I'm not into starting or embellishing 'witchhunts' where the wrong man, woman, party, or people get nailed to the cross for something they don't, and/or didn't deserve. Indeed, I am soon going to write an essay on:
Negative Labels, Scapegoatism, and Witchhunts: Some Similarities Between The Salem Witchhunts, Nazism, McCarthyism -- And Any Type of Nationalism and/or 'Us Against Them' Mentality Out of Control
However, enough is enough. Before the George Bush-led Republicans are legally and officially pushed out of office, we could be in the middle of an even bigger Middle East disaster, if not World War 111.
Has anyone read what is happening in Pakistan right now? I included two articles on American forces invading Pakistan looking for Al Queda both above and below this essay. I shudder and shake my head. This is unbelievable.
Can you imagine what would happen if another country invaded America looking to kill terrorists? Where innocent Americans were killed in the 'crossfire' and/or 'coalateral damage'?
Where are the brains of the people working at the whitehouse? Who gave American soldiers the right to invade Pakistan? Again -- unilaterally! No consent from Pakistan? Of course not -- what leadership of what country would give America permission to kill their innocent civilians? Terrorists or no terrorists within the country. Again, no permission from the United Nations. No word from NATO. Just America going it alone -- regardless of what country and what people they blow up in the process!
With all due respect to 'America As A Whole' -- which is a critical distintion that needs to be made and which is where both the Reverend and Mrs. Obama got into serious trouble for not making this distinction: specifically, differentiating between 'the goodwill of the American people as a whole' who I want nothing but the best for as if I was an American myself, and this 'type of pathological Bush-led Republican leadership' that seems intent on starting up another war before they leave office. What greater disaster can they add to their legacy?
You don't think that telling the world that America wanted to plant missiles in Eastern Europe was just about as stupid as stupid can be! How do you think Russia and all those Eastern Europeon and Asian countries would feel about this? How would America like it if Russia told the world that they were going to plant some missiles in Cuba? Or in The Arctic above Canada which they were to claim was 'international territory'. How do you think Canadians would feel about this let alone Americans?
Did everyone one of The Republicans currently in the Whitehouse executive decision-making circles -- fail 'international relations and diplomacy'?
Does the George Bush-led Republicans believe that is absolutely immune to any and all forms of international law and justice?
This present Republican Party must have watched 'Dr. Strangelove' -- and taken it seriously; not as a satire on what could/can happen if the wrong person and/or group of people is in power.
Again, I shake my head in total disbelief!
Afghanastan was one thing -- America had the support of the world on this one as they pushed into Afghanastan looking for Al Queda -- and even the Taliban.
Iraq was a whole different matter. Sadaam Hussein was obviously a sociopathic leader -- but there are lots of those in the world, and nobody to my knowledge, every connected Sadaam Hussein to 9/11. Nor any 'weapons of mass destruction' that Sadaam was intent on letting off at a moment's notice. Sure, he might have done it if he had the capability -- but false 'war propoganda' as it would seem now was being used to connect Sadaam to capabilities that he did not have.
And besides, the hunt was supposed to be for Bin Laden. Again, the world was all in support of America hunting down Bin Laden. Surround him, contain him, prevent he and his men from escaping into Pakistan -- this would have to be lesson 101 in any military and/or SWAT training manuel.
And yet, Bin Laden and his men escaped into Pakistan! What kind of military stupidity was this?
Not only that -- but even worse -- America split its military into two fronts! Now they were invading Iraq! Bin Laden was all but forgotten. American troops were barely even chasing him anymore! Their main focus became Iraq and Sadaam Hussein! How in the heck do you explain this? To the American people, let alone the world?
Here's what you do: you feed them false 'war propoganda' exaggerating both Sadaam's connection with Al Queda, and his capability in Iraq for 'creating mass destruction' in enemy countries -- mainly America -- where he didn't even have the missile capability of flying and closing the distance that separated Iraq -- and a lot of ocean -- from America.
But the CIA had 'pictures'. Remember that! Fear-mongering -- that's what this was. If you want to start a war, just convince the people of your nation that you are about to be attacked! Then it becomes: 'Pro-active, pre-emptive, self-defense'! How many judges and juries have heard that line a million times? I killed the man, Your Honor, because I thought he was going to kill me. So I killed him first! 'Pro-active, pre-emptive self-defense'! Never mind that the man I killed didn't have a weapon to kill me. He just looked like he wanted to kill me. It's my thoughts that count, even if they turn out to be totally empirically unsupported, and most of you might therefore believe them to be untrue. But I knew -- and still know -- better. I was totally justified in what I did. We live in a dangerous world, you know. It's 'Lord of The Flies'. It's 'Darwinian Survival of The Fittest'. It's 'kill or be killed'.
How many judges and juries would believe that line of reasoning.
Let's put it this way -- very succinctly: The American People and The World as A Whole were 'bamboozled' by a bunch of Republican 'sophists' who couldn't have done a better job if they were 'stereotyped used car salesman'.
It destroyed Tony Blair's political career and left him with a legacy that will be almost as bad as Bush's for the one blunderous move that they both made at the same time, hand in hand: invading Iraq -- particularly without the consent of The United Nations and an 'epistemological justification' that would turn out to be totally false, if not fabricated.
And in doing so -- again, hand in hand while they thumbed up their respective noses at The United Nations and The World as A Whole -- it destroyed both of the respective economies of the countries they were supposed to be leading: America's and Great Britain's. Not to mention destroying the international relations reputation that both countries held in the world before this collosal foreign relations and economic blunder.
The soon-to-be, McCain-led Republican Party doesn't get it either. They keep differentiating themselves from Bush. Tell the American people how they are going to ride in on their 'dual white horses' -- the totally legitimate and respected war hero on the one horse who still doesn't seem to understand that 'for every enemy you kill, 'crossfire and colateral damage' is likely to create ten more; and the barracuda or pitbull with lipstick on calls herself a 'pro-lifer', seems to enjoy and support recreational hunting -- even aerial hunting -- has no problem 'not blinking' as she sends -- what is it? -- one or two sons off to war, side by side with the war hero, not a whisper or a word of protest from either of their respective mouths as now Pakistan is being invaded for a job George Bush didn't do right in the first place: specifically, find and either bring in or kill Bin Laden -- and we are suppose to believe that both the 'old and the 'new' Republican are 'pro-lifers'.
That would be hysterically funny -- if it was not so sickening.
How many more countries does America need to invade in the name of 'pro-active, pre-emptive, justice, freedom, democracy, God, and country -- before we all take one gigantic step back and say to ourselves,
'Maybe Madonna -- and the Nazi imagery that she showed at her concert -- wasn't so stupid and grossly out in left field after all.'
Isn't it time that somebody got their head back on straight? And if the Republican Party can't do it -- which it certainly looks that way to me -- then, how many people have to die, how many new war fronts have to be opened up -- Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, North Korea? -- before the American people get it right and get Obama and The Democrats back in power.
Does America want an America that the rest of the world hates? Or does America -- the civilian America I am talking about now -- want a party that is looking to try to restore peace and decent good will and harmony in the world rather than going into countries, 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry' style -- 'with all guns ablazin'. 'Shoot first, and ask questions later? Oops, we got it wrong. We killed 20 of your civilians? Sorry. 200 of your civilians? Oops. Sorry again. 2000 of your civilians? Sorry, again. It's in the name of international peace and justice. We need to get to any Al Queda and Taliban that we let flee into Pakistan. We don't trust you, my Pakistanian allies. Stand by and let the American army come in and finish the job. 2,000,000 of your civilians? Well, it was justified in the name of democracy, God -- an the evil of world terrorism.
Let's get this one point fully established right now. 'Ethically' and 'morally' there is a place for religion to state its beliefs and causes to both civilian audiences and governments and/or political parties alike. They are a part of any democracy too.
However, number 1; there is no place for 'lobbying' votes for the 'hypocrisy of a pro-life political stance' when now another country has been 'invaded' without anyone even 'declaring war' on that country -- with no United Nations involved and no 'NATO' involved -- just American, no correction, read, Republican arrogance and unilateralism and their belief in the immunity of the American leaders to any form of international court of law or justice -- and once again, innocent people are dead, with no one, I repeat, absolutely no one, claiming accountability and responsibility for this new invasion into a new country, with these new innocent people dying, not to mention that we could have another full-blown war on our hands before we -- correction again, you my American friends -- finally send these war-mongering, Bush-led Republicans packing.
And number 2; there is absolutely NO place in any democratic government for any 'epistemological claims' involving God, nor any 'war-supporting' claims involving God. This is all political sophistry designed to deceive the unsure, the unconvinced, and/or the unwilling.
With all due respect, there is no place in the White House decision-making process for God. Just as Muslim extremists are killing in the name of God, so too are Republican extremists.
Case closed.
Personally, I will take my chances with Obama.
He is the only leader in this election campaigning in the name of 'differential unity' and 'integrationism'. With The Republians its all about 'divisionism'. It's all about 'either/or'. It's all about Nationalism. It's all about Patriotism. It's all about 'not blinking'. (As she sat there blinking about 50 times a minute.) Send your child to war -- and don't blink. Be a 'real' man or a 'real' woman. Shoot up testosterone. Be a Republican. Be a pitbull or a barracuda with lipstick on.
I could keep going. I could say more.
But I think I've said much, much more than enough for one night.
I couldn't help myself. Quite frankly, in the name of democracy, I am disgusted with the present Republican American leadership. And 'the wanna-be-next' Republican American leadership. You can 'wrap up an old fish in new paper. But it's still going to stink. Right now, I would say that both these Republican leaderships -- 'stink'. (I won't use the other Obama analogy just in case it is misinterpreted -- and I am called 'sexist'.)
The direction out of a bankrupt economy is the same direction as the direction out of Iraq. And out of Pakistan. Out of war.
There is only one party in America that seems seriously interested in doing that.
And I don't think I have to tell you any more which party that is.
Goodnight.
-- dgb, Sept. 16th, 2008.
Posted by david gordon bain at 3:09 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
The impetus for this paper -- and what will likely become a series of papers -- came out of my Sept. 6th, 2008 preface to my 1979 Honors Thesis in psychology called -- 'Evaluation and Health'.
Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:
..............................................
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).
The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.
............................................................................
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.
We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though The Republican Party too is divided).
Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...
Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.
In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.
It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.
And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'
It is a 'Clint Eastwood (the 'stereotyped tough guy' actor although even he had compassion)/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'
This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...
If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...
Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...
Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...
Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...
Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...(wasn't Jesus Christ 'only' a 'community worker'), how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...
Sarah Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani, whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.
And again, before we leave you, Mr. Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there is at least one major difference between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- that is not about 'sharp, macho barbs and testosterone'.
Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immune from criticism yourself, Mr. Giuliani, while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':
Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?
When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.
When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.
Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama-led Democrat party, right now.
My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party.
'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on -- to use Bush's words -- 'the angry left'.
Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and call it 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.
Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.
It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?
I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.
I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy has some courage to go against the Washinton grain if he is serious about what he is saying. Which it sounds like he is. There is a 'new type of political idealism' in the way that Obama is talking. And I like it.
I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington. Political candidates don't usually talk about 'the philosophy of Corporate-Capitalist Lobbyism (as well as Religious Lobbyism and Feminist Lobbyism, and every other type of 'Special Interest' Lobbyism and how it can and/or does drastically interfere with 'Main Street American Democracy'.
So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.
But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.
So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...
They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?
And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?
Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?
Well, Governor (Ms., Mrs.) Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. 'All's fair in love and war -- and political campaigns -- especially when one side starts into serious 'trash-talking' and 'spreading the mud around' of the other Party's real and/or imagined and/or embelleshed weaknesses.' Under the circumstances of what you said at this convention, 'Ms. Palin, you have just set yourself up with a great big Alaskan bullseye on your head and heart.'
I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.
I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Nellie McClung in particular.
'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung
I can certainly see some of the 'rhetoric' and 'style of delivery' of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'. But what about the underlying 'value-substance' of what you are committed to, and/or professing to be committed to? Personally, I don't see any Nellie McClung in your heart -- just your rhetoric. And for that matter, can you even handle yourself in a debate? Let's see you in a debate with Joe Biden -- without the 'winks'. He will eat you alive if he doen't 'bite his tongue' in the name of 'mercy', 'political correctness' and not 'beating up the fairer sex'. (Couldn't help adding this on April 16th, 2009.)
Let's see how you handle yourself in an interview with a 'real political reporter'. (Added April 16th, 2009).
Let's see 'how deep your well of knowledge is' of American history and politics and serious political philosophy. Does it extend past how good you look and read on the front page of some Alaskan newspaper? (added April 16th, 2009)
DGB Philosophy believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...
But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this (especially equal rights activists who lobby for 'special rights' and also any politician who hangs on to the concept of 'political correctness' for dear life like it is his or her life preserver which it well might be) -- with equal rights, comes equal responsibility and accountability.
My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent'.
Can you say the same? Your time will come. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009)
It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.
DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.
Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like, to 'change your horse in mid-stream', unless I guess, the stakes are high, you are in danger of losing an election, and well, you 'change the rules', not to mention the direction of your party campaign ideals. Let's ride the 'Obama' horse and say it's a 'purebreed' American, Alaskan -- and Republican. Let's re-make the Republican Party with two months left to go in the election -- and say 'It's been us all along!'
That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?
or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'
Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..
Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:
Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?
On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.
Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?
And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.
Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'
'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!
America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!
Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!
I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.
But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question. His answer -- and I don't remember it word for word except in the main gist of what I think he was trying to say. Obama's answer was 'dialectically based', which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican type of answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. It wasn't as simple as McCain's: 'We will defeat all evil!'
Paraphrasing, I believe Obama was saying something like this: 'We all need to look in the mirror. It usually takes two to tango -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war. DGB extrapolating: We all need to look in the mirror when it comes to domestic violence. And we all need to collectively look in the mirror when it comes to American Foreign Relations.
There is usually a four step 'war dance' unfolding and not all the steps may of this 'war dance' may be visible to the American media and/or the public eye:
1. Provocation and/or Intimidation (including foreign 'pampering' and 'neglecting', 'propping' some countries up, while surrounding (marginalized and/or negatively stereotyped countries are looking on with increasing resentment, anger, rage, hate...no different than pampering one child while neglecting another...) -- added April 16th, 2009.
2. Retaliation
3. Escalation
4. Full-Blooded War
Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'.
Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.
We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' that disappears into quicksand. (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') What is this, if it is not evil?
What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed the same type of sin him or herself.'
What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport? Don't you support 'aerial hunting' for wolves and polar bears? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We went racing up to see the groundhog. We never went hunting again.
If you are hunting to eat or to support yourself and/or your family, that is one thing. But I don't support 'killing for fun'. And I certainly would not call myself a 'pro-lifer' if I did. Nor as a 'pro-lifer' would I be 'proud of my son going off to war'. I would be terrified and almost too distraught to think.
I hate those in ivory towers who try to turn war into some sort of 'Olympic competition'. (Reminds me of the Dylan song: 'Masters of War') They cheer for our boys going off to war, then suppress the cameras when these same boys come back in a coffin or with body parts missing. War is not about 'winning and losing'. In war, everyone loses.
So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, your son? Do you still feel the same?
I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You were at your best. You said you were going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration --and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...
But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'.
But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did. You may have just been nominated to become the intregal, central player in the biggest, sneakiest strategy flip-flop in Republican history. Standing up there at the Republican Convention, with America hearing you and seeing you full-blast for the first time, in all your Alaskan glory, with all the brazen 'womanly-manly confidence-cockiness', charisma, beauty, and Republican 'macho talk' all packaged in one....An Alaskan Amazon woman!!
We could see you at your best, doing your thing, strutting your stuff, The Alaskan pitbull-barracuda in action, with lipstick on and a metaphorical 'rocket-launcher' in your arms ready to lead our troops, more troops, deeper and deeper into Iraq. You could cheer them on from The White House -- the first combination of 'Vice President' and 'Soldier Pin-up Politician'.
The Republican Savior -- Sarah Palin -- the Amazon Woman -- The Republican Gamble -- Is Palin strong enough for a fading, aging McCain to ride on her back to victory?
Governor Sarah Palin-turned Vice President candidate -- the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda-pitbull with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'.
Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'void'. No voice for 'the middle class of America'. Now, here you were, doing your best Obama impression -- with a Republican difference (more Alaskan jawbite), trying to 'rah, rah, rah, the middle class'. And pull in the votes of women -- the votes left behind by a strong but vanquished Hillary Clinton.
We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. The Greek War Gods'. Sarah Palin -- The Republican Spartan.
Governor Palin, we just finished seeing you doing your 'gymnastic back flips' on stage for the Republican Party at The Republican Convention. Let's see if you're still doing these same back flips in a couple of months -- after the microscopic inspection of the American media gets to you in close quarters.
Try this: Flip now. Flop later. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009.)
Try this, Senator McCain: Let her speak now at the Convention-- with no reporters there that can grab a hold of her -- then send her back to the deepest depths of Alaska, where she can't be found by the American media (maybe in a two month long Alaskan hunting trip) -- until after the election. (dgb, I cheated. Added April 16th, 2009.)
Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there. (This was in the original essay. --dgb)
Time will tell.
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008, 5:48pm.
This essay took a little longer than 'til lunch' to finish. It also took a lot out of me. Time to get some dinner and a drink.
Modified and updated, April 16th, 2009
...............................................................................
Here is an old Bob Dylan tune that reminds me of Sarah Palin, The Republican GOB (Good Old Boys), a 'macho-Dirty Harry mentality' (which does not do Dirty Harry justice because at least Dirty Harry got the right man) and 'winning' the war in Iraq. Didn't Bin Laden escape into Afghanastan and Pakistan. To be sure, 'national security' is important but not national security based on 'false' and/or 'embellished' war propaganda. -- dgb, added April 16th, 2009.
The Ballad Of John Brown -- By Bob Dylan
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.
"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."
As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.
"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.
"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."
"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.
-- Bob Dylan
........................................................................
And for those who have not seriously looked at the lyrics of 'Masters of War'...here is another early 60s protest song by Bob Dylan -- 'Masters of War'.
........................................................................
Masters Of War -- By Bob Dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
............................................................................
Here is the particular paragraph of my preface yesterday that stimulated what is about to develop here:
..............................................
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; and H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, updated and republished about 6 times).
The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of what would, or what has, developed into DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa, regarding his classic introductory book to General Semantics:
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008, unless I get carried away with it.
............................................................................
Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The American Republican Party
Madonna may have been strongly criticized for her visual political connections between Nazism and The Republican Party but sometimes I too can start to see some scary parallels between Republican right-wing extremism, nationalism, and patriotism on the one hand -- and the same type of German right wing extremism, Nationalism and Patriotism that led Hitler, Germany, and half the world off the deep end, and into destruction and self-destruction, in World War 11.
We all have to be very careful how we use the word 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' because these words can be used pathologically such as in the Hitler regime -- and in the McCarthy era -- to negatively stereotype anyone who doesn't look the same as us and/or anyone who doesn't believe the same as us -- or anyone who doesn't believe the same as the American Republican Party (even though The Republican Party too is divided).
Once a word is 'negatively stereotyped' -- like 'communist' or 'socialist' or 'left wing' or 'terrorist' or 'insurgent' -- then anyone so labelled in a context/environment of fear and paranoia -- can become the subject of a civil and/or political witch hunt including degradation, humiliation, condemnation, punishment, imprisonment, torture, execution...
Unfortunately, this type of negative stereotyping and discrimination represents a number of sad chapters in American history -- slavery, The Civil War... -- but we as both individual and collective members of the human race -- and what is meant to be a 'civilian' -- must be extremely careful that we don't go back in history and repeat ourselves. This type of phenomena is based on a combination of ignorance, fear, anxiety, paranoia often masked as 'righteous intolerance' and a 'righteous superiority complex'.
In times of war -- or fear of war -- political divisionism can easily explode into more and more spiralling negative stereotypes, discrimination, hatred -- and violence.
It is easy to be 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' -- until your son (or daughter) comes home in a box.
And then people might finally start taking a closer look at the 'nationalistic' and 'patriotic' leaders who are using nationalistic and patriotic rhetoric to the rhythm of 'war drums' to stir us up into an angry, discriminatory, hateful frenzy. 'Yes! We can and will defeat all evil in the world that is unwilling to march to the American drum...'
It is a 'Clint Eastwood (the 'stereotyped tough guy' actor although even he had compassion)/Dirty Harry'/Wild West approach to justice. You are either with me or you are against me. And if you are against me, then you are evil. Or you are weak. You have no onions. No courage. No testosterone. You're a wus, a weakling, a wimp...unwilling or unable to stand up to the evil in this world. And you are a part of this evil because you are too weak and unwilling to confront evil when it confronts you...When the going gets tough, the tough get going...'
This is a tried and true formula for The Republican Party. It works like a charm. Emasculate your opponent. It worked for Bush, and now just recently, after the Democrats got rousing speeches, ovations, and energy at their own convention from Jackson Junior, both Clintons, Biden, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama himself...and their was the danger of again falling behind in the polls to the Democrats after McCain had just caught up...it was obviously time to bring out the 'attack dogs' again...You thought Biden was good...this is what the Republicans do best -- humiliate their Democrat opponent with 'negative campaign ads and speeches'...
If you were watching and listening to the Republican speeches this week, they lined up the attack dogs...and let them loose...Bush on video talked about 'angry left'...but this was nothing compared to what was coming...
Mitt Romney gave an 'Adam Smith' type speech -- and I admire Adam Smith but, personally, I think Adam Smith would be embarrassed and disgusted with The Republican rendition of 'free market Capitalism'...Adam Smith distrusted rich business owners...and with good reason...they can manipulate and exploit the 'free market'. Washington during the Bush-Republican Administration is only the latest, most blatant example of this fact... We will talk more about Mitt Romney later...I have mixed thoughts and feelings on Mitt Romney which I wish to explore in another essay...Right now, I do believe he is probably the best economist in America -- the one with the most likelihood of turning the American economy around -- but probably not in an overall Republican 'GOP' context of corrupt politics, business, and lobbyism...
Then came the real 'Rottweillers', 'Dobermans', 'pitbulls' -- and shall we say 'barracudas'...
Rudolph Giuliani: After a brief introduction, he went straight for Obama's jugular vein...in prototypical good attack dog fashion... I can't remember all the blows and bites...but they all seemed orchestrated around the idea of having 'two resumes in front of his face: McCain's and Obama's...
Giuliani made his point -- the usual Republican point -- Obama's too inexperienced, he does not have enough intestinal fortitude to make the really hard political and business decisions to be an American Commander-in-Chief, he 'flipflops', he says what is 'politically expedient', he wavers when he gets into trouble, he doesn't have one firm, stable point of view, he's only been a community worker...(wasn't Jesus Christ 'only' a 'community worker'), how many Bills has he put through as a Senator?...and so on...
Sarah Palin would pick up all of these same themes and run them out there again for The American people to hear again...in her own fresh, 'new-to-the-American-people-who-don't-live-in-Alaska'-barracuda' style...But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Regarding Giuliani, time will tell Mr. Giuliani, whether you are right or you are wrong, and before that even perhaps, time will tell whether you rained enough negative blows and bites on Obama to scare away the American people from voting for him...The crucial question: Is Obama too weak and too indecisive, particularly in a time of war and/or the threats of new pending wars due to countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea beating their war drums on anywhere from a semi-regular to regular basis?...That's what the Republican Party is asking the American people -- quite sarcastically I might add: Does Obama basically have enough Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry testosterone in him? And you know how the Republican Party would love for the American people to answer that question: Vote Republican -- 'for the real men' -- and 'the barracuda woman'.
And again, before we leave you, Mr. Giuliani, let me say this: You may or may not be right in some, or all, of your criticisms of Obama but there is at least one major difference between you and Obama that you did not focus on -- that is not about 'sharp, macho barbs and testosterone'.
Remember, there are no 'counterpunches' and 'counterbites' at Republican Convention...You are only immune from criticism yourself, Mr. Giuliani, while you are in the friendly confines of the Arena...Once you leave the arena, you too are fair -- and foul -- political game. I don't have to tell you, Mr. Giuliani that 'What goes around comes around.' So stand or sit wherever you may be and take some -- shall we say -- 'return volleys':
Obama knows how to inspire hope and optimism in people where it is obvious from your speech, Mr. Giuliani, that you are much better at ridiculing and demeaning people than you are at inspiring people with hope and optimism. In these bleak American economic and war-infested times -- and excuse me if I forgot anything you may or may not have said, Mr. Giuliani, about the economy and about ending the war -- anyways, regarding Obama's obviously superior strength over you and everyone else in the Republican Party that is not wearing a dress at inspiring people with hope and optimism -- maybe that is why you are no longer a Republican candidate. Was your speech one of 'sour grapes', Mr. Giuliani?
When I hear Barack Obama speak, I am inspired -- inspired even to vote and to politically participate in what a 'democracy' should be, and can be, in the hands of the right people with the right spirit, the right intent, the right goals, the right dream. And with Obama, that dream, in these bleak economic, war-infested, energy challenged, environmentally polluted, global-warming times, inspires even something more than can be captured in the dream of 'the pursuit of health, happiness, and prosperity'.
When Obama talks, I have visions of Martin Luther King streaming through my brain -- and that is something I will never, never say about you and your 'attack dog mentality and ridicule your opponent' speech there, Mr. Giuliani. Did you inspire any new and fresh hope of what The Republican Party can be? Or did you just offer up more Republican poison and 'macho bullcrap' to the American people which we have seen and heard from the Bush-led Republican Party and Administration over the last eight years -- and what got the American people to the bleak and dreary hole that they are now trying desperately to climb their way back out of -- in the first place.
Yes, Mr. Giuliani -- for a political party that is trying desperately to separate itself with as much distance as possible from the soon to be departing Bush Administration -- you just offered up more of the same. Political and economic narissism and sophism. Idealistic 'macho' mysticism hiding the sorry, corrupted, and poisonous truth of what really happens in The Republican regime: The party aims to divide and conquer people -- which is what it is trying to do between the American people and Obama-led Democrat party, right now.
My question is this: How can The Republican Party control and reverse the evil abroad when they don't even know how to control and reverse it at home -- in their own party.
'Imperialism is good' to the GOP Republican. Or should I say: 'Good for the GOP Republican? So too is lobbyism. And political-corporate narcissism -- anything that is good for the top economic layer of American society is good for The GOP Republican Party. Then hide it with 'mysticism' and 'sophism'. Hide it with GOP Republican -- Adam Smith -- Idealism. And then blame anything else that is left over -- anything that people may actually want to disagree on relative to the teeterng, hypocritical, and self-destructive ideology of The GOP Republican Party -- on -- to use Bush's words -- 'the angry left'.
Bush still doesn't get it. And neither, obviously, does Giuliani. Maybe they can both start up a GOP 'oldtimers' Republican Party and call it 'GOD' -- that's a DGB acronym for -- 'Good Old Days'.
Should McCain be included in the 'new' Republican Party? Or the 'old' one? That is the 50 million dollar question.
It's amazing how The Republican Party all of a sudden 'changed campaign horses right in midstream'. Actually, not in midstream -- rather, almost at the end of their stream. Their Republican horse was starting to run out of energy, losing the power and thrust in its legs -- so right in the middle of The Republican Convention, towards the end of the stream (as we are finally getting pretty close to the election now) -- the Republicans jump off their Republican horse and jump onto a Democratic horse! What's with this? What happened?
I will tell you what happened. When I first heard Obama speak - and it was probably about a year or so ago now, that I first heard him speak on 'The Larry King Show' -- I was impressed. Not for any other reason than the fact that he was talking about getting rid of the 'special interest lobbyists' in Washington -- or at least derailing their power of influence.
I know I was left thinking, 'Wow, this guy has some courage to go against the Washinton grain if he is serious about what he is saying. Which it sounds like he is. There is a 'new type of political idealism' in the way that Obama is talking. And I like it.
I remember thinking, 'Never, never do I remember an American politician -- or a Canadian politician for that matter -- talk about addressing and getting rid of the special interest lobbyism problem in Washington (or Ottawa). Maybe this 'Obama' guy -- who I had never seen or heard before that day -- really is interested in addressing a serious type of political change in America. A politics of 'differential unity' and a 'democracy for the middle and lower class -- as well as the upper class'. It is one thing for a politician to talk about the 'American Dream'. It is another thing for a politician to seriously talk about the types of democratic changes that need to be made in order to make the American Dream accessible to all Americans regardless of class or color or religion; not just for that elite section of society that has 'networking contacts and power strings that they can pull at a moment's notice' in Washington. Political candidates don't usually talk about 'the philosophy of Corporate-Capitalist Lobbyism (as well as Religious Lobbyism and Feminist Lobbyism, and every other type of 'Special Interest' Lobbyism and how it can and/or does drastically interfere with 'Main Street American Democracy'.
So anyway, yes indeed, this 'anti-special-interest-lobbyism-in-Washington' factor did start to become a major thrust in the Obama-Democratic campaign. I don't even think it was a part of the Clinton campaign, let alone any one of GOP Republican campaigns...If you go back and check the records of about a year or so ago, I don't think you will hear any Republican -- not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, not Giuliani, not anyone -- making a peep about 'getting rid of lobbyism and lobbyists in Washington'.
But Obama was making great headway with this and other parts of his Democratic campaign. He had a fresh, energetic horse crossing the stream -- and it was still fresh and energetic as it started to close in on the final end of the stream.
So what do The Republicans do? A year or so later...
They say...'Hmmm, I like that 'breed' of campaign horse. Are there any others of this 'Obama' breed around?
And someone else in the Republican Party chirped up, 'Yeah, sure, I can find you one of that kind, that breed. I hear they breed them up in Alaska! Part barracuda, part attack dog, part pitull -- and part, sleek race horse too. Even better still -- she's partly a woman too! And a fine looking one at that. Just what a fading GOP -- or is it 'GOB' -- that's a DGB acronym for 'Good Old Boys' -- just what a fast fading Republican Party needs for a strong finishing kick before the election: A beautiful woman with a radiating smile -- perhaps she can be marketed as a female rendition of Obama? -- yes a female rendition of Obama who can almost speak like him but with the underlying jaws of a barracuda beneath that perfectly sexy, womanly smile -- or is it a Rottweiler? A Doberman? A pitbull? A racehorse? Did I miss anything?
Oh yes, a woman who won't sit down when you tell her to sit down. That's nice. Does that mean she doesn't know how to listen? Does that mean she is so narcissistic that she does not know how to see beyond her own face? Does that mean that any other opinion, especially among the men she will be mainly debating with, is an opinion that needs to be connected to its masculine owner and then, well the owner of the opinion needs to be -- emasculated?
Well, Governor (Ms., Mrs.) Sarah Palin, I think I might have said this earlier: 'What goes around comes around'. 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. 'What's fair is fair'. 'All's fair in love and war -- and political campaigns -- especially when one side starts into serious 'trash-talking' and 'spreading the mud around' of the other Party's real and/or imagined and/or embelleshed weaknesses.' Under the circumstances of what you said at this convention, 'Ms. Palin, you have just set yourself up with a great big Alaskan bullseye on your head and heart.'
I remember reading a book on Canadian history (Will Ferguson, Canadian History for Dummies, 2000). According to Ferguson, they used to call the early feminists in the early 1900s 'hyenas in petticoats'.
I have all the respect in the world for these ladies -- and I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. Nellie McClung in particular.
'Never retract, never explain, never apologize -- just get the job done and let them howl.' -- personal motto of activist Nellie McClung
I can certainly see some of the 'rhetoric' and 'style of delivery' of Nellie McClung in you, Ms. Palin. 'Just get the job done and let them howl'. But what about the underlying 'value-substance' of what you are committed to, and/or professing to be committed to? Personally, I don't see any Nellie McClung in your heart -- just your rhetoric. And for that matter, can you even handle yourself in a debate? Let's see you in a debate with Joe Biden -- without the 'winks'. He will eat you alive if he doen't 'bite his tongue' in the name of 'mercy', 'political correctness' and not 'beating up the fairer sex'. (Couldn't help adding this on April 16th, 2009.)
Let's see how you handle yourself in an interview with a 'real political reporter'. (Added April 16th, 2009).
Let's see 'how deep your well of knowledge is' of American history and politics and serious political philosophy. Does it extend past how good you look and read on the front page of some Alaskan newspaper? (added April 16th, 2009)
DGB Philosophy believes in equal rights for both sexes, all religions, all colors...
But with equal rights -- and often we all forget this (especially equal rights activists who lobby for 'special rights' and also any politician who hangs on to the concept of 'political correctness' for dear life like it is his or her life preserver which it well might be) -- with equal rights, comes equal responsibility and accountability.
My point here, Ms. Palin, is that Mr. Obama I think has tried for the most part to debate political issues 'above the belt' in a spirit of fairness, respect, and integrity -- without delving seriously into the area of 'character assasinations', 'negative stereotyping' and/or trying to 'emasculate his opponent'.
Can you say the same? Your time will come. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009)
It's like Obama wants to conduct a boxing match with boxing gloves on while you Ms. Palin -- and the rest of your Republican Party -- seem intent on packing 'steel' inside your boxing gloves. Okay, let's have a little boxing match here -- steel for steel, wit for wit. I agree, it's kind of fun when your'e on the top end delivering the blow, not on the bottom end receiving it.
DGB Deconstructionism seeks to reverse the direction of flight of all negative stereotypes and critcisms so that they land back in the face of the person and/or the party that initially threw the first 'punch of steel', the first serious negative stereotype and/or character assination, and/or hyocritical statement.
Such as: McCain and The Republican Party riding a Republican horse (not a peep or sound about 'anti-lobbyism' until their convention). But then they saw that Obama was riding a faster, stronger, more energized campaign horse, so then they went out and got one too -- a Democratic racehorse with Alaskan barracuda jaws -- one that is going to shake up Washinton and derail all the 'GOB' ('Good Old Boy') lobbyists who will now die with the Bush regime, not move on to the McCain regime. Funny, but I never heard a word about 'anti-lobbyism' earlier in your campaign, Mr. McCain. Isn't that what you -- and Giuliani and Ms. Palin -- would call 'flipflopping'. Not having the intestinal fortitude -- or the 'onions' -- of sticking with what you believed, or rather, didn't believe -- through all the earlier parts of your campaign. I do believe that you flip-flopped -- exactly what you complained of most about Obama at your campaign convention. I think that is what you would call -- 'hypocrisy'. And it certainly isn't very 'macho-like', very 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West' like, to 'change your horse in mid-stream', unless I guess, the stakes are high, you are in danger of losing an election, and well, you 'change the rules', not to mention the direction of your party campaign ideals. Let's ride the 'Obama' horse and say it's a 'purebreed' American, Alaskan -- and Republican. Let's re-make the Republican Party with two months left to go in the election -- and say 'It's been us all along!'
That was very sneaky, Mr. McCain. Was that the work of you or your chief Republican strategist?
or was it you, Mr. McCain, who wanted the one and only, the beautiful and sexy, the charasmatic, Ms. Sarah Palin, the female rendition of Obama with a much sharper bite -- i.e., 'The Alaskan Barracuda -- with a Republican jock strap on.'
Are you ready for some more, Ms. Palin. Can you take a punch or a bite as well as you can give it? ..
Ms. Palin; No abortions on your watch...but you have no problem sending any American 18, 19, and 20 year old son off to Iraq, including it almost would seem, your own son or sons. How do you explain that one? Isn't that a little hypocritical? Personally, I would be eating myself alive -- or someone at the top of the Republican Party, like you -- if it was my son going to Iraq to fight a war based on Repubican 'false epistemology' -- that is Republican narcissism, sophism and -- propoganda. Maybe you can tell me Ms. Palin, seeing as Mr. Bush doesn't seem to have done too well on this account:
Just where are those 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' again?
On that one television show -- I forget who chaired it, some religious person who did a very good job at interviewing both Obama and McCain -- and both were asked the same questions, on the spot improvisation in the case of Obama since he started first, and assumedly unrehearsed on McCain's part even though he arrived a little late at the forum -- and I don't think his private limo was exactly 'the cone of silence' that the interviewer and the American people were expecting.
Anyway, both were asked a question something along the lines of: 'What would you do as American President about evil?
And Senator McCain, the fighter pilot, John McCain -- gave just the answer the American people wanted to hear: Don't quote me exactly, but basically he said: 'Defeat it!' -- in strong Republican, Clint Eastwood (Is Clint Eastwood a Republican or a Democrat?), Dirty Harry, Wild West fashion.
Yes, that's what the American people wanted to hear. No wavering. No equivocation. No hesitation. No hemming and hawing. No 'boundary straddling' or 'fence hopping'. Just -- 'GOF' (that's a DGB anacronym for 'Good Old Fashioned') 'We're the good guys and we kick the butts of the bad guys!'
'Either/or'. 'Good or bad'. 'Good and evil.' 'Black and white'. That's the philosophy -- the ideology -- of The 'GOB' (Good Old Boy) Republican Party, and don't you ever forget it. Macho, macho man. I wanna be a Republican macho man!
America, hang with us. We will save you! We may send all our young adults to war and some of them --many of them -- might not come back again, or they might come back beaten up and/or disfigured. We may stand by while the banks foreclose your homes. We may stand by while the oil companies rob you blind. We may even stand by while all our manufacturing companies move to China, or Mexico, or basically anywhere where they can find cheap, cheap labor. You know, its the priciple of 'free trade'. In order to 'compete' with countries who have cheap, cheap labor, we need to move our manufacturing plants out of America and over to these same countries with the cheap labor. Then we can sell our goods back to you at a very cheap price! You can find them at your local department store! Beware of the Chinese and Mexican goods however. They may not be entirely safe. You know, these countries don't have quite the same safety measures and standards as we do. But that's why their goods are cheap. Watch the Mexican Jalapeno peppers. And the Chinese toys. Other than that the Republican lesson here regarding 'free trade' is simply this: 'If you can't beat them -- if you can't outcompete their cheap labor in China or Mexico or wherever -- then join them! Send our manufacturing firms there so they can take advantage of the cheap, cheap labor -- and the 'free trade' laws -- as well!
Tell me what a 'sweat shop' is again. Oh, America doesn't have to lose all their manufacturing plants and/or farms. Rather, here's a good idea for you manufacturing owners out there who are going out of business because of cheap imported goods. Just move your plants close to the border of Mexico -- and just wait til the Mexican 'sweat shops' come to you!
I think we were talking about 'evil' before I started to get distracted and carried away in a different direction. Or was/is it a different direction. I would call all of the above 'evil' to the American people.
But then there was Obama and he equivocated a little longer. Took a little longer to answer the question. His answer -- and I don't remember it word for word except in the main gist of what I think he was trying to say. Obama's answer was 'dialectically based', which was not quite the 'Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry/Wild West/Shoot From The Hip/Republican type of answer that the American people for the most part wanted to hear. It wasn't as simple as McCain's: 'We will defeat all evil!'
Paraphrasing, I believe Obama was saying something like this: 'We all need to look in the mirror. It usually takes two to tango -- and directly or indirectly, not always, but usually -- it takes two to start a war. DGB extrapolating: We all need to look in the mirror when it comes to domestic violence. And we all need to collectively look in the mirror when it comes to American Foreign Relations.
There is usually a four step 'war dance' unfolding and not all the steps may of this 'war dance' may be visible to the American media and/or the public eye:
1. Provocation and/or Intimidation (including foreign 'pampering' and 'neglecting', 'propping' some countries up, while surrounding (marginalized and/or negatively stereotyped countries are looking on with increasing resentment, anger, rage, hate...no different than pampering one child while neglecting another...) -- added April 16th, 2009.
2. Retaliation
3. Escalation
4. Full-Blooded War
Worded otherwise, it's not only a matter of looking for 'evil' in other parts of the world, of chasing down and killing bad dictators, 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'.
Even if America wanted to, they don't have the manpower and the money to fight all the different kinds of evil and unfreedom and narcissism that there is in the world. And more than this, there is another part of the problem -- and this is the part of the problem that I think Obama was trying to get at.
We also -- everyone of us, politician and citizen alike -- need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves bluntly and honestly and directly: How do we ourselves contribute to the 'evil' that there is in the world? Do our American politicians 'pamper' some countries, while punishing, and/or denying others? Does America sell nuclear arms -- or have they in the past -- to some countries while not to others? Does America torture? Why are so many American female soldiers coming back -- raped -- by America's own men. How can America expect other countries like Iran and North Korea be expected to 'disarm their nuclear weapons' when they are being pointed out by The American Bush-led Republican Party as being a 'part of the axis of evil' when the Bush-led Republican Party just happens to be in control of the largest asenal of nuclear weapons in the world? Not only that, but then all of Iran and North Korea and Russia see America invade Iraq with an 'epistemological justification' that disappears into quicksand. (remember again: Iraq was supposed to have 'weapons of mass destruction') What is this, if it is not evil?
What's that quote from the Bible? Again, I can't remember exactly but it's something like this, and I am paraphrasing: 'Let no person throw the first stone that has committed the same type of sin him or herself.'
What, Ms. Palin, did you say you were -- a 'pro-lifer'? How about 'hunting'? Aren't you a hunter -- for sport? Don't you support 'aerial hunting' for wolves and polar bears? Is 'hunting for sport' being 'pro-life'? Isn't there something hypocritical about a hunter who hunts for sport saying that he or she is 'pro-life'. My dad took my brother and sister and me hunting for groundhogs once. He was a good shot. He hit the groundhog right between the eyes. We went racing up to see the groundhog. We never went hunting again.
If you are hunting to eat or to support yourself and/or your family, that is one thing. But I don't support 'killing for fun'. And I certainly would not call myself a 'pro-lifer' if I did. Nor as a 'pro-lifer' would I be 'proud of my son going off to war'. I would be terrified and almost too distraught to think.
I hate those in ivory towers who try to turn war into some sort of 'Olympic competition'. (Reminds me of the Dylan song: 'Masters of War') They cheer for our boys going off to war, then suppress the cameras when these same boys come back in a coffin or with body parts missing. War is not about 'winning and losing'. In war, everyone loses.
So Ms. Palin, you're proud of the man who would sooner win a war than win an election. How about when the stakes are not an election -- but a life, a son, many lives, many sons, your son? Do you still feel the same?
I watched and listened to your speech -- and much of it was good -- a good Republican speech. You were at your best. You said you were going to shake up Washington -- presumably notably distinguish yourself from the Bush administration --and stand up to special interests groups which you've already done in Alaska, in ways that no recent Republican administration has done before you...
But there was something about your speech that made me cringe...perhaps your barracuda bites that seemed at least partly -- if not more than partly -- aimed at Obama's 'manhood' -- or shall we say -- his courage, his decision-making, and his credibility to lead America'; his 'integrative, differential unity politics' which you called 'flip-flopping'.
But as I've already demonstrated, Ms. Palin -- McCain and the whole Republican Party -- can 'flipflop' too -- and in fact, just did. You may have just been nominated to become the intregal, central player in the biggest, sneakiest strategy flip-flop in Republican history. Standing up there at the Republican Convention, with America hearing you and seeing you full-blast for the first time, in all your Alaskan glory, with all the brazen 'womanly-manly confidence-cockiness', charisma, beauty, and Republican 'macho talk' all packaged in one....An Alaskan Amazon woman!!
We could see you at your best, doing your thing, strutting your stuff, The Alaskan pitbull-barracuda in action, with lipstick on and a metaphorical 'rocket-launcher' in your arms ready to lead our troops, more troops, deeper and deeper into Iraq. You could cheer them on from The White House -- the first combination of 'Vice President' and 'Soldier Pin-up Politician'.
The Republican Savior -- Sarah Palin -- the Amazon Woman -- The Republican Gamble -- Is Palin strong enough for a fading, aging McCain to ride on her back to victory?
Governor Sarah Palin-turned Vice President candidate -- the new Republican 'Alaskan barracuda-pitbull with a jock strap on'. A Washington 'lobbyist buster'.
Before you came upon the scene, Ms. Palin, it's funny, but that just happened to be a very, very large Republican 'void'. No voice for 'the middle class of America'. Now, here you were, doing your best Obama impression -- with a Republican difference (more Alaskan jawbite), trying to 'rah, rah, rah, the middle class'. And pull in the votes of women -- the votes left behind by a strong but vanquished Hillary Clinton.
We will see how long you can or will last playing that role, Ms. Palin. Playing the role of the mighty Greek Goddess -- Athena. Sister of the her Greek brother-God -- Ares. The Greek War Gods'. Sarah Palin -- The Republican Spartan.
Governor Palin, we just finished seeing you doing your 'gymnastic back flips' on stage for the Republican Party at The Republican Convention. Let's see if you're still doing these same back flips in a couple of months -- after the microscopic inspection of the American media gets to you in close quarters.
Try this: Flip now. Flop later. (dgb, added April 16th, 2009.)
Try this, Senator McCain: Let her speak now at the Convention-- with no reporters there that can grab a hold of her -- then send her back to the deepest depths of Alaska, where she can't be found by the American media (maybe in a two month long Alaskan hunting trip) -- until after the election. (dgb, I cheated. Added April 16th, 2009.)
Anyways, Ms. Palin, enjoy your pedestal while you can: your moment of greater modesty and humility, and hopefully, compassion, will come; it will perhaps take a trip to the bottom of the Republican and/or American abyss in contrast to the top of the mountain -- before you get there. (This was in the original essay. --dgb)
Time will tell.
-- dgb, September 7th, 2008, 5:48pm.
This essay took a little longer than 'til lunch' to finish. It also took a lot out of me. Time to get some dinner and a drink.
Modified and updated, April 16th, 2009
...............................................................................
Here is an old Bob Dylan tune that reminds me of Sarah Palin, The Republican GOB (Good Old Boys), a 'macho-Dirty Harry mentality' (which does not do Dirty Harry justice because at least Dirty Harry got the right man) and 'winning' the war in Iraq. Didn't Bin Laden escape into Afghanastan and Pakistan. To be sure, 'national security' is important but not national security based on 'false' and/or 'embellished' war propaganda. -- dgb, added April 16th, 2009.
The Ballad Of John Brown -- By Bob Dylan
John Brown went off to war to fight on a foreign shore.
His mama sure was proud of him!
He stood straight and tall in his uniform and all.
His mama's face broke out all in a grin.
"Oh son, you look so fine, I'm glad you're a son of mine,
You make me proud to know you hold a gun.
Do what the captain says, lots of medals you will get,
And we'll put them on the wall when you come home."
As that old train pulled out, John's ma began to shout,
Tellin' ev'ryone in the neighborhood:
"That's my son that's about to go, he's a soldier now, you know."
She made well sure her neighbors understood.
She got a letter once in a while and her face broke into a smile
As she showed them to the people from next door.
And she bragged about her son with his uniform and gun,
And these things you called a good old-fashioned war.
Oh! Good old-fashioned war!
Then the letters ceased to come, for a long time they did not come.
They ceased to come for about ten months or more.
Then a letter finally came saying, "Go down and meet the train.
Your son's a-coming home from the war."
She smiled and went right down, she looked everywhere around
But she could not see her soldier son in sight.
But as all the people passed, she saw her son at last,
When she did she could hardly believe her eyes.
Oh his face was all shot up and his hand was all blown off
And he wore a metal brace around his waist.
He whispered kind of slow, in a voice she did not know,
While she couldn't even recognize his face!
Oh! Lord! Not even recognize his face.
"Oh tell me, my darling son, pray tell me what they done.
How is it you come to be this way?"
He tried his best to talk but his mouth could hardly move
And the mother had to turn her face away.
"Don't you remember, Ma, when I went off to war
You thought it was the best thing I could do?
I was on the battleground, you were home . . . acting proud.
You wasn't there standing in my shoes."
"Oh, and I thought when I was there, God, what am I doing here?
I'm a-tryin' to kill somebody or die tryin'.
But the thing that scared me most was when my enemy came close
And I saw that his face looked just like mine."
Oh! Lord! Just like mine!
"And I couldn't help but think, through the thunder rolling and stink,
That I was just a puppet in a play.
And through the roar and smoke, this string is finally broke,
And a cannon ball blew my eyes away."
As he turned away to walk, his Ma was still in shock
At seein' the metal brace that helped him stand.
But as he turned to go, he called his mother close
And he dropped his medals down into her hand.
-- Bob Dylan
........................................................................
And for those who have not seriously looked at the lyrics of 'Masters of War'...here is another early 60s protest song by Bob Dylan -- 'Masters of War'.
........................................................................
Masters Of War -- By Bob Dylan
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
............................................................................
The Orchestra Played a Love Song
When I was young, I dreamed my dream,
As I turned a handle that made the cream,
While feeding cows, and cackling hens,
Grunting pigs in smelly pens.
I dreamed of you, imagined your face,
The way you would walk with queenly grace.
While in the fields, wheat sheaves to stack.
Long flowing gowns, men dressed in black,
Of concert halls, with kings and queens,
Were all a part of my childhood dreams.
I grew. One unsuspecting day, I saw you,
Walking tall, elegant, and in my heart, I knew.
On my arm, you danced; softly, as a feather falls.
To my mind came visions of concert halls.
Cymbals crashed, the drum roll grew,
The percussionist stood, and it was you.
The maestro turned, baton in hand,
As though the score had all been planned,
The spotlight paused, then moved along,
The orchestra played a love song.
We walk now, where once we ran,
A pause to celebrate where it all began,
A pride in our children; their children too,
Lives we have shared while each of us grew.
The places we've been, the people we've known,
Our love for each other, and what it has grown.
We celebrate the past, but reach out to the new.
Listen my darling, can you hear it too?
The orchestra is playing
a love song for you.
-- gordon william bain, Sept 4th, 2008.
.................................
As I turned a handle that made the cream,
While feeding cows, and cackling hens,
Grunting pigs in smelly pens.
I dreamed of you, imagined your face,
The way you would walk with queenly grace.
While in the fields, wheat sheaves to stack.
Long flowing gowns, men dressed in black,
Of concert halls, with kings and queens,
Were all a part of my childhood dreams.
I grew. One unsuspecting day, I saw you,
Walking tall, elegant, and in my heart, I knew.
On my arm, you danced; softly, as a feather falls.
To my mind came visions of concert halls.
Cymbals crashed, the drum roll grew,
The percussionist stood, and it was you.
The maestro turned, baton in hand,
As though the score had all been planned,
The spotlight paused, then moved along,
The orchestra played a love song.
We walk now, where once we ran,
A pause to celebrate where it all began,
A pride in our children; their children too,
Lives we have shared while each of us grew.
The places we've been, the people we've known,
Our love for each other, and what it has grown.
We celebrate the past, but reach out to the new.
Listen my darling, can you hear it too?
The orchestra is playing
a love song for you.
-- gordon william bain, Sept 4th, 2008.
.................................
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Re-visiting My Honours Thesis in Psychology: Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
Preface (Sept. 6th, 2008): On The Evolving Roots and Principles of DGB Philosophy From My Honors Thesis, 'Evaluation and Health' (1979)
Below this preface is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Below this preface is a presentation of my honors thesis, written in 1979 for my degree in psychology at the University of Waterloo. It was written for one of my professors, a cognitive-behavioral psychologist, who shared my interest at the time of the research I had already been exposed to, and started to do from high school, in the area of General Semantics. At the time, I wanted to take my studies in General Semantics to a higher level, integrating it with my studies in cognitive therapy and psychotherapy in general on one side of things, and with my studies in humanism (Erich Fromm mainly), which was just starting to lead me in the direction of existentialism -- and humanistic-existentialism, on the other side of things.
At this point in time, I had not yet been seriously exposed to Fritz Perls and Gestalt Therapy, nor Alfred Adler and Adlerian Psychology, nor Freud and Psychoanalysis, nor Carl Jungand Jungian Psychology, nor Eric Berne and Transactional Analysis, nor Friedrich Nietzsche -- nor the primary integrator of all these great psychologist-philosophers -- Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
What you have in Evaluation and Health is the beginnings of Hegel's Hotel and DGB Philosophy as I started my evolutionary process of moving from being a unilateral philosopher to a dialectical one.
A 'dialectic philosopher' by the definition of DGB Philosophy is a person who embraces both the concept and the phenomenon of opposite polarities-perspectives-lifestyles because he or she sees an opportunity for new, integrative learning and humanistic-existential evolution in these polar differences -- and the opportunity for negotiating differential unity, harmony, and homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance by working both extreme ends of the polarity-continuum towards the middle where people ideally can live together with each other, or in close proximity to each other, without trying to kill each other and/or destroy each other's polar opinions.
Dialectic-democratic philosophy-politics is integrative philosophy-politics; it aims not to be divisive, 'either-or' politics although, to be sure, there will be times when DGB Philosophy takes a hard stand against those who are not deemed to be in support of what it takes to get to a 'dialectic-democratic-homeostatic-middle-ground civil balance position'.
DGB Philosophy, in general, is closer to the politics of Obama, Biden, and the Democratic Party in America; however, having said this, DGB Philosophy has some Republicanism-Conservatism-Capitalism in it; just not as much as Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee...In this regard, DGB Philosophy sees the opportunity for an open democratic-dialectic debate and dialogue between the strengths and weaknesses of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
DGB Philosophy -- in the terminology of American Politics -- might be better described as 'The Democratic-Republican Dialectic Party'
Alternatively, in Canada, DGB Philosophy might be described as 'The Conservative-Liberal Dialectic-Democratic Party'.
Again, DGB Philosophy looks towards embellishing and integrating the strengths of each and every Philosphical-Political Party.
DGB Philosophy believes in 'Humanistic-Existential Capitalism' as opposed to 'Narcissistic-I'm-Only-In-It-For-Me Capitalism'.
DGB Philosophy ideally looks for a working integration between the rich, the middle class, and the poor, as well as between Capitalists and Socialists, and between employers and employees. DGB Philosophy is always looking for 'win-win, dialectic-democratic conflict resolutions and problem solutions'.
DGB Philosophy integrates many of the Capitalist Criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm with the Capitalist Idealism of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and Nathaniel Branden.
This paper below -- 'Evaluation and Health' begins to show the 'two-sided, opposite-polarity' influence and political-economic criticisms of Karl Marx and Erich Fromm (mainly Erich Fromm) on the one side vs. the aforementioned Capitalist Idealism of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden.
'To live purposefully, you need to pay attention to outcomes. You need to notice whether your actions are producing the results you expected-whether they are bringing you closer to your goal. Perhaps you have a well-formulated purpose, a well thought out action-plan, and a pattern of action consistent with your intentions, but the problem is that the action-plan isnt the right one, and you need to go back to the drawing-board. The only way to discover this is by paying attention to outcomes. As someone observed, doing more of what doesnt work, doesnt work.'
— Nathaniel Branden
DGB Philosophy is a philosophy that is comprised of a 'post-Hegelian, humanistic-existential-multi-bi-partisan, integrative, philosophy-psychology-economics-law-business-science-arts-sports-entertainment-idealistic-realistic-enlightenment-romantic-constructive-deconstructive-modern-post-modern-pragmatic-rational-empirical-narcissistic-altruistic-ethical ideology.
In short, every new and old ideology or philosophy generally contains some philosophical strength that makes this strength worthy of being integrated into a larger philosophical union, harmony, and whole.
At the same time, this same one-sided perspective that defines a particular philosophy 'contains the seeds of its own self-destruction' (Hegel) when implemented to a one-sided extreme. Thus, the evolutionary value and indeed necessity of integrating other, polar or differential, one-sided philosophies into a larger, more all-encompassing, philosophical stew.
Another 'dialectic split' that 'Evaluation and Health' walked partly into the middle of but also partly avoided was the 'famous Cartesian-Kantian subjective-objective split'.
My epistemological gurus back in 1979 were Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand, and Branden.
Ayn Rand's epistemology evolved to become known as 'Objectivism'. Again, in taking the dialectic route, DGB Epistemology would differentially be called either 'DGB Subjective-Objectivism' and/or 'DGB Rational-Empiricism'.
In Evaluation and Health there is no mention of the term-concept of 'narcissism' or 'narcissistic bias'. That would come later when I started to read Freud more seriously, and then Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Evaluation and Health was a mainly 'Enlightenment' style philosophy paper, written from the neck up, without much if any 'Romantic Philosophy' in it, and little if any talk discussion on sexuality which later would become connected to and integrated with my use of the concept-term of narcissism.
There would be little to no talk about 'Freudian defense and/or learning mechanisms such as: transference, projection, introjection, identification, identification with the aggressor...and the influence of memories on learning structures, processes, associations, and resulting evaluations or judgments. These were all at least partly foreshadowed in this paper, with my realizing by the end of it, that I had significant more research to do, although not by a long shot realizing just how much further this research would take me.
Of course, entering The Gestalt Institute and The Adlerian Institute in 1980 opened up a whole new world for me, and the first thing I attempted to do -- partly successfully and partly unsuccessfully -- was to integrate Gestalt Therapy with Adlerian Psychology around their dialectically conflicting philosphical positions of 'unity in the personality' vs 'multiple bi-polariities in the personality'.
I sided mainly with Perls and Gestalt Therapy on this issue as I tried the best I could at that time to resolve the Gestalt-Adlerian differences in my paper, 'Conflict in The Personality'. However, at the same time, I was most impressed with the Adlerian concept of 'lifestyle' and the interconnection between this concept and their 'interpretation of conscious early memories'. My wheels were starting to turn in terms of future potential integrations not only between Gestalt Therapy and Adlerian Psychology, but also between these and Psychoanalysis -- Traumacy and Seduction Theory, Classic Freudian, Life and Death Instinct Theory, Jungian Psychology, Post-Freudian, Neo-Freudian, Kleinian, Fairbainian, Kohutian, Transactional Analysis...all grist for the future DGB Psychology-Philosophy Gristmill...
However, it would not be until the 2000s before I reached the conflict resolution I was fully looking for on this Gestalt-Adlerian issue of 'unity vs. polarity and conflict in the personality'. My conflict resolution on this matter finally took the form of: 'dialectical negotiation and integration to the point of win-win conflict resolutions in the form of differential unity, wholism, homeostatic balance, and harmony'.
But again, that was much later to come.
However, Evaluation and Health was my first major philosophical starting-point for what was much later to come in the form of Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy.
In particular, Evaluation and Health provides a good introductory study of General Semantics through these two classic General Semantic books: Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 1933; H.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1941, 1949). The General Semantics of Korzybski and Hayakawa provide the main philosophical grounding for DGB Epistemology and much of DGB Dialectic Philosophy as a whole. Wrote Hayakawa,
"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."
See my article on the American Politics blogsite called, Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party. It should be finished by lunch tomorrow, Sunday September 7th, 2008.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce to you to the beginning of my 1979 Honors Thesis -- Evaluation and Health. I expect to have it typed out in its entirety by the third or fourth week of September, 2008, as long as not too many interrupting essays -- like the 'DGB Philosophy vs. The Republican Party' essay -- come into stronger focus.
-- dgb, September 6th, 2008.
..................................................................................
Evaluation and Health -- David Bain, 1979
The value judgments we make determine our actions, and upon their validity rests our mental health and happiness.
-- Erich Fromm
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry... Faceoff: DGB Philosophy vs. Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer -- and Freud
1. Introduction
In this essay, we will explore the roots and the interconnections between the search for truth and accurate knowledge (epistemology), narcissism (human pleasure-seeking, power-seeking, money-seeking, egotism, etc.), and 'sophistry' (which we will define here as a deliberate act of epistemological, rhetorical, and/or ideological deception -- which in turn is usually connected to the deliberate hiding of one's own narcissistic agenda and more specific narcissistic activities.)
Obviously, it makes the study of epistemology -- the search for truth and accurate knowledge -- that much harder than it is already when one is facing significant opposition from those who may be purposely trying to hide the truth (including sometimes ourselves).
Let's now investigate some of the different roots and personal idiosyncrises that contribute to this 'all too human' core bi-polar conflict between our search for truth and accurate knowledge on the one hand vs. either our own wish and/or the wish of others to hide this same truth based usually on personal narcissistic interests on this matter (and therefore conflict of interest relative to the other bi-polarity of ethical integrity and congruence).
More often than not, based on my personal experience and observation-interpretation-evaluation of the world -- personal narcissism, and the illusion of truth, wins. (Yes, I can feel Schopenhauer turning over and smiling in his grave.)
However, as much as we live in a Schopenhauerian nightmare of a world in many, many respects, Schopenhaurian irrationalism and non-ethics is not all that the human race and human evolution -- both individually and collectively -- is about. As the school slogan says: Character matters.
Thus, the answer to the problem of human narcissism is not to give up on it -- and let it take over the human world; rather, human narcissism has to be recognized as an integral part of human nature and human behavior but a part that needs to constantly held in check under the principle of 'homeostatic balance'. Truth, integrity, and compassion for other people are not human ethical qualities that we can afford to give up on. The future of the world is at stake from matters of war vs. peace to matters of environmental pollution/warming vs. environmental restoration, to matters of family, community, civil, economic, and political stability vs. instability, chaos, and a 'survival of the fittest-Lord of The Flies' type existence.
Moving towards a philosophical position of homeostatic and dialectic-democratic balance is always the best policy vs. the alternative of either a narcisstic 'free-for-all' of chaos and civil disobedience, and/or the opposite righteous extreme of anti-narcissistic (religious) extremism. Indeed, any kind of existential extremism is dangerous which includes the later-in-his-career philosophy of one of my favorite philosophical mentors -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
........................................................
2. Roots of The Term 'Sophism' (From The Ancient Greek School of Philosophy) -- and Its Present-Day Meaning (Deception)
From Wikipedia on the internet...
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.
The term sophism originated from Greek sophistes, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom (sophós means "wise man").
Sophists of Ancient Greece
The Greek words sophos or sophia had the meaning of "wise" or "wisdom" since the time of the poet Homer, and originally connoted anyone with expertise in a specific domain of knowledge or craft. Thus a charioteer, a sculptor, a warrior could be sophoi in their occupation. Gradually the word came to denote general wisdom and especially wisdom about human affairs (in, for example, politics, ethics, or household management). This was the term given to the Greek Seven Sages of 7th and 6th Century BCE (like Solon and Thales), and this was the meaning that appeared in the histories of Herodotus. At about the same time, the term sophistes was a synonym for "poet", and (by association with the traditional role of poets as the teachers of society) a synonym for one who teaches, in particular through the performance of prose works or speeches that impart practical knowledge. Richard Martin refers to the seven sages as "performers of political poetry."1
In the second half of the 5th century BCE, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue," speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.
Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, along with the sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger") and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. Their attacks against Socrates (in fictional prosecution speeches) prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.
Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of the sophists. Others include Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus.
In comparison, Socrates accepted no fee, instead adopting a self-effacing posture, which he exemplified by Socratic questioning (i.e. the Socratic method, although Diogenes Laertius wrote that Protagoras—a sophist—invented the “Socratic” method[1][2]). His attitude towards the Sophists was by no means oppositional; in one dialogue Socrates even stated that the Sophists were better educators than he was [3], which he validated by sending one of his students to study under a sophist.[4] W. K. C. Guthrie associated Socrates with the Sophists in his History of Greek Philosophy.[4]
Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues. These texts depict the sophists in an unflattering light, and it is unclear how accurate or fair Plato's representation of them may be; however, it is also suggested that such criticism was often ironic. Another contemporary, the comic playwright Aristophanes, criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, yet suggests that Socrates was one of their number.
Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism...
.....................................................
3. DGB Philosophy vs. Nietzsche
We have to remember that when we are studying another philosopher, whether we are reading one of the philosopher's actual works, and/or an interpretation of one or more of the philosopher's works by another author, we are still only receiving 'sound bites' -- or since what we are reading is generally on paper or on the internet, 'visual bites' -- and 'pieces' (accurate, distorted, or somewhere in between) of the philosopher's actual philosophy.
Furthermore, we have to allow for the fact that every philosopher is going through his or her own evolutionary process that could be early in his or her writing career, mid-way through it, or late in his or her career. Nietzsche, the philosopher who wrote 'The Birth of Tragedy' (his first work, 1872) was not in the same philosophical place or spirit as when he wrote 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (1883-1885) which Nietzsche himself (as well as probably most scholars today) view(ed) as his crowning philosophical masterpiece.
DGB Philosophy has more in common with 'The Birth of Tragedy' (the principle of homestatic balance, balancing opposite perspectives, ideas, feelings, impulses, lifestyles, philosophies etc., differential unity, the potential harmony of integrating/synthesizing opposites... a la Hegel) than it does with 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (existential extremism, the ethics of an immoralist, the philosophy of an unbridled, unmodified narcissist).
............................................
4. DGB Philosophy vs. Wittgenstein
To qualify my statements here, I am in the early phase of reading Wittgenstein, do not have anywhere close to a full knowledge of his philosophy, and in effect, I am 'deconstructing some of his visual bites' here that are not ringing a harmonious chord with DGB Philosophy.
Firstly, let's start with this Wittgenstein proposition that comes from 'Introducing Wittgenstein', by John Heaton, 2005.
Wittgenstein Proposition 1: 'The business of philosophy is critique.'
DGB Critique: This is a one-sided definition and/or description of philosophy. The business of philosophy is -- partly -- to critique, which is what I am doing here. I am deconstructing Wittgenstein -- or at least, in this case, one of his reported propositions. This assumes that Heaton's report of this Wittgenstein proposition is accurate which I would/will probably have to go out and buy Wittgenstein's most famous work, 'Tracatus Logico-Philosophicus' (which from now on we will just call 'Tractatus') if I want to make 100 percent certainty of the accuracy of this reported Wittgenstein proposition. But for now, I will trust Heaton and the fact that Heaton is reporting Wittgestein propositions accurately in his much more simpler book to read: 'Introducing Wittgenstein'.
Deconstruction(ism) is the philosophy of critique.
The other half of philosophy is 'Constructionism'. Thus, we can distinguish between 'Constructionist Philosophy' and 'Deconstructionist Philosophy', and simlarily too, we can distinguish between 'Wittgenstein Constructionism' and 'Wittgenstein Deconstructionism' just as we can also distinguish between 'DGB Constructionism' and 'DGB Deconstructionism'. And the same is true for Nietzsche who arguably I would consider to be the greatest Deconstructionist in the history of Western Philosophy (David Hume might give him a run for his money.) But even Nietzsche developed his own Constructionist Philosophy -- 'The Philosophy of the Superman'.
The best philosophers in the eyes of DGB Philosophy weave a homeostatic balance between Constructionist and Deconstructionist Philosophy.
.............................................................
5. Nietzsche as an Example of The Evolving Internal Conflict Between Homeostatic Balance and Existential Extremism
We can see this in Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy, 1872' (Nietzsche attempting to optimally balance a lifestyle philosophy of Appollonian vs. Dionysian virtues).
However, we cannot see this in 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta, 1883'. (This was the philosophy of the Superman -- i.e., Nietzsche -- ignoring all human morality in the pursuit of his own unbridled narccissistic values/vices (and projecting them on Zarathrusta).
Is it a coincidence that Nietzsche was getting closer to his loss of sanity and his institutionalization relative to this loss of his sanity, or was his impending insanity being driven by viral and/or other possible bio-chemical factors such as the often proposed theory of 'syphilus' (again, perhaps partly due to the phlosophy of an unbridled Dionysian narcissist)?
Now, I do not wish to falsely stereotype Nietzsche for any lifestyle that he did or didn't live, or suggest any false reason for the insanity that would take over his mind in 1889 -- after all, he is still probably my favorite philospher; indeed, I would probably sooner read Nietzsche than any other philosopher including Hegel. Perhaps Friedrich (Fritz) Perls was the closest I would consider to a modern-day Nietzsche -- both in lifestyle and in writing -- and indeed, Perls might be the one writer who's writing I would consider to rival or even surpass Nietzsche's. What was the common element in their writing: they could both keep their writing immediate, down to earth -- and dramatically existential.
You cannot read either Nietzsche or Perls without at least partly being mesmerized by their passion for life -- and their 'existential extremism'.
Who amongst us doesn't at least partly subscribe to the idea of living life to the fullest of our potential, our fullest passion,.
We only live once. But if we are talking about living life in the fast lane -- in the Dionysian lane, a life of 'unbridled narcissism and hedonism' -- then, that lane usually ends up having negative consequences, negative side-effects: perhap crashing in self-destruction which, coincidentally or non-coincidentally, just happens to be the way that Nietzsche ended up living the last 10 or 11 years of his life, institutionalized and mentally, more or less, incoherent and incapacitated. You tell me how this happened, and whether it wasn't in some way connected to his ultimately self-destructive philosophy. Was his mental insanity in the last 11 years of his life 'genetic'? Viral?
.............................................................................
From the internet (Google... Nietzsche, insanity)
6. What caused Nietzsche's insanity and death?:
A paper just published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica reconsiders the insanity and death of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who is commonly thought to have died of neurosyphilis.
In contrast, the authors of the new study suggest that Nietzsche died of frontotemporal dementia - a type of dementia that specifically affects the frontal and temporal lobes.
While many people have 'diagnosed' historical figures in retrospect, this study is different, in that the authors reviewed Nietzsche's actual medical notes in light of what is known about the progression of syphilis and dementia today.
More than 100 years after his death, Friedrich Nietzsche remains one of the most contentious figures in the history of philosophy. His writings contain some of the most profound philosophical statements of the 19th century, and have been exceptionally influential. However, they also express ambiguities and contradictions, which leave scholars perplexed and still arguing about their meaning and intent. Such ambiguities are reflected not only in Nietzsche's life, but also in his terminal illness and death.
Following a psychotic breakdown in 1889, at the age of 44 years, he was admitted to the Basel mental asylum and on 18 January 1889 was transferred to the Jena mental asylum. He remained in demented darkness until his death on 25 August 1900. In Basel, a diagnosis of general paralysis of the insane (GPI; tertiary cerebral syphilis) was made. This diagnosis was confirmed in Jena and is still widely accepted. However, even some of Nietzsche's contemporaries doubted this. The lack of certainty about his primary luetic infection, the long duration of the disease and some clinical features lead us to question the diagnosis of GPI.
In this study, we re-construct the anamnesis [clinical history] of Nietzsche's illness and review the clinical presentation. We then note the natural history of GPI as it was at the turn of the 19th century, and suggest an alternative diagnosis, namely that of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) which has been characterized in detail only in the last two decades.
Link to abstract of paper.
................................................................
7. Back to Wittgenstein.
It seems as if Wittgenstein didn't take Nietzsche seriously on his deconstruction (critique) of science.
Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: Science on the other hand consists of all true propositions. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)
Response, DGB Philosophy: What a load of hogwash this Wittgenstein proposition is. Science is just as loaded with human narcissistic bias as every other cultural and non-cultural activity in human affairs is including: philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, sports and entertainment, law, business and economics -- and science and medicine. You cannot talk about any human endeavor without including a discussion of the influence of human narcissism on whatever human endeavor you are talking about.
Wittgenstein (1889-1951), in the proposition above, acts as if he had never even heard of Nietzsche (1844-1900), let alone read any of his philosophy.
..........................................................
From...The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant. His early work was influenced by that of Arthur Schopenhauer and, especially, by his teacher Bertrand Russell and by Gottlob Frege, who became something of a friend. This work culminated in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the only philosophy book that Wittgenstein published during his lifetime. It claimed to solve all the major problems of philosophy and was held in especially high esteem by the anti-metaphysical logical positivists. The Tractatus is based on the idea that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language, and it tries to show what this logic is. Wittgenstein's later work, principally his Philosophical Investigations, shares this concern with logic and language, but takes a different, less technical, approach to philosophical problems. This book helped to inspire so-called ordinary language philosophy. This style of doing philosophy has fallen somewhat out of favor, but Wittgenstein's work on rule-following and private language is still considered important, and his later philosophy is influential in a growing number of fields outside philosophy.
.............................................................
8. Nietzsche's Deconstruction of Science
Nietzsche brought science down to its knees through his philosophical deconstructionism of science relative to his arguments concerning the influence of human bias and narcissism but Wittgenstein pops off a proposition here about the 'epistemological perfection of science' (Science consists of all true propositions. Only in your dreams, Mr. Wittgenstein, only in your dreams! My DGB editorial comment.)
I am not trying to be overly skepitical, pessimistic and/or cynical but skepticism, pessimism, and cynicism are probably closer to the general truth than Wittgenstein's blatant scientfic idealism.
Relative to the study of, and inter-connection between, epistemology and science, one has to delve into the inluence of narcissism and particularly narcissitic capitalism (or for that matter narcissistic political ideology, whether capitalist or socialist) on the outcomse of 'supposed scientific research'. 'Who is paying the scientist?', is perhaps the most relevant question in this regard. When reading a scientfic research outcome, it is prudent for the smart, epistemologcally-minded philosopher -- or person in general -- to examine all possible areas of 'conflict of interest' (between a scientist who comes up with a particular research finding and the company and/or government agency that may be paying the scientist to come up with exactly this same finding). Otherwise, as a reader, and as a person separated from the context of the supposedly 'scientific information' you are getting, you may not know -- in fact, you probably won't -- whether you are getting truth or hogwash. More times than not, it quite possibly might be narcissistic hogwash that you are getting.
........................................................
9. Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: It (philosophy) clarifies the limits of meaningful language. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)
DGB Philosophy Response: I may or may not have basically already addressed this philosophical proposition in 'Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1', but in case I didn't, and/or for those who have not read or cannot remember the first paper, I will re-address the same basic proposition here.
Specifically, Wittgenstein -- like the rest of us, including Nietzsche, including Kant, including Schopenhauer, including me -- have/had 'psychological issues' that were/are 'impinging on his/our philosophical process'. They may not tell you this in philosophy class but philosophy -- particularly for the 'obsessed philosopher' -- is generally a 'compensatory process consciously or subconsciously aimed at addressing and satisfying unfinished psychological business'.
10. Arthur Schopenhauer
You look at Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Schopenhauer, by all accounts, was a nasty, brutish man. Philosophically, he described the world as a 'nasty, brutish place to live in' -- one might say, a perfect projection of his own nasty, brutish personality. What was Schopenhauer's solution to the 'narcissistic, brutish -- 'Lord of The Flies' -- problem of man's existence. Schopenhauer had two propososed solutons: 1. go to the theatre, engage in the arts, and look for a cathartic release from the stress of normal, nasty day-to-day living; and/or 2. learn a 'Buddhist style of living' of basically 'negating all human (narcissisic) desires and impulses' (which from what I understand Schopenhauer was never able to do himself).
Thus, in this example, you can see the inter-connecting self-dialectic being played out between Schopenhauer and himself, between depth psychology and compensatory philosophy acting as a form of self-psychotherapy for his own unbridled narcissistic peronality, and/or as a 'form of salvation' for his own 'unbridled, day-to-day, narcissistic sins. You could say that Schopenhauer, like the rest of us in our own unique way, had a 'dialectic bi-polarity going on his personality' that he was playing out through the creation of his own particular philosophy, aimed at alleviating, compesating for, and therapizing, the otherwise one-sided, nasty side of his existence.
.....................................................
Arthur Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 – September 21, 1860) was a German philosopher best known for his gloomy and questioning manner. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the fundamental question of whether reason alone can unlock answers about the world. Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation, emphasized the role of man's basic instinct, which Schopenhauer described as the will to exist, or "will". Schopenhauer is perhaps best known for his analysis of human motivation and the human condition, arguing that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be truly fulfilled. Consequently, Schopenhauer favored a lifestyle of negating human desires, similar to the teachings of Buddhism.
Schopenhauer's metaphysical discovery of "will", his views on human motivation and desire, and his aphoristic writing style influenced many well-known philosophers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Sigmund Freud and others, forming a cornerstone in what is now known as "German Idealism."[1]
.....................................................................
11. Back to Wittgenstein:
And so it was with Wittgenstein as well. I do not profess to be nearly as good a guesser at what was going on in Wittgenstein's psyche as I just speculated with Schopenhauer, but still, from being involved with Gestalt Therapy for ten or eleven off and on years, plus from studying Freud and Jung and Hegel, I can often pick up quickly symptoms of what might be called 'bi-polarity disorder' in any of a thousand and one different possible ways that this both healthy and pathological psychological process can play itself out in human behavior.
With Wittgenstein, we read about his philosophical wish for epistemological and language(semantic) clarity on the one hand (let's call this Wittgenstein's 'rebellious underdog' using a mixture of DGB and Gestalt terminology.
Now, on the other hand, I read on the back cover of 'Introducing Wittgenstein' that:
'Ludwig Wittgenstein, has captured the popular imagination as the modern day Socrates, the fascinating master of enigmatic reasoning who, with his icy logic, convinced Bertrand Russell that there was a hippo in the room.'
And I say, whoa, just a minute now. What is going on here? It looks like we have another personality dynamic - another 'ego-state' -- at work here. Wittgenstein claims that he seeks epistemoligical and language clarity on the one hand -- this is supposedly the business of philosophy -- and then Wittgenstein somehow bedazzles, befuddles, mystifies, and mesmerizes Bertrand Russell into going stir-crazy looking for a hippo in his room.
How seriously do we take this? And on what level? One of the most intelligent, brilliant philosophers in Western history -- Bertrand Russell that is, with good rational-empirical groundings -- being led up the garden path, or take on a 'magic carpet ride' as I have written previously, by a seemingly even more intelligent man who was using his intelligence in the name of sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors, mysticism...Was this a one-time, just for gags, deed? Or something more deeply inherent in Wittgenstein's personality: the bi-polarity of the clarifyer vs. the mystifier?
12. The Philosophy of Illusion (Sophistry)
There are differet reasons for the philosphy of illusion from the magician who wants to pull one over on you, to a personal gag on someone, to the most serious and pathological of narcissistic economic, political, violent and/or sexual intentions.
Being an older brother, I am familiar with the 'gag' motivation. I practised it growing up at the expense of my younger sister and brother. You shoot someone a fabricated and/or embellished story with the purpose of raising his or her anxiety/fear level. You want to see the anxiety-level rise on his or her face until he or she finally catches on that he/she is being had. Trickery and skull-duggery! The philosophy of illusion.
13. Fear, Identification With The Aggressor, and Transference
Let me be more specific here because there is a learning phenomenon here that takes place in every child growing up, modified in one way or another -- called 'identification with the aggressor'. Almost every psycholgist and/or psychotherapist knows about this process in some fashion or another -- it comes from the learnings of Freudian Psychoanalysis and is also connected to the Freudian/Psychoanalytic concept of -- transference.
In all my years of studying human psychology, I have never been more mesmerized by the study of any concept-phenomenon than I have been with the Freudian concept of transference and its interconnection such other related Freudian/Psychoanlytic concepts as: 'introjection', 'identification', 'identification with the aggressor', 'projection', and the Adlerian concepts of 'compensation' and 'lifestyle'. DGB Psychology -- which I called 'Gap Psychology' in the 1980s before I turned my attention to philosophy -- puts its own particular 'integrative stamp' on the concept/phenomenon of transference that borrows from Adlerian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Jungian Psychology, and more in an effort to more fully understand this most mesmerizing of human behavioral phenomena which is connected to thousands of different brands of 'bi-polarity fixation and disorder', 'obsession-compulsion', 'addiction', and 'serial behavior patterns' from the most innocuous to the most pathological of 'serial crimes' (rape, murder, fraud, sophistry, narcissism in its worst elements of human behavior...).
Let me give you a couple of examples of how it works. Many movies have made high-voltage drama out of this psychological phenomena including 'Psycho' by Alfred Hitchcock, 'Straight-Jacket', which scared the crap out of me when I was a small kid, and the latest 'Batman' ('The Dark Knight') movie where Bruce Wayne had a terrifying episode with 'bats' in a cave as a child, and he then turned 'this fear upside down' as his 'alter-ego' -- 'Batman' -- when he grew up. This is an example of the phenomenon of 'identification with the aggressor'.
In the movie, 'Straight-Jacket', a woman comes home from wherever she was to look through her bedroom window and see her husband in bed with another woman. She goes into the shed, comes out with an axe, and then goes crashing through her bedroom window to make mince meat out of her husband and his girlfriend. The woman's young daughter is standing, looking through the bedroom door as this is happening. I was petrified watching this movie scene just as the little girl in the movie was. (The little girl in the movie grew up to become a 'carbon-copy serial killer' of her mom just at the same time that her mom was finally released from a mental institution for having committed the initial crime. Of course, everyone was blaming the mom for the new set of crimes while the grown up little girl 'operated in the shadows using her mom's alter-ego' as the means of 're-enacting her childhood traumatic, transference scene'. I, on the other hand, on a more modified, toned down -- but still frightening level to my younger brother and sister -- started playing 'Straight-Jacket Babysitting Games' where I started chasing my brother and sister around the house pretending I was 'Straight-Jacket'. I even had a song that I invented with a line that went: 'Straight-Jacket, if she catches you, you're dead'. Needless, to say I don't think my sister or brother found as much humor in this game as I did. I had turned my fear 'upside down' and become the 'perpetrator or victimizer' of my fear rather than the 'victim'. I had moved from a position of being 'out of control of my fear' to a position of 'being in control of it' and 'harnessing' it against others. Vicariously, I could 'tell good horror-psycho stories'; probably still can. I probably still have some undeveloped 'Edgar Allan Poe' creative-destructive impulses in me'.
There is a level where this phenomenon of transference and identification of the aggressor is not funny; it has played a part in the character-formation of some of the worst serial killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths in the history of mankind -- from The Boston Strangler to Jack The Ripper to Ted Bundy to I could go on and on and on... But this mesmerizing human phenomena of transference and identification with the aggressor can and does have just as many 'creative' repercussions on individuals and culture as it does 'destructive-violent' ramifications and 'narcissistic-sophistry' ramifications. Transference -- both in its positive and negative ramifications on the human psyche and on human society and culture in general -- is an amazingly spectacular phenomenon. I think at one point, towards the middle-end of Freud's career (1920, Beyond The Pleasure Principle), Freud started connecting the phenomenon of transference to both 'the repetition compulsion' in man -- and the 'death instinct'. He was undoubtedly focusing on the negative-destructive and self-destructive capabilities and realities of transference.
But one of the creative potentials-realities of transference can be found in one of Freud's earliest conscious memories -- and its 'transference-effect' on his life. Classic Psychoanalysts view this as a 'screen memory' -- perhaps hiding another more traumatic scene and/or fantasy in Freud's personality that is more enlightening to the makeup of his personality. But to me this Classic Psychoanalytic 'screen memory' theory is balderdash -- horsecrap if you pardon the expression. I follow Adler's theorizing in this area of human psychology -- his interpretation of 'conscious early memories' and their connection to what Adler called a person 'repetitive ('obsessive-compulsive, serial' -- my editorial additional words in the brackets here ) lifestyle.
Personally, I combine Freudian and Adlerian theory here to give my own 'DGB Transference Theory' that connects 'conscious early memories' to 'transference repetition compulsions'. I call these conscious early memories 'transference memories' or 'transference scenes' -- something that Freud also did in his pre-1896 Traumacy-Seduction Theory (only with unconscious memories where he used both 'hypnosis' and then later 'free association' to 'track down in the unconscious') -- whereas, I counter-argue on Adler's behalf: keep it 'simple stupid' -- stay with conscous memories; you can find everything you want and need here as a psychotherapist without resorting to the chase for real or unreal 'unconscious memories'.
14. Freud's Earliest Transference-Traumacy Memory-Scene
Freud's earliest transerence scene -- or at least one of them, and undoubtedly in my opinion his main one -- was a situation where he walked into his mom and dad's bedroom while they were having sex together -- one of the most classic, childhood transference scenes. In that instant, Freud took on a 'bi-polar split' between himself as the young child in the memory -- the curious, the investigator, the scientist, the person looking for 'epistemological clarity and truth' in what exactly was happening in this scene that he could not fathom while his dad was crouched over his mom, presumably in all his glory; vs. his dad in the memory which would become Freud's 'introjected dad in his personality' -- the narcissist, the sophist, the illusionist, the mesmerizer, trying to hide from his son 'the epistemological truth' of what exactly was going on here...
Twenty or thirty years later we start to see the beginning of 'Freud's repetition compulsion' -- or what I would call his 'transference re-creation compulsion' -- just like in Psycho, just like in Straight-Jacket, just like in 'The Dark Knight', just like what Freud would start to see in the behavior of his clients, starting with Breuer and 'The Anna O' case -- the first case history of Psychoanalysis. Repetition compulsions that started to follow the 'structural and psycho-dynamic format' of the client's -- in this case, Freud's -- earliest memory.
The Psychoanalytic Room starts to take its famous formation. The 'psychoanalytic couch' replaces 'the bed' in Freud's transference scene. The client replaces 'one bi-polar split' in Freud's 'introjected dad' in the form of 'resistance' and 'the defense mechanisms' -- the client doing everything in his or her power to 'hide the narcissistic truth' from 'Freud-the-grown-up-child's scientific-psychoanalytic investigation: The power of 'resistance, defense, narcissism, sophistry and illusion' over the 'power of epistemological truth'.
Here is one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- bi-polar splits in the human psyche. Freud found it in his parent's bedroom. And now he was going to bring it to the attention of the whole world in what would eventually become 'the id' vs. 'the ego' and/or 'superego'. Sexual and/or narcissistic impulse -- hidden by 'human sophistry' vs. the 'ethical restraint' and/or 'the pursuit of epistemological truth'.
What kind of human drama would we have? What kind of human soap opera would we have, without this core bi-polar split in the human psyche? Well, we could talk about the 'Liberal/Conservative' bi-polar split; or the 'Capitalist/Socialist' bi-polar split; or the 'Republican/Democrat' bi-polar split. But these discussions we will save for another day.
For now, this is where we will leave our hopefully provocative discussion on 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry' on this fine, Friday morning, 10:11am.
-- dgb, September 5th, 2008.
In this essay, we will explore the roots and the interconnections between the search for truth and accurate knowledge (epistemology), narcissism (human pleasure-seeking, power-seeking, money-seeking, egotism, etc.), and 'sophistry' (which we will define here as a deliberate act of epistemological, rhetorical, and/or ideological deception -- which in turn is usually connected to the deliberate hiding of one's own narcissistic agenda and more specific narcissistic activities.)
Obviously, it makes the study of epistemology -- the search for truth and accurate knowledge -- that much harder than it is already when one is facing significant opposition from those who may be purposely trying to hide the truth (including sometimes ourselves).
Let's now investigate some of the different roots and personal idiosyncrises that contribute to this 'all too human' core bi-polar conflict between our search for truth and accurate knowledge on the one hand vs. either our own wish and/or the wish of others to hide this same truth based usually on personal narcissistic interests on this matter (and therefore conflict of interest relative to the other bi-polarity of ethical integrity and congruence).
More often than not, based on my personal experience and observation-interpretation-evaluation of the world -- personal narcissism, and the illusion of truth, wins. (Yes, I can feel Schopenhauer turning over and smiling in his grave.)
However, as much as we live in a Schopenhauerian nightmare of a world in many, many respects, Schopenhaurian irrationalism and non-ethics is not all that the human race and human evolution -- both individually and collectively -- is about. As the school slogan says: Character matters.
Thus, the answer to the problem of human narcissism is not to give up on it -- and let it take over the human world; rather, human narcissism has to be recognized as an integral part of human nature and human behavior but a part that needs to constantly held in check under the principle of 'homeostatic balance'. Truth, integrity, and compassion for other people are not human ethical qualities that we can afford to give up on. The future of the world is at stake from matters of war vs. peace to matters of environmental pollution/warming vs. environmental restoration, to matters of family, community, civil, economic, and political stability vs. instability, chaos, and a 'survival of the fittest-Lord of The Flies' type existence.
Moving towards a philosophical position of homeostatic and dialectic-democratic balance is always the best policy vs. the alternative of either a narcisstic 'free-for-all' of chaos and civil disobedience, and/or the opposite righteous extreme of anti-narcissistic (religious) extremism. Indeed, any kind of existential extremism is dangerous which includes the later-in-his-career philosophy of one of my favorite philosophical mentors -- Friedrich Nietzsche.
........................................................
2. Roots of The Term 'Sophism' (From The Ancient Greek School of Philosophy) -- and Its Present-Day Meaning (Deception)
From Wikipedia on the internet...
Sophism can mean two very different things: In the modern definition, a sophism is a confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone. In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy and rhetoric.
The term sophism originated from Greek sophistes, meaning "wise-ist", one who "does" wisdom, one who makes a business out of wisdom (sophós means "wise man").
Sophists of Ancient Greece
The Greek words sophos or sophia had the meaning of "wise" or "wisdom" since the time of the poet Homer, and originally connoted anyone with expertise in a specific domain of knowledge or craft. Thus a charioteer, a sculptor, a warrior could be sophoi in their occupation. Gradually the word came to denote general wisdom and especially wisdom about human affairs (in, for example, politics, ethics, or household management). This was the term given to the Greek Seven Sages of 7th and 6th Century BCE (like Solon and Thales), and this was the meaning that appeared in the histories of Herodotus. At about the same time, the term sophistes was a synonym for "poet", and (by association with the traditional role of poets as the teachers of society) a synonym for one who teaches, in particular through the performance of prose works or speeches that impart practical knowledge. Richard Martin refers to the seven sages as "performers of political poetry."1
In the second half of the 5th century BCE, particularly at Athens, "sophist" came to denote a class of itinerant intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue," speculated about the nature of language and culture and employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. Sophists claimed that they could find the answers to all questions. Most of these sophists are known today primarily through the writings of their opponents (specifically Plato and Aristotle), which makes it difficult to assemble an unbiased view of their practices and beliefs.
Many of them taught their skills for a price. Due to the importance of such skills in the litigious social life of Athens, practitioners often commanded very high fees. The practice of taking fees, along with the sophists' practice of questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities (this was done to make "the weaker argument appear the stronger") and investigating into the nature of the heavens and the earth prompted a popular reaction against them. Their attacks against Socrates (in fictional prosecution speeches) prompted a vigorous condemnation from his followers, including Plato and Xenophon, as there was a popular view of Socrates as a sophist. Their attitude, coupled with the wealth garnered by many of the sophists, eventually led to popular resentment against sophist practitioners and the ideas and writings associated with sophism.
Protagoras is generally regarded as the first of the sophists. Others include Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, Thrasymachus, Lycophron, Callicles, Antiphon, and Cratylus.
In comparison, Socrates accepted no fee, instead adopting a self-effacing posture, which he exemplified by Socratic questioning (i.e. the Socratic method, although Diogenes Laertius wrote that Protagoras—a sophist—invented the “Socratic” method[1][2]). His attitude towards the Sophists was by no means oppositional; in one dialogue Socrates even stated that the Sophists were better educators than he was [3], which he validated by sending one of his students to study under a sophist.[4] W. K. C. Guthrie associated Socrates with the Sophists in his History of Greek Philosophy.[4]
Plato, the most illustrious student of Socrates, depicts Socrates as refuting the sophists in several Dialogues. These texts depict the sophists in an unflattering light, and it is unclear how accurate or fair Plato's representation of them may be; however, it is also suggested that such criticism was often ironic. Another contemporary, the comic playwright Aristophanes, criticizes the sophists as hairsplitting wordsmiths, yet suggests that Socrates was one of their number.
Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all challenged the philosophical foundations of sophism...
.....................................................
3. DGB Philosophy vs. Nietzsche
We have to remember that when we are studying another philosopher, whether we are reading one of the philosopher's actual works, and/or an interpretation of one or more of the philosopher's works by another author, we are still only receiving 'sound bites' -- or since what we are reading is generally on paper or on the internet, 'visual bites' -- and 'pieces' (accurate, distorted, or somewhere in between) of the philosopher's actual philosophy.
Furthermore, we have to allow for the fact that every philosopher is going through his or her own evolutionary process that could be early in his or her writing career, mid-way through it, or late in his or her career. Nietzsche, the philosopher who wrote 'The Birth of Tragedy' (his first work, 1872) was not in the same philosophical place or spirit as when he wrote 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (1883-1885) which Nietzsche himself (as well as probably most scholars today) view(ed) as his crowning philosophical masterpiece.
DGB Philosophy has more in common with 'The Birth of Tragedy' (the principle of homestatic balance, balancing opposite perspectives, ideas, feelings, impulses, lifestyles, philosophies etc., differential unity, the potential harmony of integrating/synthesizing opposites... a la Hegel) than it does with 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta' (existential extremism, the ethics of an immoralist, the philosophy of an unbridled, unmodified narcissist).
............................................
4. DGB Philosophy vs. Wittgenstein
To qualify my statements here, I am in the early phase of reading Wittgenstein, do not have anywhere close to a full knowledge of his philosophy, and in effect, I am 'deconstructing some of his visual bites' here that are not ringing a harmonious chord with DGB Philosophy.
Firstly, let's start with this Wittgenstein proposition that comes from 'Introducing Wittgenstein', by John Heaton, 2005.
Wittgenstein Proposition 1: 'The business of philosophy is critique.'
DGB Critique: This is a one-sided definition and/or description of philosophy. The business of philosophy is -- partly -- to critique, which is what I am doing here. I am deconstructing Wittgenstein -- or at least, in this case, one of his reported propositions. This assumes that Heaton's report of this Wittgenstein proposition is accurate which I would/will probably have to go out and buy Wittgenstein's most famous work, 'Tracatus Logico-Philosophicus' (which from now on we will just call 'Tractatus') if I want to make 100 percent certainty of the accuracy of this reported Wittgenstein proposition. But for now, I will trust Heaton and the fact that Heaton is reporting Wittgestein propositions accurately in his much more simpler book to read: 'Introducing Wittgenstein'.
Deconstruction(ism) is the philosophy of critique.
The other half of philosophy is 'Constructionism'. Thus, we can distinguish between 'Constructionist Philosophy' and 'Deconstructionist Philosophy', and simlarily too, we can distinguish between 'Wittgenstein Constructionism' and 'Wittgenstein Deconstructionism' just as we can also distinguish between 'DGB Constructionism' and 'DGB Deconstructionism'. And the same is true for Nietzsche who arguably I would consider to be the greatest Deconstructionist in the history of Western Philosophy (David Hume might give him a run for his money.) But even Nietzsche developed his own Constructionist Philosophy -- 'The Philosophy of the Superman'.
The best philosophers in the eyes of DGB Philosophy weave a homeostatic balance between Constructionist and Deconstructionist Philosophy.
.............................................................
5. Nietzsche as an Example of The Evolving Internal Conflict Between Homeostatic Balance and Existential Extremism
We can see this in Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy, 1872' (Nietzsche attempting to optimally balance a lifestyle philosophy of Appollonian vs. Dionysian virtues).
However, we cannot see this in 'Thus Spake Zarathrusta, 1883'. (This was the philosophy of the Superman -- i.e., Nietzsche -- ignoring all human morality in the pursuit of his own unbridled narccissistic values/vices (and projecting them on Zarathrusta).
Is it a coincidence that Nietzsche was getting closer to his loss of sanity and his institutionalization relative to this loss of his sanity, or was his impending insanity being driven by viral and/or other possible bio-chemical factors such as the often proposed theory of 'syphilus' (again, perhaps partly due to the phlosophy of an unbridled Dionysian narcissist)?
Now, I do not wish to falsely stereotype Nietzsche for any lifestyle that he did or didn't live, or suggest any false reason for the insanity that would take over his mind in 1889 -- after all, he is still probably my favorite philospher; indeed, I would probably sooner read Nietzsche than any other philosopher including Hegel. Perhaps Friedrich (Fritz) Perls was the closest I would consider to a modern-day Nietzsche -- both in lifestyle and in writing -- and indeed, Perls might be the one writer who's writing I would consider to rival or even surpass Nietzsche's. What was the common element in their writing: they could both keep their writing immediate, down to earth -- and dramatically existential.
You cannot read either Nietzsche or Perls without at least partly being mesmerized by their passion for life -- and their 'existential extremism'.
Who amongst us doesn't at least partly subscribe to the idea of living life to the fullest of our potential, our fullest passion,.
We only live once. But if we are talking about living life in the fast lane -- in the Dionysian lane, a life of 'unbridled narcissism and hedonism' -- then, that lane usually ends up having negative consequences, negative side-effects: perhap crashing in self-destruction which, coincidentally or non-coincidentally, just happens to be the way that Nietzsche ended up living the last 10 or 11 years of his life, institutionalized and mentally, more or less, incoherent and incapacitated. You tell me how this happened, and whether it wasn't in some way connected to his ultimately self-destructive philosophy. Was his mental insanity in the last 11 years of his life 'genetic'? Viral?
.............................................................................
From the internet (Google... Nietzsche, insanity)
6. What caused Nietzsche's insanity and death?:
A paper just published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica reconsiders the insanity and death of philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who is commonly thought to have died of neurosyphilis.
In contrast, the authors of the new study suggest that Nietzsche died of frontotemporal dementia - a type of dementia that specifically affects the frontal and temporal lobes.
While many people have 'diagnosed' historical figures in retrospect, this study is different, in that the authors reviewed Nietzsche's actual medical notes in light of what is known about the progression of syphilis and dementia today.
More than 100 years after his death, Friedrich Nietzsche remains one of the most contentious figures in the history of philosophy. His writings contain some of the most profound philosophical statements of the 19th century, and have been exceptionally influential. However, they also express ambiguities and contradictions, which leave scholars perplexed and still arguing about their meaning and intent. Such ambiguities are reflected not only in Nietzsche's life, but also in his terminal illness and death.
Following a psychotic breakdown in 1889, at the age of 44 years, he was admitted to the Basel mental asylum and on 18 January 1889 was transferred to the Jena mental asylum. He remained in demented darkness until his death on 25 August 1900. In Basel, a diagnosis of general paralysis of the insane (GPI; tertiary cerebral syphilis) was made. This diagnosis was confirmed in Jena and is still widely accepted. However, even some of Nietzsche's contemporaries doubted this. The lack of certainty about his primary luetic infection, the long duration of the disease and some clinical features lead us to question the diagnosis of GPI.
In this study, we re-construct the anamnesis [clinical history] of Nietzsche's illness and review the clinical presentation. We then note the natural history of GPI as it was at the turn of the 19th century, and suggest an alternative diagnosis, namely that of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) which has been characterized in detail only in the last two decades.
Link to abstract of paper.
................................................................
7. Back to Wittgenstein.
It seems as if Wittgenstein didn't take Nietzsche seriously on his deconstruction (critique) of science.
Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: Science on the other hand consists of all true propositions. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)
Response, DGB Philosophy: What a load of hogwash this Wittgenstein proposition is. Science is just as loaded with human narcissistic bias as every other cultural and non-cultural activity in human affairs is including: philosophy, psychology, politics, religion, sports and entertainment, law, business and economics -- and science and medicine. You cannot talk about any human endeavor without including a discussion of the influence of human narcissism on whatever human endeavor you are talking about.
Wittgenstein (1889-1951), in the proposition above, acts as if he had never even heard of Nietzsche (1844-1900), let alone read any of his philosophy.
..........................................................
From...The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century, and regarded by some as the most important since Immanuel Kant. His early work was influenced by that of Arthur Schopenhauer and, especially, by his teacher Bertrand Russell and by Gottlob Frege, who became something of a friend. This work culminated in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, the only philosophy book that Wittgenstein published during his lifetime. It claimed to solve all the major problems of philosophy and was held in especially high esteem by the anti-metaphysical logical positivists. The Tractatus is based on the idea that philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logic of language, and it tries to show what this logic is. Wittgenstein's later work, principally his Philosophical Investigations, shares this concern with logic and language, but takes a different, less technical, approach to philosophical problems. This book helped to inspire so-called ordinary language philosophy. This style of doing philosophy has fallen somewhat out of favor, but Wittgenstein's work on rule-following and private language is still considered important, and his later philosophy is influential in a growing number of fields outside philosophy.
.............................................................
8. Nietzsche's Deconstruction of Science
Nietzsche brought science down to its knees through his philosophical deconstructionism of science relative to his arguments concerning the influence of human bias and narcissism but Wittgenstein pops off a proposition here about the 'epistemological perfection of science' (Science consists of all true propositions. Only in your dreams, Mr. Wittgenstein, only in your dreams! My DGB editorial comment.)
I am not trying to be overly skepitical, pessimistic and/or cynical but skepticism, pessimism, and cynicism are probably closer to the general truth than Wittgenstein's blatant scientfic idealism.
Relative to the study of, and inter-connection between, epistemology and science, one has to delve into the inluence of narcissism and particularly narcissitic capitalism (or for that matter narcissistic political ideology, whether capitalist or socialist) on the outcomse of 'supposed scientific research'. 'Who is paying the scientist?', is perhaps the most relevant question in this regard. When reading a scientfic research outcome, it is prudent for the smart, epistemologcally-minded philosopher -- or person in general -- to examine all possible areas of 'conflict of interest' (between a scientist who comes up with a particular research finding and the company and/or government agency that may be paying the scientist to come up with exactly this same finding). Otherwise, as a reader, and as a person separated from the context of the supposedly 'scientific information' you are getting, you may not know -- in fact, you probably won't -- whether you are getting truth or hogwash. More times than not, it quite possibly might be narcissistic hogwash that you are getting.
........................................................
9. Wittgenstein: Proposition 2: It (philosophy) clarifies the limits of meaningful language. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 41.)
DGB Philosophy Response: I may or may not have basically already addressed this philosophical proposition in 'Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1', but in case I didn't, and/or for those who have not read or cannot remember the first paper, I will re-address the same basic proposition here.
Specifically, Wittgenstein -- like the rest of us, including Nietzsche, including Kant, including Schopenhauer, including me -- have/had 'psychological issues' that were/are 'impinging on his/our philosophical process'. They may not tell you this in philosophy class but philosophy -- particularly for the 'obsessed philosopher' -- is generally a 'compensatory process consciously or subconsciously aimed at addressing and satisfying unfinished psychological business'.
10. Arthur Schopenhauer
You look at Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Schopenhauer, by all accounts, was a nasty, brutish man. Philosophically, he described the world as a 'nasty, brutish place to live in' -- one might say, a perfect projection of his own nasty, brutish personality. What was Schopenhauer's solution to the 'narcissistic, brutish -- 'Lord of The Flies' -- problem of man's existence. Schopenhauer had two propososed solutons: 1. go to the theatre, engage in the arts, and look for a cathartic release from the stress of normal, nasty day-to-day living; and/or 2. learn a 'Buddhist style of living' of basically 'negating all human (narcissisic) desires and impulses' (which from what I understand Schopenhauer was never able to do himself).
Thus, in this example, you can see the inter-connecting self-dialectic being played out between Schopenhauer and himself, between depth psychology and compensatory philosophy acting as a form of self-psychotherapy for his own unbridled narcissistic peronality, and/or as a 'form of salvation' for his own 'unbridled, day-to-day, narcissistic sins. You could say that Schopenhauer, like the rest of us in our own unique way, had a 'dialectic bi-polarity going on his personality' that he was playing out through the creation of his own particular philosophy, aimed at alleviating, compesating for, and therapizing, the otherwise one-sided, nasty side of his existence.
.....................................................
Arthur Schopenhauer (February 22, 1788 – September 21, 1860) was a German philosopher best known for his gloomy and questioning manner. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the fundamental question of whether reason alone can unlock answers about the world. Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation, emphasized the role of man's basic instinct, which Schopenhauer described as the will to exist, or "will". Schopenhauer is perhaps best known for his analysis of human motivation and the human condition, arguing that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be truly fulfilled. Consequently, Schopenhauer favored a lifestyle of negating human desires, similar to the teachings of Buddhism.
Schopenhauer's metaphysical discovery of "will", his views on human motivation and desire, and his aphoristic writing style influenced many well-known philosophers, including Friedrich Nietzsche, Wagner, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Sigmund Freud and others, forming a cornerstone in what is now known as "German Idealism."[1]
.....................................................................
11. Back to Wittgenstein:
And so it was with Wittgenstein as well. I do not profess to be nearly as good a guesser at what was going on in Wittgenstein's psyche as I just speculated with Schopenhauer, but still, from being involved with Gestalt Therapy for ten or eleven off and on years, plus from studying Freud and Jung and Hegel, I can often pick up quickly symptoms of what might be called 'bi-polarity disorder' in any of a thousand and one different possible ways that this both healthy and pathological psychological process can play itself out in human behavior.
With Wittgenstein, we read about his philosophical wish for epistemological and language(semantic) clarity on the one hand (let's call this Wittgenstein's 'rebellious underdog' using a mixture of DGB and Gestalt terminology.
Now, on the other hand, I read on the back cover of 'Introducing Wittgenstein' that:
'Ludwig Wittgenstein, has captured the popular imagination as the modern day Socrates, the fascinating master of enigmatic reasoning who, with his icy logic, convinced Bertrand Russell that there was a hippo in the room.'
And I say, whoa, just a minute now. What is going on here? It looks like we have another personality dynamic - another 'ego-state' -- at work here. Wittgenstein claims that he seeks epistemoligical and language clarity on the one hand -- this is supposedly the business of philosophy -- and then Wittgenstein somehow bedazzles, befuddles, mystifies, and mesmerizes Bertrand Russell into going stir-crazy looking for a hippo in his room.
How seriously do we take this? And on what level? One of the most intelligent, brilliant philosophers in Western history -- Bertrand Russell that is, with good rational-empirical groundings -- being led up the garden path, or take on a 'magic carpet ride' as I have written previously, by a seemingly even more intelligent man who was using his intelligence in the name of sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors, mysticism...Was this a one-time, just for gags, deed? Or something more deeply inherent in Wittgenstein's personality: the bi-polarity of the clarifyer vs. the mystifier?
12. The Philosophy of Illusion (Sophistry)
There are differet reasons for the philosphy of illusion from the magician who wants to pull one over on you, to a personal gag on someone, to the most serious and pathological of narcissistic economic, political, violent and/or sexual intentions.
Being an older brother, I am familiar with the 'gag' motivation. I practised it growing up at the expense of my younger sister and brother. You shoot someone a fabricated and/or embellished story with the purpose of raising his or her anxiety/fear level. You want to see the anxiety-level rise on his or her face until he or she finally catches on that he/she is being had. Trickery and skull-duggery! The philosophy of illusion.
13. Fear, Identification With The Aggressor, and Transference
Let me be more specific here because there is a learning phenomenon here that takes place in every child growing up, modified in one way or another -- called 'identification with the aggressor'. Almost every psycholgist and/or psychotherapist knows about this process in some fashion or another -- it comes from the learnings of Freudian Psychoanalysis and is also connected to the Freudian/Psychoanalytic concept of -- transference.
In all my years of studying human psychology, I have never been more mesmerized by the study of any concept-phenomenon than I have been with the Freudian concept of transference and its interconnection such other related Freudian/Psychoanlytic concepts as: 'introjection', 'identification', 'identification with the aggressor', 'projection', and the Adlerian concepts of 'compensation' and 'lifestyle'. DGB Psychology -- which I called 'Gap Psychology' in the 1980s before I turned my attention to philosophy -- puts its own particular 'integrative stamp' on the concept/phenomenon of transference that borrows from Adlerian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, Jungian Psychology, and more in an effort to more fully understand this most mesmerizing of human behavioral phenomena which is connected to thousands of different brands of 'bi-polarity fixation and disorder', 'obsession-compulsion', 'addiction', and 'serial behavior patterns' from the most innocuous to the most pathological of 'serial crimes' (rape, murder, fraud, sophistry, narcissism in its worst elements of human behavior...).
Let me give you a couple of examples of how it works. Many movies have made high-voltage drama out of this psychological phenomena including 'Psycho' by Alfred Hitchcock, 'Straight-Jacket', which scared the crap out of me when I was a small kid, and the latest 'Batman' ('The Dark Knight') movie where Bruce Wayne had a terrifying episode with 'bats' in a cave as a child, and he then turned 'this fear upside down' as his 'alter-ego' -- 'Batman' -- when he grew up. This is an example of the phenomenon of 'identification with the aggressor'.
In the movie, 'Straight-Jacket', a woman comes home from wherever she was to look through her bedroom window and see her husband in bed with another woman. She goes into the shed, comes out with an axe, and then goes crashing through her bedroom window to make mince meat out of her husband and his girlfriend. The woman's young daughter is standing, looking through the bedroom door as this is happening. I was petrified watching this movie scene just as the little girl in the movie was. (The little girl in the movie grew up to become a 'carbon-copy serial killer' of her mom just at the same time that her mom was finally released from a mental institution for having committed the initial crime. Of course, everyone was blaming the mom for the new set of crimes while the grown up little girl 'operated in the shadows using her mom's alter-ego' as the means of 're-enacting her childhood traumatic, transference scene'. I, on the other hand, on a more modified, toned down -- but still frightening level to my younger brother and sister -- started playing 'Straight-Jacket Babysitting Games' where I started chasing my brother and sister around the house pretending I was 'Straight-Jacket'. I even had a song that I invented with a line that went: 'Straight-Jacket, if she catches you, you're dead'. Needless, to say I don't think my sister or brother found as much humor in this game as I did. I had turned my fear 'upside down' and become the 'perpetrator or victimizer' of my fear rather than the 'victim'. I had moved from a position of being 'out of control of my fear' to a position of 'being in control of it' and 'harnessing' it against others. Vicariously, I could 'tell good horror-psycho stories'; probably still can. I probably still have some undeveloped 'Edgar Allan Poe' creative-destructive impulses in me'.
There is a level where this phenomenon of transference and identification of the aggressor is not funny; it has played a part in the character-formation of some of the worst serial killers, psychopaths, and sociopaths in the history of mankind -- from The Boston Strangler to Jack The Ripper to Ted Bundy to I could go on and on and on... But this mesmerizing human phenomena of transference and identification with the aggressor can and does have just as many 'creative' repercussions on individuals and culture as it does 'destructive-violent' ramifications and 'narcissistic-sophistry' ramifications. Transference -- both in its positive and negative ramifications on the human psyche and on human society and culture in general -- is an amazingly spectacular phenomenon. I think at one point, towards the middle-end of Freud's career (1920, Beyond The Pleasure Principle), Freud started connecting the phenomenon of transference to both 'the repetition compulsion' in man -- and the 'death instinct'. He was undoubtedly focusing on the negative-destructive and self-destructive capabilities and realities of transference.
But one of the creative potentials-realities of transference can be found in one of Freud's earliest conscious memories -- and its 'transference-effect' on his life. Classic Psychoanalysts view this as a 'screen memory' -- perhaps hiding another more traumatic scene and/or fantasy in Freud's personality that is more enlightening to the makeup of his personality. But to me this Classic Psychoanalytic 'screen memory' theory is balderdash -- horsecrap if you pardon the expression. I follow Adler's theorizing in this area of human psychology -- his interpretation of 'conscious early memories' and their connection to what Adler called a person 'repetitive ('obsessive-compulsive, serial' -- my editorial additional words in the brackets here ) lifestyle.
Personally, I combine Freudian and Adlerian theory here to give my own 'DGB Transference Theory' that connects 'conscious early memories' to 'transference repetition compulsions'. I call these conscious early memories 'transference memories' or 'transference scenes' -- something that Freud also did in his pre-1896 Traumacy-Seduction Theory (only with unconscious memories where he used both 'hypnosis' and then later 'free association' to 'track down in the unconscious') -- whereas, I counter-argue on Adler's behalf: keep it 'simple stupid' -- stay with conscous memories; you can find everything you want and need here as a psychotherapist without resorting to the chase for real or unreal 'unconscious memories'.
14. Freud's Earliest Transference-Traumacy Memory-Scene
Freud's earliest transerence scene -- or at least one of them, and undoubtedly in my opinion his main one -- was a situation where he walked into his mom and dad's bedroom while they were having sex together -- one of the most classic, childhood transference scenes. In that instant, Freud took on a 'bi-polar split' between himself as the young child in the memory -- the curious, the investigator, the scientist, the person looking for 'epistemological clarity and truth' in what exactly was happening in this scene that he could not fathom while his dad was crouched over his mom, presumably in all his glory; vs. his dad in the memory which would become Freud's 'introjected dad in his personality' -- the narcissist, the sophist, the illusionist, the mesmerizer, trying to hide from his son 'the epistemological truth' of what exactly was going on here...
Twenty or thirty years later we start to see the beginning of 'Freud's repetition compulsion' -- or what I would call his 'transference re-creation compulsion' -- just like in Psycho, just like in Straight-Jacket, just like in 'The Dark Knight', just like what Freud would start to see in the behavior of his clients, starting with Breuer and 'The Anna O' case -- the first case history of Psychoanalysis. Repetition compulsions that started to follow the 'structural and psycho-dynamic format' of the client's -- in this case, Freud's -- earliest memory.
The Psychoanalytic Room starts to take its famous formation. The 'psychoanalytic couch' replaces 'the bed' in Freud's transference scene. The client replaces 'one bi-polar split' in Freud's 'introjected dad' in the form of 'resistance' and 'the defense mechanisms' -- the client doing everything in his or her power to 'hide the narcissistic truth' from 'Freud-the-grown-up-child's scientific-psychoanalytic investigation: The power of 'resistance, defense, narcissism, sophistry and illusion' over the 'power of epistemological truth'.
Here is one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- bi-polar splits in the human psyche. Freud found it in his parent's bedroom. And now he was going to bring it to the attention of the whole world in what would eventually become 'the id' vs. 'the ego' and/or 'superego'. Sexual and/or narcissistic impulse -- hidden by 'human sophistry' vs. the 'ethical restraint' and/or 'the pursuit of epistemological truth'.
What kind of human drama would we have? What kind of human soap opera would we have, without this core bi-polar split in the human psyche? Well, we could talk about the 'Liberal/Conservative' bi-polar split; or the 'Capitalist/Socialist' bi-polar split; or the 'Republican/Democrat' bi-polar split. But these discussions we will save for another day.
For now, this is where we will leave our hopefully provocative discussion on 'Truth, Narcissism, and Sophistry' on this fine, Friday morning, 10:11am.
-- dgb, September 5th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)