June 26th, 27th, 2015
Finished!
I am going to do a little 'time-traveling' in this essay.
Sometimes the most important ideas in human philosophy are the ones
that go the furthest back in human history. In this regard, the idea of
'bipolarity' goes back about as far in human philosophy as recorded
human philosophy goes.
For good reason. Look around you and the phenomenon of
polarity or bipolarity can be found almost anywhere you look. Male and
female. Old and young. Or old and new. Big and small. Alive and dead.
Left and right. Conservative and Liberal. Up and down. Air and earth.
Fire and Water...
On and on we could go both with these 'polar phenomena'
in themselves, and with the words that I use to represent them -- words
generally being used to 'represent' the phenomena that we 'see' or
'infer' or 'value' in the world we live in, in the same sense that a
'map' is used to 'structurally represent' the 'real territory' that this
map is supposed to (but sometimes doesn't accurately) represent.
(Koryzybski, General Semantics).
Now I view Korzybski's work (Science and Sanity) in the
1930s as being some of the best work on Language, Meaning, Philosophy,
and Psychology that Western history has ever seen. Korzybski's work
overlaps with Wittgenstein's philosophy/epistemology, the latter of whom
wrote about some of the same core ideas as Korzybski relative to
'accurate representation' (you could probably put Bertrand Russell in
that group as well) but not in the same kind of drawn out 'treatise-like
detail (General Semantics) that Korzybski did. Stretching back further
into history than these three philosopher-epistemologists was Kant who
basically claimed that we 'kant know anything' -- a rather provocative,
controversial statement when Kant finally finished writing 'The Critique
of Pure Reason'.
Based on epistemological scepticism of an only slightly
lesser degree than his predecessor, David Hume -- the ultimate
empiricist who said 'if you can't see it, don't believe it -- Kant
posited a 'sensory-perceptual-conceptual-theoretical bubble' between
man's 'intake' of 'knowledge' (the 'phenomenal' world) and the world of
'things-in-themselves' (the 'noumenal world) which man could never truly
'know' without 'perceptual-conceptual distortion'.
From this rather 'distressing' idea of Kant's (at least
to some), and the fact that I like to think in terms of metaphors and
symbolism and mythologies as well as 'juxtaposing bipolar ideas'
together in rather odd, unorthodox, 'post- Hegelian dialectic ways' --
comes my own bipolar dialectic concepts of 'fictional facts' or 'factual
fictions' or 'functional mythologies' of which this developing work
here is likely going to be full of them.
I like to develop functional clinical metaphors and
mythologies -- which involve comparisons between different realms of
human study such as between biology, mythology, cosmology, philosophy,
psychology, spirituality -- with psychoanalysis being at the centre of
this comparative, associative universe -- where, for example, biology,
psychology, and bio-psychology can be viewed as involving the
'introjection' of certain mythological-spiritual and philosophical
schools of thought (Greek Mythology, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Lao tse,
Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Korzybski...) and conversely -- and
dialectically -- human mythology-spirituality, and philosophy can be
viewed as involving the 'projection' of man's inner biology and
'bio-psychology'.
It is upon this idea, this assumption that I started
building my 'multi-bipolar model of the human psyche' with Anaximander,
Heraclitus, Lao Tse, Spinoza, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, Korzybski, and
Cannon providing much of the unconscious, bio-psychological base of this
model. Specifically, as Anaximander was postulating a universe that
started with 'Chaos' or 'The Apeiron', so too, I was postulating an
'internal bio-psychology' that started with an 'internal Abyss' and a
'Chaotic-Disorganized-Mystifying-Needful-Driving-Passionate Dionysian
Id-Ego' (Freud's Id) which starts to evolve and develop with a
combination of internal 'God-Nature-Genetic-Given-Capabilities-or-Gifts'
and the onset/onslaught of 'life experiences' of a new-born baby being
'evicted' from the womb -- and thrown out into an 'Abyss' of 'Chaos'.
Here -- unlike Freud, but more like Lacan -- I postulate a
more 'organized and organizing, associating, differentiating,
classifying, bipolarizing Apollonian Id-Ego'. Family and culture start
to play a bigger and bigger influence on the evolving development of the
'id-ego' as from a more 'uncivilized state' it moves -- in most cases
-- to a more and more 'civilized-id-restraining state of consciousness.
As our more 'uncivilized' and 'civilized' id-ego states
clash with each other -- much like hundreds or thousands or millions of
bipolar phenomena clash with each other in different ways -- for
dominance in a way that is beautifully described by Anaximander back
somewhere before 550 BC in his 'chaos-bipolarity-conflict' theory that
nets a 'winning, dominant' polarity' and a 'losing, submissive polarity'
-- the first taking over 'the limelight' of cosmic existence, the
second being relegated to 'the shadows' of cosmic existence -- and what
Anaximander was describing philosophically in this manner, I am
describing as a 'factual fiction' inside our human body, mind, and
'bio-psychology'.
In this regard, extrapolating from Anaximander's ancient
philosophy, I time-travel again and borrow from Jung when Jung says that
what is dominant in our conscious mind (the limelight) tends to be
submissive in our unconscious mind (the shadows), and what is dominant
in our unconscious mind (the shadows) tends to be submissive in our
conscious mind (the limelight).
Thus, in this respect, our subconscious
or unconscious mind tends to both support and compensate for the 'gaps'
in our often 'one-sided', conscious mind. In other words, the human mind
-- and body -- is built -- created -- on what might be called
'dialectic-bipolar evolutionary growth'.
Now, it is this dialectic-bipolar-evolutionary-growth
principle that is the fundamental principle of Anaximander's brilliant
'Chaotic-Bipolar-Conflict-and-Evolution' philosophical theory from
sometime before 550 BC that stretches and time-travels (as well as
distance-travels but we will get to this shortly) all the way to Hegel's
classic philosophical work -- arguably the most important philosophical
treatise and grand narrative in Western human history -- 'The
Phenomenology of Spirit' (1806?) -- that I now 'introject
bio-psychologically into the 'essence of the human soul' that becomes
the most important component of the
humanistic-existential-psychoanalytic-spiritual-pantheistic model that I
am trying to communicate to you -- or with you.
It is this model that I call 'Hegel's Hotel' which can be
viewed as a metaphor that we can either 'project externally into a
philosophy and/or even build as an architectural
philosophy-psychology-spiritual institute, and/or alternatively it can
be 'introjected' into a 'model of the personality' that is meant to
describe in a 'mindful way, the splitting or dividing up of the inside
of our mind in such a fashion that, once we learn this model, can allow
us to follow our cognitive-emotional activities into whatever
'ego-state' or 'ego-position' that these activities may take us (as
classified by the model which can be viewed as a
'fictional-factual-spiritual-mythology').
Still with me? We have already done a lot of
time-traveling. I have a few more places that I would like to go such as
firstly -- Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy'.
This fabulous little book -- Nietzsche's first work that
was a brilliant extrapolation of Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit but
shortly afterwards rejected by Nietzsche himself as being 'too
Hegelian' -- adds another dichotomous, paradoxical, bipolar element to
'Hegel's Hotel'.
Nietzsche's thesis in this important but largely
overlooked philosophical work, adds a 'tragic' element to Hegel's
dialectic philosophy that harks back also to Anaximander's philosophy of
'clashing, warring opposites' -- and that is that what can 'lead us to
spiritual human bliss in terms of either a
'homeostatic-dialectic-philosophical-psychological-spiritual balance'
and/or a 'celebration of extreme human achievement and self-empowerment'
(which we can call 'Nietzsche's or Zarathustra's Mountain') can also
end tragically and horrifically in human despair when we can't get to
this place of human accomplishment and/or human balance -- when the
clash between Dionysus and Apollo, between the more civilized and less
civilized man, between polar opposites -- between superego and id,
between persona and shadow, between inferior and superior, secure and
insecure self -- doesn't reach harmony at all but rather -- 'drops off
of Nietzsche's Existential Rope' -- and back down into our deepest
abyss, either death or the closest thing to it -- Chaos -- which we can
either perish in, or climb our way back out of again...like we did when
we were born into this existence -- unknowing of anything, until we
start to exercise our 'gifts', our 'capabilities' -- or not.
So here I will postulate the meeting of Freud's life and
death instinct -- in man's phenomenology of spirit -- or phenomenology
of tragedy. 'To be or not to be -- that is the question.' (Hamlet,
Shakespeare).
More time traveling. Let's travel back to ancient China
at about the same time that Anaximander was philosophizing in that part
of Europe that would now be called Turkey. Asian Turkey Back then, it
was a part of Greece. Miletus, Ionia. Right on the borderline between
Europe and Asia and close to Persia as well.
Should we consider it entirely coincidental that one of
the forefathers of ancient Chinese philosophy -- Lao tse -- one of the
main creators of one of the main schools of Chinese philosophy --
Daoism/Taoism -- developed a school of philosophy that can easily be
compared to the philosophy of Anaximander from Miletus, Ionia?
Both created 'dialectic bipolar philosophies'. The
biggest difference between the two schools of philosophy is that
Anaximander's philosophy was mainly one of 'dialectic competition and
conflict' -- the opposite bipolarities in a dialectic, bipolar spectrum
taking turns 'dominating' each other and 'submitting' to each other, the
first dominating the limelight, the second dominating the shadows;
whereas in Lao tse's school of Daoism the two 'conflicting parts in a
bipolar spectrum' -- 'yin' 'and 'yang' -- can be balanced in
'co-operation' and 'dialectic harmony' or in biological language --
'homeostatically balanced' -- to create 'The Path' with 'qi energy'
being labelled as the 'essential life energy force'.
In this regard, Anaximander's dialectic philosophy can be
viewed as a 'dualistic-dialectic competition and conflict for power'
model of philosophy which if not 'dialectically balanced
towards equilibrium and harmony' in a Lao-tse/Daoist type manner of
'balancing yin and yang' can result in what Nietzsche labeled as 'The
Birth of Tragedy' and what Freud labeled as 'the death instinct'.
Hegel straddles the middle -- determininstically in a
historical manner-- arguing (my extrapolation) that whether the
dialectic conflict within any bipolar spectrum is balanced peacefully
(Lao tse), or whether it is balanced over time by competition, power,
war and strife, is a moot point -- either way, 'dialectic evolution'
is going to take place through the dialectic process of what we can now
view as a 'triadic' or 'triangular' model of: 1. 'thesis';
2. 'anti-thesis'; and 3. 'synthesis'.
However, ideally for mankind, it is better to aim to
achieve dialectic evolution or 'trialectic equilibrium and synergy' the
Lao tse (democratically dialectic way) as opposed to the Anaximander
(power-driven, dualistic, take no prisoners, leave no survivors, way).
The history and evolution of mankind can be viewed as an
oscillation between the Anaximander-power-driven, conquest and conquer,
approach to dialectic evolution as opposed to the more 'yin-yang',
democratic-negotiation, let's aim for peace and harmony, equilibrium and
harmony, approach to dialectic evolution.
The dichotomy and paradox of the oscillation of these two
opposing approaches to dialectic evolution -- dictatorship vs.
democracy -- can be viewed as constituting the essential paradox of
man's internal 'phenomenology of spirit' as can also be construed as an
internal playoff between what Freud called 'the life instinct vs. the
death instinct' -- because the power and war-driven dictatorship vs.
rebellion and anarchy approach is invariably going to lead to much more
'pre-mature and violent death'.
What we have here is the essence of a 'TOE' theory -- a
'Theory of Everything' that -- philosophically speaking -- can be viewed
as being bigger than the Persian or Macedonian or Mongolian Empire --
all put together -- that can be viewed as connecting, Cosmology,
Mythology, Spirituality, Religion, Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics,
Neurology, Psychology, Bio-Psychology and Philosophy, Politics....
Normalcy vs. Pathology...and The Pathology of Normalcy...
What we have here could quite possibly be viewed as 'The Grandest of all Grand Narratives'.
What other connecting links can I make here? Lao tse and
Jung. Lao tse's 'qi energy' being linked to Jung's definition of
'libido' as 'life energy'.
Now to bring Freud back into the picture, we need to do a
little more 'energy translating'. Freud's 'id energy' can be construed
either more concretely as 'sexual energy' when compared and contrasted
to Lao tse's qi energy and Jung's life energy, and/or Freud's id energy
could be construed as a 'mixture of life and death energy (Eros and
Thanatos) in man's 'Phenomenology of Life vs. Death Spirit' as construed
by man's oscillation between the drive for control and power vs. the
drive for democracy and egalitarian civil rights and participation in
the democratic.
The resulting 'direction of this dialectically and/or
trialectically charged Path' can take us towards either 'Nietzsche's
Birth and Path of Tragedy' or it can take us towards 'Nietzsche's
Celebration of The Synthesis and Synergy of The Apollonian-Dionysian
Spirit and Achievement of man' whether this be on the metaphorically
'tallest mountain' or whether this be in 'the re-integration of Apollo
and Dionysus in 'the caves of our unconscious'.
What we now need to do in terms of defining 'The
Pathology of Normalcy' is to describe the different types of 'blockages
of energy' whether this be construed as 'qi energy', 'life
energy', and/or 'sexual energy'.
And in order to do this, we need to return to Freud's
'old brand of bio-psychology -- and his supposedly outdated, and often
dismissed hydraulic model'.
We will do this in the next essay.
Have a great day!
-- dgb, June 27th, 2015,
-- David Gordon Bain
