A model -- just like life, and just like human behavior and health -- needs to be homeostatically- dialectically-democratically (HDD) balanced in order to be a good model.
This is why there has been so much trouble with 'The Seduction-Traumacy Theory' vs. 'The Oedipal-Fantasy Theory' of Human Behavior over the last 110 years. Neither theory is HDD balanced. Both are one-sided theories. That is like only having access to the left side of our brain or the right side of our brain -- but not both.
As Hegel put it -- and I am paraphrasing -- as soon as you create a theory that emphasizes one thing or another, one characteristic or another, one idea or another -- you are wrong! Because the 'counter-theory', the 'anti-thesis', presents itself immediately. In this regard, extrapolating on the words of Hegel, 'Every theory, every idea, every characteristic, ever point of focus, carries with it, the seeds of its own self-destruction.' In effect, it opens up the 'marginalized, suppressed, or 'politically incorrect' point of view for counter-investigation. It is like the 'neglected child' whereas the dominant theory, the dominant point of view, the dominant law, is like the 'spoiled child'. It is upon this idea that Derrida's philosophy of 'Deconstruction' was born. The point of 'Deconstruction(ism)' is to always investigate the marginalized, suppressed point of view
-- the 'neglected counter-theory'.
And so it was with Freud and the trouble he got himself into in the 1890s (as throughout his career). He always preached 'his newest theory as if it was the God-given Gospel' even though, if you look at the 'clinical facts' behind his newest theory, you will see that the clinical facts, and for that matter, just plain common sense -- as hard as Freud would insist that they were 'totally supportive of his new theory' and 'totally congruent' with his newe theory -- were 'dialectically split' in what they told us, and therefore could be 'interpreted and evaluated' from at least two bi-polar perspectives.
And some of these 'bi-polar perspectives' extended beyond Classical Psychoanalysis.
For example, Freud emphasized 'mechanistic causes'; Adler emphasized 'teleological purpose' and 'lifestyle goals and plans'. Both were partly right. Neither theorist held a homeostatically balanced or HDD balanced theory. Both their philosophical positions were 'dialectically one-sided'.
Freud defined 'libido' as 'sexual energy'. Jung defined 'libido' as 'life energy'. I go one step further -- and this is a new development in DGB Theory as I write, right now -- and I opt for an even more general concept -- a 'life-death' energy -- that can easily be equated with Freud's 1920 work in 'Beyond The Pleasure Principle' except that here again, as throughout his professional career, Freud was 'causally mechanistic' (which is not a homeostatically balanced theory) so I choose a more 'integrative deterministic-free will, mechanistic-teleological' theory.
So, in case I have started to confuse you, let me use a spin off of 'Transactional Analysis' terminology to give us a better road map of where we are.
In DGB Personality Theory, there are 7 'ego-states' or 7 'ego-compartments' in the personality.
Stated quickly for simplicity, let us call these:
1. 'The Good (Nurturing) Parent (Topdog, Superego)';
2. 'The Bad (Righteous, Rejecting, 'Exciting') Parent (Topdog, Superego)';
3. 'The Emotional-Passionate (Narcissistic-Altruistic-Hedonistic) Parent (Topdog, Superego)';
4. 'The Good (Behaving, Co-operative, Approval-Seeking, Pleasing) Child (Underdog)';
5. 'The Bad (Rebellious, Righteous, Rejecting, Deconstructive, 'Exciting') Child (Underdog);
6. 'The Emotional-Passionate (Narcissistic-Altruistic-Hedonistic) Child (Underdog)';
7. 'The Central (Mediating, Executive) Ego.
All of these different ego states can flow through the personality at the same time -- or at different times depending on the individual person, personality, and context of the situation.
And that just leaves the more 'subconscious/unconscious' 'templates' of the personality:
08. 'The Dynamic Creative-Destructive Sub(Un)Conscious';
09. 'The Transference-Lifestyle Memory Template';
10. 'The Genetic, Mythological-Archetype Template'
11. 'The Potential Self' (or spiritually speaking, 'The Soul')
This model is designed to be: 1. as simple as possible; 2. as comprehensive as possible; and 3. a 'multi-dialectically-democratically-integrative' model.
For those of you familiar with other philosophies and models of the personality, you can see Freud's influence in the model, Adler's influence in the model, Jung's influence in the model, Melanie Klein's influence, Fairbairn's influence, Eric Berne's influence, Fritz Perls' influence as well as a whole host of underlying Western and Eastern philosophies and philosophers from Anaxamander and Heraclitus to Plato (three 'energy zone' in the 'mind-body': the mind-brain, the heart, and the loins) to Schelling, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Derrida... That is what I mean by 'The GAP-DGB model of The Personality being a 'multi-dialectic-democratic-integrative' model.
To go back to where I started at the beginning of this essay:
1. Freud's 'Traumacy Theory' was not homeostatically balanced because it is not only 'trauma' or 'traumatic memories' that affect the growth and structure of the personality. ('Pleasurable memories' do too.)
2. Freud's 'Seduction (Childhood Sexual Assault) Theory' was even less homeostatically balanced because not every person -- or even every woman -- is sexually assaulted or seduced as a child.
3. Freud's 'Oedipal Theory' is partly 'universally useful' (in that our parents, foster parents, and/or most important childhood role models do significantly influence our choice of 'love object' or 'transference-lifestyle love partner' later in our adult life, but not to the Oedipal Theory is pathological to the extent that it conceptually rules out the extent of real life childhood sexual assault and/or seduction, manipulation, exploitation in actual clinical cases...
4. Freud's 'Fantasy Theory' needs to be dialectically integrated and homestatically balanced with his earlier 'Trauma Theory';
5. Freud's 'Transference Theory' needs to be dialectically integrated and homeostatically balanced with his fleeting 1920 'Mastery Compulsion Theory', Adler's 'Lifestyle Theory', Jung's 'Archetype Theory', Perls' 'Unfinished Situation Theory', as well as 'Fairbairn's 'exciting object' theory, and as well as Bernes' 'ego-state theory', his 'games theory', and his overall 'Transactional Analysis Theory'
6. Freud's 'Narcissistic Theory' needs to be dialectically integrated and homeostatically balanced with the opposing, and often neglected, 'Altruistic Theory'.
7. Freud's 'Life and Death Instinct Theory' (1920, 'Beyond The Pleasure Principle') needs to be 'unloosened' from the 'chains of its mechanical causality underpinnings', and made more 'free will', more 'existential', more 'purposeful'...
8. The GAP-DGB Model of The Personality can even be connected to Freud and Fliess' controversial theory of 'psychic bi-sexuality': i.e., 'The Feminine (Maternal, Nurturing, Gaia) Parent-Topog' vs. 'The Masculine (Paternal, Righteous, Rejecting, Apollonian) Parent-Topdog; and 'The Masculine-Rebellious-Dionysian Child-Underdog' vs. 'The Feminine, Approval-Seeking Child-Underdog'....although some might consider this perspective on the model to be 'sexist'...
9. Similarly, the GAP-DGB Model of The Personality can also be construed according to Freud's 'oral-anal' classification system....Here we can distinguish between 'The Oral-Nurturing Parent-Topdog' vs. 'The Anal-Righteous-Rejecting Parent-Topdog'; and 'The Oral-Approval-Seeking Child-Underdog' vs. 'The Anal-Rebellious-Impulsive-Explosive Child-Underdog'....The idea here is that the 'oral-anal' classification system can be used just as functionally and productively in human psychology as it can be in human physiology and bio-chemistry...specifically speaking, 'oral-nurturing' refers to what is good for the personality, and as such, needs to be 'taken into the personality' vs. 'anal-rejecting' which refers to what is bad for the personality, and as such, needs to be 'expelled from the personality'.
10. Going back to Anaxamander, Anaxamander believed that 'polar opposites' in the world 'fight for dominance and supremacy' with the 'bi-polar winner taking the limelight' while the 'bi-polar loser is 'beaten into submission, marginalized, suppressed, and 'retreats back into the Shadows of 'The Apeiron'....(my interpretive paraphrasing of the crux of Anaxamander's philosophy...)
11. Heraclitus was the first Western Dialectic-Democratic Philosopher to emphasize the need for 'homestatic-dialectic balance' between the 'polar opposites' in life although he didn't use those words (again my interpretation of the crux of Heraclitus' philosophy...)
12. Over in China, Lao Tse and or possibly even more ancient philosophers before him were developing the idea of 'yin' and 'yang'....which can also be connected to our 'multiple bi-polar model here: 'The Feminine (Yin) Maternal Parent-Topdog' vs. 'The Masculine (Yang) Paternal Parent-Topdog'; and 'The Rebellious-Masculine (Yang) Child-Underdog' vs. 'The Approval-Seeking Feminine (Yin) Child-Underdog....although again there are going to be many who may construe this as having 'sexist stereotypes' attached to the classification systems...
I think we have accomplished enough for this morning...
-- dgb, Jan. 9th, 2010,
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
