A) Introduction
This is new DGB Philosophical-Psychological Thinking as of today, October 11th, 2008 -- this essay deriving from my last essay on this subject matter exactly one month ago, Sept. 11th, 2008). See my September 11th essay called:
DGB Post-Hegelian 'Sun-Planet Theory' and The Sixteen Idols of Philosophical-Lifestyle-Personality Extremism (Building From Sir Francis Bacon's Four Idols)
........................................................................
B) Gods, Myths, Philosophers, and Heroes; b) Archetypes; c) Self-Energy Centres or Ego-States; and d) The Inter-Relationship Between Projection and Introjection
The rationale and logic for this line of thought runs something like this:
1. Gods, idols, heroes, mythological figures, and parental figures are all external projections and symbolizations of 'human ideals' -- some relevant and meaningful to a whole culture or society, others relevant and meaningful to some 'subset' of culture or society, and still others that hold only a deeply personal meaning for us, and us alone.
2. 'Archetypes' are subconscious, internalized (or introjected) renditions of externally projected Gods, idols, mythological figures, and parental figures.
3. Thus, 'Gods', etc... and 'archetypes' work hand in hand with each other, dialectically, and ideally democratically, on both an externally projected and an internally introjected level to make up much of the psyhological dynamics of the human personality...When 'Gods' and 'archetypes' collide and conflict with each other -- as part of a 'mythological and/or philosophical battlefield (much like in the battles of Ancient Greek Gods, read, for example, Homer and the Iliad -- so too do the forces within our own personlity/personalities; and visa versa.
4. In other words, myths and Gods are external reflections of the human personality -- much like an artist's completed canvas is an external reflection of his or her own personality; and much too like Government is a reflection of the internal workings of the human personality. Different government dynamics reflect different leader personality dynamics and visa versa. Dictatorships reflect partly different dynamics than democracies -- but not really. Everything is connected. Democracies tend to gravitate towards dictatorships, and dictatorships tend to gravitate towards democracies. 'Democracy' and 'dictatorship' together reflect one dialectical polarity, an important one -- the 'democratic-dictatorial polarity' -- amongst countless similar 'multiple-bi-polarities' that make up: 1. the character (meaning the philosophy and psychology) of man; 2. the biology, chemistry, and physics of man; 3. all aspects of the culture and politics of man; and 4. the essence of life -- and the 'life-death'/'health-sickness' bi-polarities.
Based on the above developed logic, and other related DGB Post-Hegelian, Post-Nietzschean, Post-Spinozian, post-Freudian, post-Cannon principles, here are:
...........................................................................
C/10 essential DGB Philosophy principles, pertaining to the 'multiple-bi-polar nature of man and life and the inter-related dynamics:
1. Individual molecules come together and unite ('differential unity');
2. 'Differentially unified' molecules break apart and 'individuate';
3. Individual molecules 'compete' with each other and/or 'co-operate' with each other with the goal of 'individual and/or group survival' in mind -- both often happening to some degree or another at the same time, sometimes, the 'competition' part dominating, other times, the 'co-operation' part dominating, and in effect, engineering both the 'constructive' and/or the 'destructive' (or 'deconstructive') forces of life and/or death, individual separation and/or differential union.
4. Stage 3 sets the stage for either Stage 1 or 2 to go into effect.
5. 'Freedom' and 'determinism' is another human and life 'bi-polarity', and the two dialectically interact with each other, negotiate with each other, and unite with each other, in the ongoing process and psych-philo-chemistry of 'free-determinism' or 'deterministic freedom'.
6. 'Republicanism' and 'Democratism' is another important human bi-polarity as is 'liberalism' and 'conservatism'.
7. 'Capitlism' and 'socialism' make up another important human bi-polarity.
8. 'Apollonianism' (ethics, equality, justice...)and 'Dionyisianism' (sensuality, sexuality, pleasure...See 'The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche, and also Freud and Psychoanalysis...) is another important human bi-polarity.
9. 'Security or safety' vs. 'risk, newness, and excitement' is another important human bi-polarity.
10. All human bi-polarities gravitate towards a position of 'homeostatic (dialectic-democratic) balance; and when this position gets too boring, too 'status-quo', too routine, too taken for granted, new bio-chemical, philosopical and psychological forces tend to propel a person and/or a society back out towards the edges of one form of 'bi-polar extremism' or another.
I will let you 'chew' on these principles for a while without further elaboration.
Have a great day!
-- dgb, October 11th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
If we resolve to abide by the Golden Rule, we will recognize that human rights includes respect for public property rights along with private property rights. Polluters and those who take natural resources for profit will pay money to the people when they take or degrade that which we all own. We will have a system that synthesizes essential elements of capitalism and communism.
We will have a straightforward way to manage humans' impacts on the environment. We can simply raise the fee when we want economic actors to try harder to reduce their environmental impact.
If we use a random sample survey to discern when the level of pollution or rates of taking of natural resources are consistant with the will of the people at large, we can use the fee mechanism to adjust the economic incentives felt by industry, so that the actual conditions in the world can be brought into line with what the largest portion of the population deems as acceptable. We will have created a truely democratic society.
Gaia Brain blog
Thank you for your feedback, John. It is hard to understand and ascertain everything that you believe in the context of a small paragraph.
Words like 'capitalism', 'socialism', and 'communism' tend to evoke strong positive and/or emotional responses to different people even though they could mean a wide variety of different scenarios to a wide variety of different people, again both positive and/or negative.
This having been said, I think I like the direction of your thinking. I like 'environmental-friendly' ideas, I like 'integrative' ideas, I like ideas -- particularly economic ideas -- that discourage people from polluting and disrespecting their natural environment.
Personally and philosophically, I would not endorse any brand of 'communism' that didn't honour much more of a person's need for individual freedom and property than anything that ever happened in either China or Russia.
However, in times of economic crisis, it is not too hard to envision families, friends, and communities coming back together again to help each other weather the bad economic storm. That is what people generally do in times of economic and/or natural crisis. Call it a part of our 'human legacy and survival instinct'. People working together in hard times are generally more effective at helping each other than everybody trying to survive a crisis by themselves.
I see ideas like 'humanistic-existential capitalism' and 'humanistic-existential socialism' and 'humanistic-existential communism' as all being closer related together in terms of their ethical values than I do their polar opposites: 'narcissistic capitalism', narcissistic socialism', and 'narcissistic communism'. These are all situations where the 'top dogs win economically and power-wise' while the 'underdogs are basically exploited, manipulated, and abused'. DGB Philosophy endorses humanistic-existential values -- which includes protecting our natural environment which supports us -- while taking to task all those who wish to profit unethically, exploit, manipulate, and betray people for purposes of their own economic, political, and/or corporate gain.
(I hope I said something here that vibrates with some of the main points you were making, John. Again, thank you for your feedback. Feel free to email me any prospective essays that you think may have a place here in 'Hegel's Hotel'...)
-- dgb, Dec. 13th, 2008.
accepted(in English) Judeo/Christian scripture seems to chronicle many mystical experiences whereby divine knowledge was recovered and put to some practicle use
does such an interpretation contradict your basic assumption that we(individually and/or as a community) project that divinity?
Post a Comment