…
Why?
Because a marriage system is a dialectic system — with both closed and open properties that are both attracted to, and repel each other. Every marriage is a paradox, an existential dichotomomy — and a supreme challenge to successfully integrate given its likely bi-polar extremes — and/or its hunger for such extremes (when ‘sameness’ and ‘stagnancy’ has set in, in order to promote self- and relationship-growth. Most marriages seek some kind of optimal (homeostatic, dialectic) balance between conservative stability and liberal, boundary-breaking, change. Too much of one and/or the other can quickly or slowly destroy the relationship over time.
That is enough DGB Philosophy-Psychology for today.
It should — hopefully — give you some insight into the kind of work I do in my essays here…
‘Bridging gaps’…
‘Building bridges’…
Across ‘Nietzschean Abysses’…
– dgb, January 25th, 2011,
– David Gordon Bain,
– Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations…
– Are Still in Process…
