Where do Gods, religion, mythology, philosophers, politicians, and psychologists all meet? On the shores of personality theory. And that is where we have landed right now. Every aspect of man's culture is a reflection of the internal workings of man's personality, man's psyche...
Hegel's Hotel is an external projection and reflection of the internal workings of my personality, my psyche. But at the same time, since Hegel's Hotel is aimed at exploring the full dimensions of Western man's history, culture, philosophy, politics, mythology, religion, art, science and medicine, law, economics and business -- in this respect, Hegel's Hotel is also aimed at being an external projection and reflection of all of Western man's evolving internal philosophy-psychology...
Obviously, the more that Hegel's Hotel investigates the history of Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Southern cultures -- the more that it can lay claim to having investigated the internal philosophy-psychologies of people who have been brought up in these cultures as well...But we are not there yet...Maybe some day...
There are strong similarities between the way 'the personality is run' and the way most governments and/or business corporations are run. Indeed, as I was running this metaphor through my head, a light bulb came on as to how both Ottawa might clean up its government processes and Washington-Congress the same thing. Because at first look, the metaphor doesn't seem to completely fit and hold up. But at second look, it does -- with some badly needed State-government adjustments to make State- government more like Personality-government. Let me fill you in on what I'm talking about.
But before I do, let me ask myself this question for clarification purposes on both your behalf and mine: Is this a political essay, a religious essay, a mythological essay, a psychological essay, or a philosophical essay?
The truth of the matter is that it is all of the above: it is the center of 'The Hegelian Wheel' if you wish or 'The Lobby of Hegel's Hotel'. You can go to one floor and specialize on political theory, or another floor and specialize on religious theory, or another floor and specialize on mythology, or another floor and look at the history of philosophy, or still another floor and specialize in Psychology and Personality Theory. But they all branch out from this floor and even more particularly from this essay on 'Gods, Myths, Philosophers -- and Projected Self-Energy Centers'.
In Washington you have 'Congress' and 'The White House' -- the latter representing the executive 'action part' of the American Government including the President's Office. Ottawa has its differences to be sure but we will focus on the similarities: 1. 'Parliament'; and 2. The Prime Minister's Office. A third factor in Canadian government is 'The Senate' which we will talk about at a later time...
Now within the confines of the personality we have a similar process going on but this process cannot be 'seen' so it is usually talked about either 'metaphorically' and/or 'metaphysically'. 'Metaphysics' -- 'above physics' -- means you cannot see metaphysics but that does not necessarily mean that it is not there...You just have to be more careful in your arguments because metaphysics -- similarly to religion -- can be 'epistemologically and logically abused' to come up with 'religious and/or metaphysical concoctions that simply don't exist nor have any semblance of usefulness even if we assume they don't exist'... Indeed, they may be either useless and/or worse -- toxic -- unless we can trace these pathogens back to their rightful owner and demand that the owner take responsibility and accountability for whatever 'virus' he or she was trying to pass on...
What is a 'structure'? In personality theory, this is a critical question. The bed that I am thinking of lying down on -- in fact, this is becoming what in Gestalt Therapy is called a 'figural gestalt' -- has a 'physical presence'. The bed belongs to the world of 'physics' in this regard. Its existence can be verified by many people because its 'physical structure' can be visibly seen.
But how about the presence of a 'Central Mediating Ego' -- used by some theorists including me to describe a certain 'faction' or 'ego structure' in the personality? This 'ego-structure' has no physical presence. It does not belong to the world of 'physics' because it cannot be seen to have a 'physical structure'. Rather, it belongs to the world of 'metaphysics' -- above physics -- and as such, it is much more susceptible to debate and dispute as to whether it even exists at all...The same can be said for many metaphysical concepts of course -- including 'God', 'Satan', 'Apollo', 'Dionysus', 'Narcissus'...and many, many more...
If you can't argure for their existence on the grounds of 'physical presence', then you have to resort to some other form of argument of which two stand out: 1. circumstantial evidence; and/or 2. functional utility.
Now, for example, let us say I argue for the existence of 'God' on the grounds of circumstantial evidence: let us say, for example, I argue that every last, tiny component of the world, and every aspect of the evolution of the world, shows signs of incredibly 'supra-intelligent creative design' which leads to the logical argument that this supra-intelligent creative design could not have happened just by accident; that indeed, it must have been created by some supra-intelligent creative Designer. For many people, that supra-intelligent creative Designer -- is 'God'. I would call this a 'circumstantial-metaphysical-epistemological' argument. Such a person -- or such people -- would believe in the reality of the epistemology of God on the grounds of circumstantial epistemological evidence.
However, if I pass on this last type of argument and move on to another type of argument: say, I argue instead that I believe not in a God in heaven per se but rather a God in the spiritual presence of every living being and thing -- and in a special type of relationship between people who love and/or care about each other and/or between man and nature when we can get past our alienation from nature and rather, fully engage with nature in all of its spectacular splendor...This is a different 'vision and conception of God' -- a Spinozian pantheistic vision. It has some attractive elements to it...It is a very wholistic, spiritual, romantic vision of the world and man relative to man and nature...Why would we want to fight about 'whose God is right and whose is wrong?' or 'whose God is better?' when we could all simply work harder to enjoy the 'Godliness in all of us'...Am I arguing that there is 'circumstantial metaphysical evidence' to support such a claim? Maybe, maybe not...That would be a secondary argument. My argument would be based mainly on what I would call 'functional and spiritual appeal'. In effect -- regardless of its epistemological 'truth' or not -- I believe that it introduces a type of philosophy that could help to make the world a better place to live in. My argument then, is more of a 'functional, metaphysical essence' rather than an 'epistemological metaphysical essence'.
The same thing can be said when we start talking about 'personality structures' and 'sub-structures' -- things like 'ego-structures' and 'energy centers' and 'ego-functions -- these are all metaphysical psychological concepts that I would argue have 'functional value' in describing them even if they do not 'physically exist'. One might say that humans think and feel and behave like they do exist -- even if this type of 'structuralization' or 'compartmentalization' of the personality is technically a 'fictional fantasy' that is more about making the teaching and learning of certain subject matters (like epistemology, science, religion, psychology and personality theory...) easier for human consumption than it is about technical epistemological certainties or truths...
Regarding the value of 'structualization' -- particularly as it applies to epistemology (the study of knowledge) and personality theory (the study of the human mind and/or psyche) -- there are those who do and those who don't -- believe in its functional value.
Chief amongst those who don't are two of the greatest 'deconstructionists' in the history of Western philosophy -- David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche ('two birds of a feather who flocked together' although in different historical time periods -- Hume (1711-1776) during the 'Enlightenment' philosophical time period and Nietzsche just over a hundred years later (1844-1900) the second philosopher in as powerful a 'one-two deconstructionist punch' as there ever has been in philosophy further establishing the foundations of 'Post-Modernism' and 'Deconstruction ism' -- and on a more 'Constructionist' note -- the later beginnings of 'Romanticism' and 'Humanistic-Existentialism'.)
It is interesting to note some of the similarities between Hume and Nietzsche -- aside from their philosophies. Both had their fathers die at a very early age (Hume was 3, Nietzsche 5). Both were 'deconstructionists' before the term was created and popularized by Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. Both were 'post-modernists' before this term became popularized. Both were atheists. Both had recurring incidents with severe bouts of 'mental illness'. Without reaching for quick judgments here -- which is easy to do -- both philosophers may have had significant underlying physiological problems that may have factored significantly if not more strongly that this into their mental health issues -- with Hume it may have been a hormonal problem (iodine deficiency? A quote from Paul Strathern's book, 'Hume in 90 Minutes', states: 'Until now (presumably his early 20s, no age mentioned except that it was toward the end of his reluctant study of law) Hume had been tall and thin: a gawky fellow with gangly limbs. Yet despite his daily regimen of exercise, he now began putting on weight. On his daily rides into the bare, hilly countryside the horse became thinner as its rider expanded -- gradually becoming the portly figure he was to remain for the rest of his life. This suggests that Hume's troubles during this period may in part have been glandular. (Either this or it was the horse getting all the exercise, not Hume. My editorial addition.) With Nietzsche, it has always been speculated that his period of insanity at the end of his life -- about the last 10 or 11 years of his 56 year old life -- might have been triggered by syphilis.
However, having pushed aside the very likely possibility of influencing physiological factors, the philosophical and psychological factors need to be examined as well. 'Deconstructionism' (with or without the 'ism' attached to it) by itself leads to 'Nowheresville' -- or stated differently -- 'Philosophical Nihilism'. Deconstructionism needs 'Constructionism' or 'Structualism' as its 'dialectical dancing partner' -- just as Liberalism needs Conservatism and Conservatism needs Liberalism and Capitalism needs Socialism and Socialism needs Capitalism and the Republicans need the Democrats and the Democrats need the Republicans. Every form of 'structuralism' needs its 'two alter-egos' -- 'process theory' and 'deconstruction' -- to keep it 'honest', more flexible to change, and to keep it more 'wholistic' as opposed to one-sidedly 'reductionistic'.
It is quite possible -- indeed, I would say probable -- that both Hume and Nietzsche became overly consumed with their respective forms of 'extreme philosophical skepticism (nihilism?)'. I could lay assorted different psychological interpretations on this similarity in Hume's and Nietzsche's respective philosophies: both were probably significantly influenced by physical and/or emotional health issues; that some of these problems might be attributed to lack of a real 'father figure', or perhaps a pathological one, or to lack of a feeling of internal solidarity relative to insufficient parental love, or to lack of internal solidarity due to an absence of adult (female) love...All of this is highly speculative. I wasn't there to witness their lives, nor am I familiar enough with either of their biographies to give a strong interpretation that I have full confidence in...Everything in this regard is tentative and speculative...Both were highly gifted intelligent men but a high, gifted intellect is not in anyway synonymous with good mental and emotional health...Highly gifted intellectual people can be completely out of balance psychologically -- both in terms of internal self-destructive tendencies
and/or outward social destructive tendencies..
As we start to switch over from a philosophical mentality of 'deconstruction ism' and 'process theory' which is kind of like the 'half-way' point between deconstruction ism and constructionism, we now move into the philosophical realm of 'constructionism' and 'structuralism' -- where 'nothingness' and/or 'verbs' start to turn to 'nouns' or 'structures' or 'constructions'. Before we leave Hume and Nietzsche, it is important that we recognize that Nietzsche wasn't only a deconstructionist and/or a post-modernist and/or a philosophical nihilist. 'The Birth of Tragedy' was an extremely good 'constructionist' piece of work -- even if Nietzsche himself eventually rejected it as being 'too Hegelian'. And Nietzsche's 'will to power' and 'Superman' philosophy -- in essence, his 'humanistic-existential philosophy -- was also a valuable 'constructionist' contribution to the evolution of Western philosophy. So call Nietzsche an 'elitist' philosopher if you will, call him an 'arrogant, unilateral' philosopher if you will, but don't call him completely a 'deconstructionist-postmodernist-nihilist' because Nietzsche did eventually settle into his own constructionist-structuralist brand of philosophy -- the philosophy of 'self-empowerment' which in effect was the philosophy of the 'Superman' -- not the philosophy of 'the herd'. In this respect, Nietzsche can be viewed as being 'anti-Nazi' because Nazism was based largely on the expansion of the 'herd mentality' or 'submissiionism' -- which Nietzsche thoroughly detested. Nietzsche was not a Nazi even if his philosophy of 'the will to power' was easily subverted for Nazi purposes. 'Power over people' (unhealthy and socially pathological) is not nearly the same idea as the philosophy of 'self-empowerment' (individualistic and healthy -- a philosophical movement towards 'self-fulfillment' and 'self-actualization' -- and humanistic-existentialism -- let no false idols stand in the way of your movement towards self-empowerment in a social field.
As I said at the beginning we are standing at the shores of 'personality theory' which does not stand exclusively on its own but border on the edges of epistemology, religion, mythology, and politics -- at least to my way of post-Hegelian, post-Nietzschean, Humanistic-Existential thinking.
When we enter the realm of personality theory, unless you are B.F. Skinner or some other radical behavioral theorist, such talk will invariably revolve around such concepts as 'ego-structures' or 'ego-compartments' . Freud had three main 'ego-compartments' even though he didn't call them that. I am using the term 'ego' here very loosely to include basically any theorized 'psychic agency, energy centre, and/or pscyhic-sturcture'.
Freud (Classic Psychoanalysis) used/uses three such 'energy centres' -- the 'id', the 'ego', and the 'superego'.
Jung (Jungian Psychology) used/uses an assortment of different 'energy centres' such as the 'personna', the 'shadow, 'the archetypes', the 'personal unconscious, the 'collective unconscious', and 'The Self'.
Adler (Adlerian Psychology) used/uses one main 'energy or ego centre' -- the 'lifestyle' -- which could be arguably divided into two sub-parts: 'inferiority feelings' and 'superiority striving'.
Eric Berne and/or Transactional Analysis as a whole divided the psyche into these five main ego-centres: 1. 'nurturing parent'; 2. 'critical parent'; 3. 'adult'; 4. 'approval-seeking child'; and 'rebellious child'.
Fritz Perls (Gestalt Therapy) used a simple 'two ego-structures' model: 'topdog' and 'underdog'.
All of these different models of the human psyche have a combination of 'functional advantages' and 'functional limitations' associated with their respective classification systems.
All of these models involve the use of 'metaphysical concepts' -- 'above and beyond physics' -- that can neither be empirically proved nor disproved. They all involve 'epistemological leaps of faith' or 'leaps of interpretive abstraction' that can not be physically seen or otherwise sense -- but they can be argued for or against based on what we might call 'circumstantial or anecdotal evidence'. Any and/or all of the models can be used to your heart's desire. Any and/or all can be discarded at a moment's notice if you do not find them functionally useful in terms of understanding and/or explaining human thinking, feeling, and behaving...
I use a combination of all of them, one more than another perhsps depending on the context of the situaiton. I am a psychological integrationist as well as a philosophical integrationist. I believe in mixing and matching a network of different philosophical and psychological (metaphysical) concepts -- trying to avoid any areas of possible 'logical inconsistency'. But even this is not an 'iron clad rule' because different contexts and different circumstances may dictate the use of different metaphysical models. A theorist's metaphysical model should be adjusted to meet the specifics of concrete human behavior and individual cases -- not the other way around. Bending and manipulating the specifics of human thought, feeling, and behavior to satisfy the egotism, narcissism, and narcissistic bias of a theorists particular metaphysical model is unethical in my mind. Both a 'Classical Psychoanalyst's propensity for ignoring evidence of 'childhood sexual abuse' based on their 'Oedipal model' and the 'Sexual Traumacy Theorist's' propensity for doing the opposite -- 'creating' childhood sexual abuse where there was none -- are equally unethical and reprehensible. The well-balanced, 'wholistic therapist' will be knowledgeable with both models, open to both human possibilities -- and not have a close-minded, narcissistic bias towards either 'reductionistic' metaphysical model.
Let the 'objective evidence' rule the model; not the reverse.
Having now opened the doors to the study of personality theory, let us push a little deeper into this realm.
There is one issue that I forgot to close -- or didn't get around to closing. This was the associative similarity between 'the self-government of the personality' and 'the government of the State'. Excuse me for not answering this problem within this essay but we will come to a resolution on this matter once we have explored our approach to personality theory a little more deeply than we have at this point.
In other words -- please stay tuned to my upcoming essays on relgion, Greek Mythology, philosophy, and personality theory -- as they all dialectically and wholistically interact with each other.
-- dgb, April 13th-19th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment